U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2010, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,092,443 times
Reputation: 11053

Advertisements

This is a great interactive link from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Magazine. You can extrapolate up to the year 2560 for various resources and glean data for when individual minerals etcetera will become scarce; for example Lithium which is very important for modern electronics.

In addition there are 5 short videos describing various categories of available resources:
(1) MINERALS
(2) FOSSIL FUELS
(3) BIODIVERSITY
(4) FOOD
(5) WATER

OVERALL a very intriguing and informative link containing a huge amount of data relating to the Earth's resources and their availability over time.

There are two seperate pages to this interactive link.

How Much Is Left? The Limits of Earth's Resources, Made Interactive: Scientific American

How Much Is Left? The Limits of Earth's Resources, Made Interactive: Scientific American
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2010, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,929 posts, read 51,568,471 times
Reputation: 27916
They might be short videos to you, but the one on water moved at glacier speed going over 5th grade science. I had to shut it off because my beard was growing too long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2010, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,092,443 times
Reputation: 11053
Gee Harry.....We all can't be self proclaimed genuises like yourself.......I found a few informmative.....I don't need to watch them all because I am already aware of our limited resources...I posted the links for those posters who may not be as well versed as you. ;-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2010, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,929 posts, read 51,568,471 times
Reputation: 27916
So you posted but didn't watch them because you "didn't need to", but you found the ones you did watch informative? I scratch my head and wonder if the ones you didn't watch were the only non-informative ones, or if there is a little "self-proclamation" going on there?

I never "self-proclaimed" myself as a genius. I'm not. However, since you comment in a way that could be taken either as a derogatory slam or as a challenge, I choose to be nice and accept it as a challenge.

FWIW, back in the day when stuff like that mattered to me, my SAT verbals were 99+% of all senior boys and math only 93%, which I found disappointing. As a sophomore it was 99% Eng Usage, 87% math, 99% social studies, 99% natural science, 99% word usage, for a composite of 99% on the national educational development tests. I had hoped to bring my math skills up more. I won't go into discussing IQ, other than to say it is up there. So no, I'm not a genius, but I AM somewhat well read and an independent thinker.

Now that your challenge is out of the way, back to the subject. I regretfully dropped my Sci Am subscription of many years after a recent editorial change, when it became apparent to me that the magazine was falling into the trap of following the money, expressing the platitudes that would promote high rankings by the eco-nuts, and not providing as much new or challenging thought as in the past. I did make the effort to follow your link, and gave an honest opinion. I wasn't impressed with the site or information and was willing to let it lie at that.

Since you challenge, please double check your sources, ESPECIALLY Sci Am these days.

Lithium shortage??? Hah!

"Overall land resources are about 14 million tons and lithium is then recovered from ores or brines. Although the amount of lithium in those resources is sufficient at this point, alternative resources should be developed to satisfy the increasing demand in the near future. 230 billion tons of lithium in seawater is an immense source, though the lithium concentration in the seawater is quite dilute (0.1-0.2 ppm). Japan and South Korea are leading countries to develop the technique about lithium recovery from seawater recently."
Source:
Lithium - recovery from seawater (http://www.ioes.saga-u.ac.jp/ioes-study/li/recovery/seawater.html - broken link)

Even Money Magazine chimes in:

Headline:
"Don't believe a word about electric cars and the coming lithium shortage"

Source:
Don't believe a word about the coming lithium shortage - Jul. 12, 2010
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2010, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,788,371 times
Reputation: 1627
Yeah, plus there's a huge amount of lithium in Afghanistan, among other elements and other things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2010, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Copiague, NY
1,500 posts, read 2,338,735 times
Reputation: 2392
As a manic depressive person, I'd gladly trade all of Afghanistan's lithium, for it's annual poppy yield, as long as you are mentioning "other things" in your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2010, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,788,371 times
Reputation: 1627
Here's one I read
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2010, 08:46 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,495,552 times
Reputation: 14846
Well the professor states we'll run out of coal in 2070 but the EIA puts the recoverable reserves at 263 billion tons in the US.

Quote:
EIA - Coal Reserves Information Sheet

EIA annually estimates recoverable coal reserves by adjusting the DRB to reflect accessibility and recovery rates in mining. As of January 1, 2008, EIA estimated that the remaining U.S. recoverable coal reserves totaled just under 263 billion short tons, from a demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons.
Currently we use 1 billion per year, you do the math. In any event his low estimates of 2070 are well within the time frame coal will no longer be a factor in energy production.

One thing to be careful about when reading anything about estimated reserves is they don't know what the future holds. They mention the Hubbert peak at the beginning of the fossil fuel section which was entirely accurate for 1970's oil production but if you look at the graph depicting oil production they briefly show you'll see it has increased in the last few years. These wells that were no longer producing in the 70's can now be tapped for more oil because of modern techniques. The Green River Formation within the US borders has something like 1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil.... It's just a matter of how much you want to pay for it becsue it costs more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2010, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,092,443 times
Reputation: 11053
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Well the professor states we'll run out of coal in 2070 but the EIA puts the recoverable reserves at 263 billion tons in the US.

Currently we use 1 billion per year, you do the math. In any event his low estimates of 2070 are well within the time frame coal will no longer be a factor in energy production.

One thing to be careful about when reading anything about estimated reserves is they don't know what the future holds. They mention the Hubbert peak at the beginning of the fossil fuel section which was entirely accurate for 1970's oil production but if you look at the graph depicting oil production they briefly show you'll see it has increased in the last few years. These wells that were no longer producing in the 70's can now be tapped for more oil because of modern techniques. The Green River Formation within the US borders has something like 1 trillion recoverable barrels of oil.... It's just a matter of how much you want to pay for it becsue it costs more.
I agree.....these estimates are always for the LOW end of available resources, with current technology and economicly viable(these parameters will change).....but I think they are saying........better SAFE than SORRY!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top