[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Comp_Lex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')Nanotech? Sorry, isn't that still science-fiction?

[Dezakin]

lutherquick:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')reat, now metals are going to "peak".

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We wont be utilizing space NEO's anytime soon because we can get just about every resource more cheaply on the ground. When we start really developing space for other reasons (whatever they may be) then we'll probably start shipping down boatloads of processed platinum group metals, but untill then (at least six or seven decades from now) we'll just exploit new orebodies on earth.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n a little over a decade, it will be cheaper and easier to collect metals from a near earth asteroid then to set up a terrestrial mining facility. It will also be lower risk, quicker turn around times, and higher profit. This is why it will happen – more money can be made quicker. We just need that core infrastructure established. Not 60 to 70 years, but more like 10 to 20 years.

[Omnitir]

Sorry Dezakin, but I was unable to find any discussions you participated in that adequately discussed asteroid mining. Care to link to something relevant? Of course I don’t need to point out that saying “no you’re wrong because I’ve looked into it” is no argument.

If you’ve looked into it extensively, then you will be well aware of the importance of first establishing basic space infrastructure in order to greatly reduce launch costs and hence make activities in space economic. You would also be aware that this is exactly what the world’s space agencies and several private ventures are currently striving for. In a little over a decade we will begin to process basic materials from the lunar surface which will reduce operational costs of any further activities. Once this infrastructure (the capital requirements) is established, space becomes economic. This will happen in the next 10 to 20 years, and once it happens, near earth resources will in many cases become cheaper then depleted terrestrial resources.

[Longsword]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Comp_Lex', '
')What we need are Heim-Droscher-Hauser "Hyperdrive/Warp" engines.

[Dezakin]

Omnitir:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')orry Dezakin, but I was unable to find any discussions you participated in that adequately discussed asteroid mining. Care to link to something relevant? Of course I don’t need to point out that saying “no you’re wrong because I’ve looked into it” is no argument.

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Its a workable scenario if you have massive infrastructure investment

[mermaid]

you have a wonderful great open mind and a wild fantasy. I hope we do not have to live on Mars....

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy does infrastructure need to be immediately massive? Why can’t we start with simple, more low tech low performance infrastructure as per the current initiatives?

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Omnitir', '
')Why does infrastructure need to be immediately massive? Why can’t we start with simple, more low tech low performance infrastructure as per the current initiatives?

[SeeOtter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')here are new techniques in development, such as extracting uranium from regular sea-water, that will greatly extend uranium supplies far into the future.

[DantesPeak]

Peak Copper?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')etal prices surge as reserves fears are highlighted

BY AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD

MANKIND has already used up a large chunk of the metal ever likely to be found in the Earth's crust and will face a supply crunch once Asia catches up with the West, according to a new report by the US National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 26pc of all copper ore thought to exist has already been lost, either wasted in milling, smelting and corrosion, or buried in landfills.

The report, drafted by geologists from Yale University, said there were enough ore reserves to meet immediate needs but warned of an inevitable shortage down the road.

"It is clear that scarcity value will raise the real prices of scarce metals and will stimulate intensive recycling well above today's levels,'' it said.

The findings come as metal prices surged across the board yesterday in a frenzy of buying by funds, many betting on India's housing boom and another strong year in China.

The Yale findings are akin to the "peak oil'' theory predicting a decline in crude output as reserves run out, but metals - unlike oil - can be recycled again and again.

Even so, the demand by Asia's sprouting cities may ex-haust reserves even if there is full recycling. The study found that 19pc of all likely zinc has been lost. Platinum is first in line for depletion. The entire global stock is just enough to sustain 500m vehicles with fuel cells for 15 years. For copper, the total stock in use has settled at around 200kg per capita in rich countries.

[SeeOtter]

Never mind my question about seawater uranium. The basic answer is on http://www.peakoil.com/static/nuclearpower_facts.pdf, as below:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ranium from seawater
Seawater contains 3.3 milligram uranium per cubic meter seawater. The total
volume of seawater of the world is estimated at 1.37 billion cubic kilometers, so
the oceans contain some 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium. Technically it is possible
to extract uranium from seawater.
To obtain 162 tonnes uranium (for one reactor for one year), about 162 cubic
kilometers of seawater (about 162 billion tonnes) have to be treated (if an
extraction yield of 30% can be achieved), or 5140 cubic meters per second (2-3
times the flow rate of the river Rhine at its debouchement) continuously during
a whole year. The dimensions of such an extraction plant should be measured in
kilometers.
The first stage of the extraction process is adsorption of the dissolved uranium
from the seawater on specific adsorption beds. Several methods have been
proposed, see e.g. a US study from 1974 [8] and a Japanese study from 2001
[9], none of which have been actually tested other than in some small-scale
laboratory experiments. The adsorption stage requires very large facilities,
either with pump-fed beds or with beds anchored on buoys in a sea current. At
least four additional processes are needed to obtain the uranium: elution of the
adsorbed uranium ions from the adsorption beds, purification of the eluent
(removal of other desorbed compounds) concentrating the solution, extraction
of uranium from the solution, concentrating and purification of the extracted
uranium compound. Each stage has its unavoidable losses. The overall yield of
the processing, excluding the first stage (adsorption), may be no higher than
20-40%. Large amounts of adsorbent are lost in the process: at least 15 kg
titanium per kg uranium in the ORNL process [8] and at least 8-24 kg
amidoxime polymer per kg uranium in the Japanese process [9].
Based on the very optimistic assumptions of the theoretical studies, the energy
Nuclearpower_facts.v4.doc 10/15 9 January 2006
requirements may be roughly estimated at least 2-4 times the energy generated
in the reactor from the extracted uranium.

[Starvid]

Peak horses!!!!111111

Aaaaaargh!

[Omnitir]

Maybe it’s prudent to take a more in-depth look at uranium from seawater then what a single paragraph in a fact sheet on a peak oil site says?

The fact that this fact sheet only looks at a five year old theoretical study and ignores practical studies says a lot about the biasness of the peakoil community.

For instance, why is it more expensive? A deeper look indicates that it is primarily the construction of mooring.
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The recovery cost was estimated to be 5-10 times of that from mining uranium. More than 80% of the total cost was occupied by the cost for marine equipment for mooring the adsorbents in seawater, which is owning to a weight of metal cage for adsorbents. Thus, the cost can be reduced to half by the reduction of the equipment weight to 1/4.
[…]
80% of cost is for mooring even though costs very according to the mooring method. This is due to construction spending for mooring the large mass of adsorption beds. This adsorbent has a specific gravity equivalent to that of seawater and has no net weight within seawater itself. However, weight of the metal cage occupies the majority of the weight of the adsorption bead of Figure 4, so weight is particularly imparted in seawater only by the metal. For example, in the case of the chain-binding method after pulling up, it is estimated that mooring cost declines to 62% if weight of this adsorption bed can be lowered by 50%, and mooring cost declines to 42% when weight can be lowered to 25%. Therefore uranium recovery cost may possibly be greatly lowered if a light cage material is used in place of the metal mesh of stainless steel.

[crapattack]

What would seawater uranium mining do to the sea life?

[Omnitir]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'W')hat would seawater uranium mining do to the sea life?