Thread: EWB International Conference 2009

Originally Posted by sycld

Well, of course... and if we had the technology in place, we could also be mining on other planets, have colonies on the bottom of the sea, etc.

Hah, exactly. But that technology isn't in place, so we can't do those things. Just as the technologies needed to sustain a good living standard for 7 billion people aren't in place, so we can't yet do that either. I'm not trying to say that the needed technologies exist but haven't been implemented, or that they're right around the corner. I recognize that they're still in the future. If I gave the impression that I was saying "Don't worry guys, everything will be okay soon because of technological improvements", then that was a miscommunication on my part. My point is, though, that the globe's carrying capacity depends entirely on our technologies; it's not fixed. As various technologies improve, we will see a corresponding increase in the planet's ability to support consumptive populations. Just because we don't yet have the technology to support 7 billion people at a first-world living standard (or the technology to take advantage of resources in space, or to colonize the sea floor, or anything) doesn't mean we never will.

Originally Posted by sycld

I'm just saying that I have my doubts as to how fast these technology will or can be developed, but maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic.

I guess it depends on your definition of "fast", but yeah, it will definitely take many, many decades. I'm certainly not saying that I think technological improvements are going to give the whole world's population a high living standard anytime soon! I expect that there will still be plenty of poverty and human misery for the rest of our lifetime. In fact, even if all the needed technologies were in place right now, I'd still expect that, because technological deficiencies aren't the only stumbling block here--there are also obvious social and economic and political issues to be addressed.

Originally Posted by sycld

And is it just a matter of energy production? I think it's also a matter of material supply, which probably can't increase very markedly even if we are eventually able to harness more abundant and "renewable" energy supplies. If the rest of the world's standard of living increases, I don't think we Western (or Western-like) nations will be able to maintain our extremely wastful lifestyle.

Totally depends on the material resources you are talking about. Aside from fuel resources (fossil fuels, etc.), most of the important ones are plentiful enough that we can probably rely on them lasting at least until we're able to take advantage of extraterrestrial resources. I don't think there are any material resources that are both so scarce they are going to be entirely depleted before that happens, and so crucial that civilization can't get along without them.

Originally Posted by Syme

Totally depends on the material resources you are talking about. Aside from fuel resources (fossil fuels, etc.), most of the important ones are plentiful enough that we can probably rely on them lasting at least until we're able to take advantage of extraterrestrial resources. I don't think there are any material resources that are both so scarce they are going to be entirely depleted before that happens, and so crucial that civilization can't get along without them.

Perhaps so, but I'm really not sure about that. Many raw materials prices seem to be going up: everything from helium (neccesary in semiconductor processsing) to copper, and I've gotten the impression that it's due to higher demand, though I can't be certain about that.

And what I hope is that we're going to move away from putting most of our used materials into the dump but instead start to recycle most of our waste. Think about this: that aluminum that went into your soda can was sequestered in the earth for geological time scales. We hauled the ore up to the surface, processed it, used it in a soda can, and threw it in a dump for what's essentially a blink of the eye. It'll then stay in that dump for another countless number of years if something else doesn't happen to it. And aside from inorganic waste, what about all that celullose from our paper and waste from our food that is not allowed to decay back into the ground where other plants and retake up that nutrients and recycle it back into the food chain?

Think about it if everyone threw as much crap away into landfills as industrialized citizens did. I can't imagine that this could be sustained for very long.

Originally Posted by sycld

Perhaps so, but I'm really not sure about that. Many raw materials prices seem to be going up: everything from helium (neccesary in semiconductor processsing) to copper, and I've gotten the impression that it's due to higher demand, though I can't be certain about that.

Yeah, but price hikes due to increased demand without correspondingly increased supply don't necessarily indicate that the supply is running out; just that it hasn't caught up with recent demand increases. For instance, I remember reading about the helium price increases in 2008, and while I certainly can't claim any expertise on the matter, what I read suggested that the main cause was the fact that several of the facilities that extract helium from natural gas were simultaneously shut down due to maintenance and equipment failures last year. There are only a handful of these facilities in the world (they use fractional distillation and are part of oil refinery complexes), and so stoppage at a few can cause significant price jumps. I have yet to see any evidence that helium production, over the long term, will be unable to keep up with rising demand. The same is true of the "metal shortage" (copper, zinc, etc.) that has been in the news in the past few years; my understanding is that the price increases were at least partially caused by bullishness in the commodities market. Now, obviously, part of the price increases really are caused by the increased extraction costs that mines face as the most easily-accessible ore is used up. That's not a new problem, though. Yes, prices for mineral resources will probably continue to slowly trend upwards, but that shouldn't prove to be any meaningful roadblock for continued development. It will also stimulate development of alternatives, of more efficient manufacturing methods, and of more effective recycling.

Incidentally, aluminum is the most common metal on Earth. Recycling aluminum cans certainly saves energy, but we're in no danger of depleting our aluminum supplies even if we don't recycle aluminum, so that's not really a good example to use when talking about the possibility of depleting our material resources.

Originally Posted by Syme

Yeah, but price hikes due to increased demand without correspondingly increased supply don't necessarily indicate that the supply is running out; just that it hasn't caught up with recent demand increases. For instance, I remember reading about the helium price increases in 2008, and while I certainly can't claim any expertise on the matter, what I read suggested that the main cause was the fact that several of the facilities that extract helium from natural gas were simultaneously shut down due to maintenance and equipment failures last year. There are only a handful of these facilities in the world (they use fractional distillation and are part of oil refinery complexes), and so stoppage at a few can cause significant price jumps. I have yet to see any evidence that helium production, over the long term, will be unable to keep up with rising demand. The same is true of the "metal shortage" (copper, zinc, etc.) that has been in the news in the past few years; my understanding is that the price increases were at least partially caused by bullishness in the commodities market. Now, obviously, part of the price increases really are caused by the increased extraction costs that mines face as the most easily-accessible ore is used up. That's not a new problem, though. Yes, prices for mineral resources will probably continue to slowly trend upwards, but that shouldn't prove to be any meaningful roadblock for continued development. It will also stimulate development of alternatives, of more efficient manufacturing methods, and of more effective recycling.

You're right about the He supply. I had forgotten why that was running out.

However, the finiteness of the supply of most metals is a stumbling block for us. The reason why the Cu market and other metal markets are "bullish" is because our rate of supply is unable to keep up with demand, and ultimately our total supply is simply insufficient:

So copper serves as an excellent metallic bellwether for potential future resource scarcity, according to a group of researchers who compiled data on its extraction, use, recycling and discard to estimate whether there is enough copper available to make a developed standard of living available to all the world's people. The short answer is: no.

...

"Certainly every square meter of earth hasn't been dug up but there aren't many places that haven't been investigated pretty thoroughly," Graedel notes. "We're not going to suddenly discover a new continent."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...metal-supply-f

Incidentally, aluminum is the most common metal on Earth. Recycling aluminum cans certainly saves energy, but we're in no danger of depleting our aluminum supplies even if we don't recycle aluminum, so that's not really a good example to use when talking about the possibility of depleting our material resources.

Yes, aluminum is a bad example. It's merely the one that came readily to mind. Still, remember that it is "only" 8.1% of the Earth's crust, and God only knows what percent of that is accessible to us. It also doesn't mean that the way we consume Al, to be a container for a day after being sequestered in the Earth for billions of years, isn't neurotic.

If the entire human population were consuming it at the rate we industrialized nations are today without recycling it, I would hazard to guess that the timescale it would be used up would be many orders of less geological, if you catch my drift.

