[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

[JPreisig at aol.com]

Hmmmmm,
 
     Natural gas and fracking should last 100  years.
 
     Coal should last 800 years, I've heard.
 
     Fission, with re-use of spent fuel, is expected to  last many years.
 
     Any good news from the Fusion frontier???.
 
     Plant trees and cut the Earth's population by a  factor of 2 or more.
 
     Joe Preisig
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 5/30/2014 2:06:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV writes:

I  completely agree.  

Currently there is a resurgence in oil and  natural gas production in the 
US.  This is not because new shallow,  easy-to-reach fields have been 
discovered, but because new, much more  expensive exploitation techniques have been 
developed (with some non-trivial  problems that have not been well 
addressed).  There is no rational reason  to believe these new sources are 
limitless.  Warren Buffet says we should  use natural gas as a "bridge" energy form, 
using the energy it provides to  develop new non-fossil-fuel energy sources 
(though I haven't heard him include  nuclear in with wind and solar).  

The current boom of oil and gas  will peter out (though probably there will 
deep sources in other countries, so  we can revisit the oil crisis of the 
1970s, probably with different  players).  It is sound economic and national 
security policy (for all  countries, not just the US) to not merely ask 
"What's next?", but to act make  energy production and distribution efficient, 
diverse, decentralized, and  robust.  

-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu  
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM,  PHILIP
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:12 AM
To: The International  Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ]  Global Warming

To a large extent it really doesn't matter whether or  not CO2 emissions 
from fossil fuels are - or are not - causing the climate to  change. And for 
that matter, global temperatures are almost immaterial to the  question as to 
what to do about fossil fuel consumption. There are other  compelling 
reasons to stop burning fossil fuels that are just as compelling  and with less 
scientific controversy.

First - fossil fuels are a finite  resource. At some point they will run 
out. When that point might be is subject  to debate - but the Earth has a 
finite volume, there is a finite amount of  fossil biomass that was available to 
form fossil fuels, etc. - there can be no  controversy about whether or not 
fossil fuels will run out at some point in  the future - the only 
controversy can be as to when they will run  out.

Second - fossil fuels are hydrocarbons that are valuable as a  chemical 
resource. They are used as feedstock for fertilizers, plastics,  
pharmaceuticals, and much more. It makes little sense to burn them and to  destroy their 
utility and value as chemicals.

Third - there is no  controversy over the fact that burning fossil fuels 
releases CO2 into the  atmosphere, or over the fact that when CO2 dissolves 
into water it forms  carbonic acid. There is some debate over how acidic the 
oceans need to be  before it is harmful to marine life, but there is no 
debate over the fact that  too much acidity is bad for the marine critters. 

So - three good  reasons to move away from fossil fuel combustion, each of 
which should be  relatively uncontroversial and each of which is unconnected 
to global climate  change. What I can't fathom is why everybody hangs their 
hat on the most  controversial rationale that has the greatest number of 
causal links to be  proven - and that relies on controversial modeling as 
well. It seems the  environmental/climate change lobby has chosen the most 
difficult argument for  not using fossil fuels and, by so doing, has caused a 
huge split that need not  have  occurred.

Andy
_______________________________________________
You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu