Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming?

From: BlackWater (bw_at_barrk.net)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:49:11 GMT

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:34:08 GMT, Steve Spence
<spence@green-trust.org> wrote:

>I don't subscribe to the global warming theory, I subscribe to the
>global climate change theory, without being convinced that man has had a
>catastrophic impact on that change. I do believe that increasing
>concentrations of CO2 can have an effect on climate change, and would
>prefer to see co2 neutral biofuels, wind, solar, hydro, and yes, nuclear
>if we must, replace coal and oil. I do believe nuclear is the only way
>to a "hydrogen economy", if there ever is one.

   And how will we MAKE the hydrogen ? Magic wands
   have surely been tried - and failed. If you want
   H2, you've gotta put IN as least as much energy,
   usually electricity, as you plan to get out. It's
   The Law.

   And electricity ... it cometh from coal, oil and
   gas mostly - all of which generate CO2. We might
   build nuke plants, but the same greenies who whine
   about CO2 also whine about nuclear power. Most of
   the good hydroelectric spots are already used, and
   the greenies will whine about eco-damage caused by
   new dams and their associated reservoirs.

   Yea, yea ... wind, tide and sun ... alas they just
   don't seem up to the challenge. Priced photoelectric
   arrays recently ? We keep hearing about 'alternative'
   energy, but it's beginning to sound like Hitlers
   promises of 'wonder weapons' to save Germanys bacon.
   Possible, but never quite practical - drawing boards
   pipe-dreams.
   
   Oh yea ... hydrogen isn't environmentally neutral
   either - and being an itty-bitty molecule it's prone
   to leaking. Leaks, even small ones, also bring
   *EXPLOSIONS* when consumers are involved. Then there
   is the STORAGE bugaboo ... while they're doing better
   you STILL can't carry-around much of the gas and the
   storage media are expensive.

   Really though, there's nothing really "wrong" with
   the hydrogen idea ... but there are a lot of gotchas
   to be worked out. Hydrogen MIGHT be better used not
   to reduce global CO2 emissions, but to shift POLLUTANT
   emissions away from urban areas. Put the big smokey
   powerplants well outside town and run in-town cars
   on H2.

   Even thus, hydrogen + oxygen + NITROGEN + heat-&-pressure =
   nitrogen oxides and ozone to some extent and those = SMOG.
   Only practical fuel cells can prevent that ... and they're
   still about ten or twenty years away from being really
   practical/reliable/affordable. Consumer apps are gonna be
   ROUGH service with SPOTTY maintenence.

   Personally, I advocate switching to METHANOL derived from
   coal/water and/or biomethane synthesis. It's a convenient
   liquid - compatible with the existing infrastructure - it
   burns very clean, burns in existing IC engines with just
   trivial adjustments and has the highest hydrogen/carbon
   ratio going. Not "perfect", but BETTER. Oh, and they now
   DO have methanol fuel cells - the practicality/reliability/
   cost factors I'm not sure about.

   As for H2 ... it may be more suited for INDUSTRIAL heating
   uses - big, fixed facilities with room for tank-farms and
   such.

   As for 'global warming' ... well ... it's been going on
   since the end of the last ice-age. Did WE speed it up ?
   Hard to say. Since it doesn't seem practical to deny
   anybody their share of carbon-based fuels I'd suggest
   finding CHEATS to get-around the CO2 problem. Some have
   suggested fertilizing the oceans to increase CO2-eating
   plankton. I've suggested injecting precisely-sized dust
   into the upper stratosphere as a 'heat shield' that
   would last about five years before requiring renewal.
   Other approaches may be feasable.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Greenland glaciers disappearing more quickly
    ... that solar activity, hallelujah, is the culprit behind climate change? ... planet with CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. ... for Global Warming can be found in the variable solar irradiation. ... scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Interesting Take on Climate Change Argument
    ... proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, ... as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. ... temperature histories. ... "Responses to climate change are being seen across the U.S.A," said ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • George Monbiot - What is Progress ?
    ... When you warn people about the dangers of climate change, ... baseline figure of 3.58 tonnes of CO2 per person. ... the whole economy over to the use of electricity and by deploying the ... slightly cheaper than tidal power and 8 times cheaper than rooftop ...
    (talk.environment)
  • Re: The Independent this morning...
    ... studying ice core data relating to CO2 & temperature for my PhD. ... His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already ... > warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: Global warming hoax
    ... The looming crisis is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere ... and humans have survived just fine. ... A sea level rise of 20 feet, ... current climate change isn't much different than what has ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)