[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Fri May 30 15:11:10 CDT 2014

Fortunately it has always been true that fusion is 20 years away and the end of oil is 50 years away !   

I expect this will remain true for a few more years.  

Happy Friday, Everyone! 

Brad

Sent from my iPad

> On May 30, 2014, at 1:40 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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