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

There is no new way when the engineer himself of herself is adapting everything to the community abroad. The goal of EWB is to provide sustainable and logical engineering solutions to communities around the world. A clear majority of these projects fall under water and sanitation. That is, tapping springs across valleys to bring water to community that cannot access it, building wells, etc. Projects such as these are based mostly in Africa but I was at a session talking about Southeast Asia etc. Other projects include construction which is where our project falls under. These projects are pretty much universal. There is a lot you can do for a community and we don't enter a village/town/community and just do this for them. There is a lot of cohesion. 2/3 of a project (Exlporatory and Assessment) is finding out from the community what the biggest problem they see is. It may be completely different than what you think (and it tends to be). This is not a us and them. It's us with them and we grow better for it,

Fuck TOGS engineers aren't suppose to be creative they're suppose to only be able to solve problems whose answers are in a handbook of some sort.

They're like "oh this book saiz computer r gud 4 studs unts LEZ GIF AL TEH CHILDS IN TEH THARD WURLD CUMPOTUR LOL"

Yes, well, she wasn't the girl I was pining after and when that girl found us it got reallllllllllllyyyyyyyy awkward.

The Fonz says that it's not cool to neck with a girl you haven't pinned, whoa.

Originally Posted by Syme

Wow, that is actually alarming. However, like I said in my previous post, that kind of scarcity stimulates development of alternatives, the development of manufacturing practices and product designs that use less of the material in question, and the development of more effective recycling methods. I'm sure if presented with a list of all the things that copper (for instance) is used in, clever engineers could come up with ways to significantly reduce the amount of copper required in each and every one. The article says as much: "Either the rest of the world can't live like the developed world or we need, as a society, to think more about the technology of providing these services with less intensive use of at least certain materials." It's not impossible for the world's resources to support a high living standard for all people; it's only impossible to provide such a living standard with current technologies. Which has been my point all along. On a fairly speculative level, nanotechnological materials have the potential to replace copper (and many other metals) in a huge number of their current uses.

So you're saying that if we use nanotechnology we'll be able to use "really really small" amounts of metals? Haha, well... maaaybe. I'm technically in "nanotechnology," and the only thing I've heard of that comes close to replacing copper wires is the possibility of "all-carbon" electronics in which all the electrical components, from the semiconducting components to the metallic connections, are organic molecules. But that is so far down the road that this is just fantastic speculation for the time being.

But I think you lost my point in this whole debate. You said:

Aside from fuel resources (fossil fuels, etc.), most of the important ones are plentiful enough that we can probably rely on them lasting at least until we're able to take advantage of extraterrestrial resources. I don't think there are any material resources that are both so scarce they are going to be entirely depleted before that happens, and so crucial that civilization can't get along without them.

...which seemed to imply that we wouldn't have issues with materials even if all people consumed metals at the rate that we currently do in the US.

My original point which you seemed to have contention with was that not only is energy a concern, but material is a concern as well. I didn't say that such material issues were impossible to deal with, but merely that there are going to be technological issues with materials, and not just energy (as many people seem to argue.)

When I hear about how the Western lifestyle cannot be supported by the Earth, I usually hear it in terms of energy, water supply, and perhaps land use for food. I rarely if ever hear it in terms of materials supply as well, and as we're apparently only realizing now that is a concern as well: the Earth doesn't have effectively "infinite" stores of every material we need.

So, using that up at a rate of 44 million tons per annum, it would last 50,000 years. If the entire world's population useda aluminum as intensively as the US currently uses it, and if we could only get at 0.0001% of the aluminum in the crust, we'd have a 50,000 year supply. I'm not sure if that timescale could be considered "many" orders of magnitude shorter than a geological timescale, but it's a damn long time.

Yes, that is many orders of magnitude smaller than geological. Of course, you made the very generous assumption that only 1 millionth of the crust's Al is accessible to us. If it's on the order of 10's of %, then I guess we can multiply that number by 100,000. Then we are talking about a 5 billion year supply, give or take a factor. That's the age of the solar system. So okay you're right: Al really was a bad example, and my intuitive feel for the order of magnitude of some of these numbers is poorer than I thought.

Don't get me wrong though, aluminum recycling is still a pretty good idea. It still saves energy, and energy is something we really need to conserve even if aluminum isn't.

Until we get our infinite energy solution up and running, that is.