Long response RE: background vs man-made emmissions

["Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>]

Below is an excerpt from a discussion I had with an "anti" concerning a
similar topic.  A few of the statements are a little dated; fuel cells have
made a large improvement recently.  My comments are interspersed in a quote
of his previous remarks.

Dave Neil		neildm@id.doe.gov

Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

On Monday, May 01, 2000 12:47 PM, Norman & Karen Cohen
[SMTP:norco@bellatlantic.net] wrote:
> Short term - a phase out of nuclear and coal, replaced by natural gas.
Long term - real investments in all of the alternatives out there, from wind
to solar to hydro to wave to fuel cells. As well as a real commitment to
efficiency. This is really more of a national policy question - whether we
as a country have or can get the necessary will to make these changes.
> 
> norm
> 
> Patricia Milligan wrote:
> 
> > Hi Norm,
> >    Just a quick question... what are the safer forms of energy
production that you would like to see implemented in this country?
> >         thanks!
> >                Patricia Milligan Sullivan, CHP
> >                pxm@nrc.gov
> >
> >
[Dave Neil re nuclear energy]  You mean the energy we'll be using in a
couple of decades when the rest of humanity realizes what my Organic
Chemistry professor said 20-odd years ago - that coal, gas, and oil are too
valuable as raw materials to burn? Unfortunately, due to current policies,
it appears we'll be buying the technology ... 
> There are better alternatives out there
[Dave Neil]  Really?
>  like solar(photovoltaics
[Dave Neil]  Massive producers of toxic and hazardous wastes.  Check out
some of the causes espoused on your ISP's [NOTE: http://www.igc.apc.org ]
homepage - prominent is one on the toxins produced by chip makers in Silicon
Valley.  How do you think photovoltaics are made?  Same process, same waste.
Also, the efficiency is abysmally low; to power Los Angeles would require
covering literally thousands of square miles of land with photopanels. You
want to write the Environmental Impact Statement justifying that?  And try
to get it past someone like, let's say, Edward Abbey?
> , hydro
[Dave Neil]  Which wild rivers (that folks in the environmental movement are
fighting to save or restore) do you propose damming? The ones best suited to
hydropower are the ones which are also the most scenic, in general.  As an
aside, here in Idaho Falls itself hydropower is utilized; but that solution
won't work on a widespread basis, the joules of potential energy just aren't
there. Everywhere outside the city limits is on another power company.
 >, wind
[Dave Neil]  Are you in the S.F. Bay area?  If not, ask someone about
Altamonte Pass.  One of the biggest 'wind farms' in the U.S. is there, and I
am told that it barely pays it's upkeep in power production.  While you're
asking them, ask about the big wind turbine they built in Suisun City.  (It
was torn down, due to complaints about the noise.)
> , biomass
[Dave Neil]  That one could be utilized more than it is.  There is already
alcohol production displacing some fossil fuel usage, and modified pellet
stoves which burn surplus grain for heat, but I don't see that as more than
a local answer either.  Remember, biomass production on that scale competes
with food and fiber production for arable acreage.  Some synergy occurs, by
use of plant parts which are currently tilled under, but that increases
usage of chemical fertilizers which are, in part, synthesized from coal and
oil.  I refer you back to the statement by my Organic Chem professor. If the
acreage is taken out of fiber (cotton mostly) production, then one might
think that animal fiber might fill the gap. But sheep and goats have to eat,
and only produce a few pounds of hair a year, so you're back to the
competition for growing space.  Synthetics?  They're made from coal and oil,
which brings us back to You-Know-Who. 
As to the competition for food production space, widespread increases in
vegetarianism would make up some of the shortfall, but I don't foresee that
happening. Those willing to give up the average standard of living have
already done so, for the most part.
> (I really want your citation about wood, especially in light of new
catalytic technology).
[Dave Neil]  You will get it.  I would cite it here and now, but it's at the
office. Catalytic technology will reduce the soot production, but increase
the greenhouse gas production by the amount of carbon contained in the soot.
This might be partially offset by increases in efficiency.  I also expect
that the higher flue gas temperatures will increase production of nitrogen
oxides (NOx). 
> Also fuel cells
[Dave Neil]  Fuel cells are not properly power sources.  They consume
hydrogen, which has to be produced by hydrolysis of water, with energy Input
from an outside energy source. A net loss, which merely shifts the actual
production to one of the previously mentioned sources.  I have recently seen
a news item about a fuel cell which oxidizes fossil fuels, which comes right
back to Dr. Fernandez' statement about fossil organics, and greenhouse gas
production.
> etc.
[Dave Neil]  Wave and tidal energy? Limited to seacoast regions, not many
available joules (relatively) and another EIS headache.  Want to run that
one past the Cousteau Society?  It's actually being done, so far as I know,
on one estuary in France.  I shudder to think what probably happened to the
local ecology. Estuaries are the breeding grounds for many of the commercial
fishery stocks. A healthy estuary is more productive than the finest Iowa
cropland; but if it's dammed, it's damned. Disrupts the circulation and
nutrient flow and it turns into a sewer.
Fusion? A vast idea, but it's only half vast at this point. and they don't
mention that it would produce more rad waste than a current generation
fission plant, through activation of materials, and vastly more than the
next generation of plant which was being prototyped, until the funding was
interrupted.
Orbital solar plants with energy transferred to Earth by microwave?
Possible with current technology, but the rest of the world would have a
fit.  Seems that a mega-joule microwave has military applications...
Besides, for safety, it would require square miles of antenna to reduce the
flux density and provide for irregularities in beam aiming due to
atmospheric refraction.  That brings us back to Mr. Abbey and the EIS.
Those are the only 'et ceteras' that come to mind.

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html