What Global Warming?

by metatron 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Big Tex

  What specifically do you want to do about it ?

  I'm no alarmist. I think some of the more strident voices (we may only have 10 years left) are downright silly. And I thought Gore's movie had holes. Good idea, some merit, decent documentary, on a film review level it could've cut out all the focus on Gore frankly, but that's about it.

  But if I were Emperor of America, I'd put together a Manhattan Project-style effort to solve cold nuclear fusion and find a way to mass produce (read: cheap enough for the average consumer) the use of hydrogen and solar to power homes or cars. The Manhattan Project itself cost $2 billion in 1940s money, so something like this could very well cost $1 trillion; dunno for sure if it would work or how long it would take. Then there's the immense money to convert the infrastructure and decades to do so. But what's the alternative? If the U.S. found total energy independence our wealth would stay here, the average consumer could see relief, our way of life could improve.

  And if say cold fusion were found to be feasible, it's not hard to imagine that technology being made available planet-wide. The economics of it would dictate usage before environmental concerns I would expect. I mean powering a major city on a bathtub size of seawater is a lot cheaper (theoretically) than using nuclear, oil or coal. I doubt there would be planetary environmental impact this century, but it might make the 22nd century more livable, ozone in particular.

  Or maybe the ANWR could power America for a few decades and we'll let our kids figure it out.
• 

  james_woods

  I am also a proponent of nuclear fusion - although I hold little hope that the "cold fusion" idea will ever prove to be feasible.

  Probably the earliest that a Manhatten style project could produce a break-even fusion machine like the Tokamak would reasonably be about 2025 to 2030.

  In the meantime, conventional nuclear power, along with geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric might be able to replace perhaps 25% of the electrical generation in this country. Which leaves 75% still powered by coal. There is a technology which could scrub the carbon dioxide from the coal fired exhaust gasses, but it is expensive. It works on the same principle as the CO2 scrubbers used to maintain the atmosphere in nuclear subs.

  Which would leave the problem of transportation. It has now become obvious that electric cars would actually be powered by the electrical generation plants, and widespread use could easily double or triple the national need for electrical power. Which in turn makes fusion generation more attractive. Hydrogen basically is made from petroleum presently - and the production of it releases as much carbon into the air as burning gasoline in the first place.

  Ethanol is likely going to prove a dead end...already we find that corn production cannot possible meet the optimistic ethanol numbers put forward by the government. And, regardless of the nonsense propaganda from the ethanol companies, it puts CO2 into the air just exactly like petroleum does - besides the fact that it needs a lot of extra energy in other forms to produce. The so-called cellulose ethanol has yet to be shown feasible or economically acceptable. Hybrid cars only offer a small percentage of greater economy, and present the problem of hazerdous waste materials. They also emit CO2, just like straight gas or diesel engines. Conservation may prove to be the cheapest and most effective way to ease the problem in the short run; work from home, mass transit, stop the nonsense of flying all over the country for no good reason, etc.

  And so we find that realistic solutions to the problem are going to be difficult and expensive. All the yakking up of alarmism may in fact be making it harder for society to find real solutions.