5 ms·

The 5000AD date is admittedly just an estimate, but I am extremely sceptical of any such prediction. It just depends too much on what new uses for lots of energ

The 5000AD date is admittedly just an estimate, but I am extremely sceptical of any such prediction. It just depends too much on what new uses for lots of energy we might come up with over the next thousand years. How many people will there be to use it? What standard of living will they demand? And that standard of living actually require more energy, or will other technological advances make us far more efficient with the power we generate? The article even states that different groups estimates of how long Earth's uranium could last vary by more than a factor of 2.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
I don't think it's an unfair way to express the estimate though. Sure, it might not really last until 5000 AD, but to me it simply implies 3000 "years of fuel", with a "year of fuel" being how we use fuel now. If energy consumption goes up or down it doesn't really matter - I still have a sense of how significant this energy source is.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  Yes, but growth sucks. Assuming 3000 years in the article means what you think it means, consider exponential and linear growth: If energy usage doubles every 30 years (pulled that out of my ass, it's not likely the trend but divides nice into 3000) then it will last us less than 200 years If energy usage grows linearly increasing by the current amount every 30 years (so in 2042 we are using double, and 2072 we are using triple) it's lasts us a bit over 400 years.
  - gliese1337 14y ago
    And in any case, 3000 years is still finite. There will come a time, if we don't go extinct or experience the rapture, when nuclear fuel will run out, and we'll have to use renewables anyway. Fortunately, the sun puts out a rather large amount of power, and even 200 years is a pretty good amount of time for figuring out how to capture it better.
    - nickik 14y ago
      The question really is if going to something 'harder' now is worth while. We do something more expensive (and have large oppertunity cost) to avoid problem we will only really have in 200 years. If you look at the change of technology in the last 100 years you can only assume how small this problem will be then.
    - nickik 14y ago
      The question really is if going to something 'harder' now is worth while. We do something more expensive (and have large oppertunity cost) to avoid problem we will only really have in 200 years. If you look at the change of technology in the last 100 years you can only assume how small this problem will be then. I mean in 200 years using solar energy will possibly be cheaper then fossil fuel, and if it is not we will be better equiped to solve the problem then. I do not want to say that we should not keep working in direction of renewable energy but I think it is a valid question.

TallGuyShort 14y ago

I don't think it's an unfair way to express the estimate though. Sure, it might not really last until 5000 AD, but to me it simply implies 3000 "years of fuel", with a "year of fuel" being how we use fuel now. If energy consumption goes up or down it doesn't really matter - I still have a sense of how significant this energy source is.

aidenn0 14y ago
Yes, but growth sucks. Assuming 3000 years in the article means what you think it means, consider exponential and linear growth: If energy usage doubles every 30 years (pulled that out of my ass, it's not likely the trend but divides nice into 3000) then it will last us less than 200 years If energy usage grows linearly increasing by the current amount every 30 years (so in 2042 we are using double, and 2072 we are using triple) it's lasts us a bit over 400 years.
- gliese1337 14y ago
  And in any case, 3000 years is still finite. There will come a time, if we don't go extinct or experience the rapture, when nuclear fuel will run out, and we'll have to use renewables anyway. Fortunately, the sun puts out a rather large amount of power, and even 200 years is a pretty good amount of time for figuring out how to capture it better.
  - nickik 14y ago
    The question really is if going to something 'harder' now is worth while. We do something more expensive (and have large oppertunity cost) to avoid problem we will only really have in 200 years. If you look at the change of technology in the last 100 years you can only assume how small this problem will be then.
  - nickik 14y ago
    The question really is if going to something 'harder' now is worth while. We do something more expensive (and have large oppertunity cost) to avoid problem we will only really have in 200 years. If you look at the change of technology in the last 100 years you can only assume how small this problem will be then. I mean in 200 years using solar energy will possibly be cheaper then fossil fuel, and if it is not we will be better equiped to solve the problem then. I do not want to say that we should not keep working in direction of renewable energy but I think it is a valid question.