[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Fri May 30 13:40:53 CDT 2014

Hmmmmm,

     Sounds like the folks at Princeton Plasma Lab and  elsewhere better 
get fusion working soon.

     Joe Preisig

In a message dated 5/30/2014 2:31:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org writes:

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