[ RadSafe ] ...- CO2 consequences

Ruth Sponsler jk5554 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 12 19:20:04 CDT 2006

Hello Dr. Dukelow and all on the list - 

Thank you so much for helping to clarify the issue
with the list, and for helping me to better understand
some of the modeling work and the parameters that the
modelers have used that include insolation, volcanism,
and particulate aerosols (volcanic and manmade by open
burning and coal burning, especially in China and
other rapidly developing countries), as well as carbon

In addition to my post at

the NEI blog at 

 is actively discussing and comparing CO2 emissions of
various energy sources along with discussing Dr. James
Lovelock's recent book and speaking tour.

Nuclear energy basically comes out _best_ with regard
to lowest possible CO2 emissions per megawatt of
energy produced, over the entire lifecycle of the

On our side, I think that political feelings, indeed
justified by many years of bad experience with the
'environmental movement' crowd, are obscuring the
science and blurring the necessary policy decisions. 
Our allies are _not_ the coal and oil companies.  We
should instead be working to advance technologies such
as plug-in hybrid cars, which are usually charged
using baseload power at night.

On the 'other side' of the 'environmental movement'
crowd, I believe that, at some point (I hope that it's
very soon), they will become completely discredited
among climatologists, ecologists, biologists, other
scientists, and the general public, because the net
effect of their anti-nuclear actions (lawsuits,
blockades, unneccessary regulation on nuclear
facilities but much less regulation on fossil fuel
facilities) has been to increase usage of fossil
fuels.  (Their 'renewable' energy sources are only
about 20% efficient in terms of [actual
megawatts/rated megawatts], as exemplified by the
Danish wind grid - see

I hope that the members of the 'environmental
movement' who have perhaps taken climatology or
ecology classes in college will have the intellectual
honesty to step forward, as Dr. Patrick Moore has, and
admit the gravity of their anti-nuclear mistake.  

The members of the "environmental movement" who retain
an anti-nuclear status, despite the implications of
fossil-fuel induced global warming for the planet are,
in all honesty, _anti-environmentalists_ despite all
of their claims to the contrary. 
The necessary policy decisions to deal with the global
warming research results will involve much better
opportunities for Radsafers and for young folks in
college choosing an engineering field.

One of the things we should be doing now to prepare
for the needed changes is making sure that our
childrens' schools are providing adequate math and
science preparation for them, such as making sure that
kids are taking algebra by 8th grade so that they can
avail themselves of a full curriculum of math and AP
classes in high school.

Best wishes - 

Ruth Sponsler

--- "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov> wrote:

> Michael McNaughton and Don Mercado wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McNaughton [mailto:mcnaught at lanl.gov] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:28 PM
> To: Mercado, Don; Ruth Sponsler; Dukelow, James S
> Jr; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; hflong at pacbell.net;
> Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ...- CO2 consequences
> Physics detail: the earth loses heat by radiation,
> which is proportional to the absolute temperature to
> the fourth power, T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). 
> Therefore, if the input power increases by 0.2%,
> which means a factor of 1.002, the temperature will
> increase by 1.002^0.25 = 1.0005.
> At 08:37 AM 09/12/2006, Mercado, Don wrote:
> >  Back of an envelope calculation: Earth is
> estimated to have warmed 
> > 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C so all we need to do is divide the
> estimated 
> > temperature increment by Earth's temperature (288
> K) and times by 100 
> > to get the percentage increment thus: 0.6 (K)/288
> (K) x 100 = 0.2%. 
> > So, the sun is 0.2% more energetic and
> conveniently the planet's 
> > temperature is believed to have increased 0.2%.
> Solar influence 
> > explains the entire change, now everyone's content
> the global warming thing has been solved, right? No?
> > Us neither, although solar variance seems a likely
> candidate for at 
> > least a portion of the apparent change."
> Mike McNaughton
> Los Alamos National Lab.
> email: mcnaught at LANL.gov or mcnaughton at LANL.gov
> phone: 505-667-6130; page: 505-664-7733
> ========================
> Climate researchers exercising the various AOGCMs
> have generally found that they get the best fits to
> 20th century temperature time series by including
> the increase in insolation, the cooling effects of
> large volcanic eruptions in 1912, 1963, 1983, and
> 1992, assumed changes in aerosols, and increases in
> the concentration of greenhouse gases.  Increase in
> insolation appears to account for about a third of
> 20th century warming.
> Best regards.
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov
> These comments are mine and have not been reviewed
> and/or approved by my management or by the U.S.
> Department of Energy.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list