tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post114463872759197269..comments2024-03-24T11:01:27.668-04:00Comments on Resource Insights: Should we use net energy to measure global energy reserves?Kurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-1144788175970491542006-04-11T16:42:00.000-04:002006-04-11T16:42:00.000-04:00The Alberta oil sands mining operations I have rea...The Alberta oil sands mining operations I have read about do indeed require large energy inputs, but this article's two-thirds-of-output estimate is optimistic. In fact it's about one-third.<BR/><BR/>Uranium ores' very high net-energy fraction is the reason why abundant fission energy will be available for many centuries or millennia, even if most of those periods are breeder-reactor-free and reprocessing-plant-free. University of Melbourne physicists show at http://tinyurl.com/aduug that even for ores as low as 0.001 weight percent U, ten parts per million, most of the energy is net. This is only about four times richer than typical (or "country") rock.<BR/><BR/>One can confirm that this is reasonable by comparing the electrical energy required to <A HREF="http://www.fep.uq.edu.au/Books/Hayes93/pdf/01Chap04_4-2-4.pdf" REL="nofollow">crush hard rock</A> with the electrical energy 0.00005 percent, half a ppm, of U whose extraction this would make possible would yield. They're equal.<BR/><BR/>Solar energy has problems, but it's fairly easy to show that a low net energy fraction <A HREF="http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=816" REL="nofollow">isn't one of them</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thus, while it is true that it takes energy to get energy, it is not true that there is any near term prospect of its taking very <EM>much</EM> energy to get energy; and in this context "near term" means any time less far in the future than the Great Pyramid's start date is in the past.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: aside from high-cost things like oil sands, global energy reserves are essentially all net, and the answer to the titular question is -- sure, if you want, but it won't materially change the results.<BR/><BR/><BR/>--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan<BR/>Boron: <A HREF="http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html" REL="nofollow">internal combustion, nuclear cachet</A>GRLCowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894036301406557803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-1144687851634100592006-04-10T12:50:00.000-04:002006-04-10T12:50:00.000-04:00Time to move on from what we term Democracy to a T...Time to move on from what we term Democracy to a Technocracy for optimum use of our resources and capacities for survival.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-1144683048120400872006-04-10T11:30:00.000-04:002006-04-10T11:30:00.000-04:00The term "death spiral" certainly comes to mind.The term "death spiral" certainly comes to mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com