[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Doug Aitken JAitken at slb.com
Fri May 30 13:39:33 CDT 2014 

Yup!
And if you go back to the '50's, the prognostication was the same: 50 years supply of oil and gas left.......

But, since then, we have found more oil in many places we did not look before..... (Offshore/deep water/sub salt/shale......). Technology always finds ways of discovering and exploiting the earths reserves. 

However, there is no question that hydrocarbons are a limited resource. And while the "fashionable" alternative energies get all the applause and massive subsidies, no politician has the cojones to push nuclear, where the biggest potential lies....

Regards
Doug

-----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 1:31 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Not really. According to government and industry documents, at current levels of use we have about:

Coal - 100-200 years
Oil - 40-50 years
Gas - 40-50 years

The assumptions are that we know how much of each of these is  and that we will continue using energy at the same rates. If energy consumption increases as it has been then things will run out more quickly. We are less likely to discover massive new coal deposits than we are to find new oil or natural gas deposits, and even large oil and gas deposits are not found very often anymore.

In addition, we should note that, when the first source runs out, we will start using the remaining sources more quickly. So if we have, say, 200 years of coal remaining under current use conditions we might have only 50-60 years left in actuality due to increasing coal burning coupled with a change to coal when oil runs out.

You are correct that fission (especially if we start making thorium reactors) can last much, much longer.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:13 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming

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

_______________________________________________
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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list