Darryl,
The Hubbert curve for the production of resources (a modified Bell shaped
curve indicating growth, equilibrium and decline) applies to all
non-renewable, finite resources. Some resources are considered so valuable
that we don't throw them out but recycle them. For example, you won't find
many gold rings in landfill sites. For other elements, such as iron, there
is so much around, that most of us in North America think twice about towing
the old family chariot to the dump.
We need to keep in mind that we have exactly the same amount of Au, Fe, Cd,
Si, Al, etc., on the earth now as we had 5 000 years ago. Well, with the
exception of U-235; the amount has decreased somewhat as it is fissioned in
nuclear reactors. It just has been redistributed. From a thermodynamic
perspective, we concentrate ores and extract chemical elements (decrease
randomness). This takes energy. For many elements, we simply toss them out
or otherwise disperse them (increase randomness). To get the stuff back in
higher concentration, we have to decrease randomness again and that takes,
... energy.
So, in the final analysis, energy is the required component to reorganize
the elements in the way we want/need them. The alternative is to wait until
geological processes do the rearranging for us, by moving the diluted
elements around through moving water and depositing them in sediments and
then let the rock cycle form them into ore deposits again. Most of can't
wait that long, though, at least not the military. ;-)
As for water, the same applies: there is no less water now than there was 5
000 years ago. It is just being redistributed. I sympathize with you po'
folks in Amarillo, but (and I'm not trying to be callous) you are no worse
off than the poor folks in the sub-Sahara that see the sand of the desert
coming closer and closer, or the people in Kiribati or in parts of Florida
who may risk losing their country when the Ocean level rises. But, there
again, in Amarillo, you are only ~1 000 km from a very plentiful water
supply: the Gulf of Mexico. All you need to do is build a desalination
plant along its shores and pipe the water to Amarillo. All it takes is
energy. And that's where people like Glen Morton raise the warning flag.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl Maddox [mailto:dpmaddox@arn.net]
Sent: Wednesday August 01, 2001 6:40 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: possible future shortages of other resources
The recent information and discussions about oil production curves and the
effects of a decrease in annual hydrocarbon production at a time when
nations are trying to improve their standard of living by increasing their
utilization of energy for manufacturing, travel, and agriculture caused me
to wonder if anyone has applied similar mathematical models to other natural
resources which may be cricital to a high standard of living. The first
that comes to mind is good old low tech water, but that is because we here
in Amarillo Texas have come through the hottest (as measured by the number
of days the official daily high temperature reached or exceeded 100 {13 vs
10 for previous high in 1934} and driest (0.04 inches of rain vs mothly
average of 2.64) July on record for us. While most people understand our
need for water I suspect most don't have any idea there are many minerals
and elements which are critical to some degree or other to our standard of
living, to our technologies for manufacturing luxury items, for
manufacturing things that make the daily tasks of living easier or more
pleasant, for manufacturing items that are essential to our current way of
living, working and communicating, and lastly and most importantly to our
defense AND that some of these elements and minerals may be getting in short
supply.
Anyone have thoughts or information on this variation of the energy shortage
qustion?
Darryl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 09:08:45 EDT