'Too little' oil for global warming': New Scientist

[Ivan Seeking]

Oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise, according to a controversial analysis presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures.



http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994216

[FZ+]

Then all the more reason to switch to renewable alternatives before the oil run out, and we are forced to switch to coal, eh? [;)]

Also, the report has failed to recognise the metastable nature of most of climate change. A small amount can push the system over the edge, and we will not have to continue emitting for climate change to carry on happening.

[Phobos]

As the article said, coal can more than make up for the shortfall. And I'm sure we'll find more things to burn. The key will be to control the overall CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emissions.

[MythioS]

Did anyone see penn & teller's: 'BS' show on this?

[the_truth]

Worst case sceneraio: Crude oil becomes too scarce to support mechanised agriculture and global warming occurs.

[Teo1]

Pardom my ignorance, [g)]

But it seems that instead of using more energy and mental energy talking about these things it makes more sense to get the dependancy tyrants out of power.

How, in realistic terms, can we get the energy dependancy industries to stop, so that solar, cold fusion, hemp fuel, all the realistic and sustainable resources are taken seriously.

I'm sorry to be so stupid, but that seems the only thing worthy of putting time into. How to realistically make the world open to other energy sources. All other time seems totally insipid waste of time - allowing our children to live a hellish future - instead of being practical and finding what can be done right now to make our world more sustainable.

Guess I'm too stupid for forums like this.[*(]

Balance and awareness to all, Teo [a)] [a)]

[chroot]

I'm just amazed that you called solar and cold fusion 'realistic.'

- Warren

[selfAdjoint]

Not to mention hemp fuel. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Teo1
But it seems that instead of using more energy and mental energy talking about these things it makes more sense to get the dependancy tyrants out of power.

How, in realistic terms, can we get the energy dependancy industries to stop, so that solar, cold fusion, hemp fuel, all the realistic and sustainable resources are taken seriously.

I'm sorry to be so stupid, but that seems the only thing worthy of putting time into. How to realistically make the world open to other energy sources. All other time seems totally insipid waste of time - allowing our children to live a hellish future - instead of being practical and finding what can be done right now to make our world more sustainable.
"dependancy tyrants"? Huh? "Energy dependancy industries"? Huh? "Cold fusion, hemp fuel...realistic...?" Huh?

Sorry, but your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I don't quite understand what you are tying to say, but it sounds like you think there is some industry/government conspiracy to keep us dependent on coal and oil. There isn't. There are two forces at work that you need to be aware of: politics and economics. In the US, half our electric power comes from coal because it is cheap. Virtually all new capacity is oil because the first cost is cheap. No nuclear plants have been built in the US in 25 years because its politically hot.

"Alternate energy" (in quotes since "environmentalists" always overlook the primary renewable energy source since it is already nearly fully utilized) is a tiny fraction of the power generated in the US because it is extremely expensive and even "clean energy" has environmental and political implications.

Just a note, cold fusion is contrary to scientific theroy: it was a mistake that turned into a fraud, which is now being perpetuated as a hoax.

And hemp fuel? You're kidding, right?

The solution to our energy issues (I won't go so far as to call them "problems" just yet) is simple: re-activate the nuclear power program in the US. Triple the number of reactors, fund research for better reactors, and fund fusion research. On this issue, the "environmentalists" are harming the environment because they spread fear to create political pressure to prevent reasonable actions from being taken. I'm just amazed that you called solar and cold fusion 'realistic.' Solar is "realistic" though it of course depends on the context. We could switch all of our power supply to solar in the next decade or two if we wanted to. It would work fine - the catch of course is it'd cost several (dozen?) trillion dollars.

[rjensen2]

The Earth's been warming since the ice age. Until someone can explain how since the ice age, SUVs have been clouding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases causing global warming over the last several thousand years, I don't buy the established hypothesis.

OTOH, IMHO, the only reason the UN and its allies in the media have been pushing global warming hysteria is to stampede the general public into accepting more international regulations. This will give the UN more authority, which is convenient for the UN, if it is one day to become a world government.

[theroyprocess]

Now the Pentagon Tells Bush:
Climate Change Will Destroy Us

Secret Report Warns of Rioting and Nuclear War; Threat to the World
is Greater than Terrorism

by Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday, February 22, 2004 Observer/UK

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global
catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural
disasters..

Key findings of the Pentagon Report
· Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than
religion, ideology or national honor.

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large
parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are
abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento
river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting
water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change
with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain
becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble
Siberia.

· Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the
planet's population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and
Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and
Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

· A 'significant drop' in the planet's ability to sustain its
present population will become apparent over the next 20 years.

· Rich areas like the US and Europe would become 'virtual
fortresses' to prevent millions of migrants from entering after
being forced from land drowned by sea-level rise or no longer able
to grow crops. Waves of boatpeople pose significant problems.

· Nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. Japan, South Korea, and
Germany develop nuclear-weapons capabilities, as do Iran, Egypt and
North Korea. Israel, China, India and Pakistan also are poised to
use the bomb.

· By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with
peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an 'economic nuisance'
as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

· More than 400m people in subtropical regions at grave risk.

· Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive
numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from
Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is
beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

· Mega-droughts affect the world's major breadbaskets, including
America's Midwest, where strong winds bring soil loss.

· China's huge population and food demand make it particularly
vulnerable. Bangladesh becomes nearly uninhabitable because of a
rising sea level, which contaminates the inland water supplies.

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'


* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

[russ_watters]

Theroyprocess, the answer to global warming is nuclear power.

[theroyprocess]

Russ,

Nuclear power isn't an answer

By WENONAH HAUTER, Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program at Public
Citizen

January 12, 2004 Knoxville News

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/perspectives/article/0,1406,KNS_2797_2569541,00.html

Lee Martin wrote in a recent opinion piece in the Business section ("U.S.
needs nuclear power" Jan. 5) that "in a free market economy, the most
economical method of total production ultimately wins." But nuclear power is
not economically viable.

It continues only because of enormous government subsidies, typified by the
$4 billion handout in the current energy bill and a generous taxpayer-backed
insurance scheme. This contradiction betrays an argument littered with
half-truths and dubious claims.

Even the Department of Energy admitted that "economic viability for a
nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate." Martin asserts that nuclear
power costs less than other power sources, but this is only true if one
looks at day-to-day operating costs and ignores other expenses such as
construction and waste disposal. A recent French study found that the same
investment planned for a new nuclear plant could create double the energy
and almost five times as many jobs if spent on wind power.

Twice, Martin claims that nuclear power causes no air pollution. In 1998,
the Better Business Bureau recommended that ads by the nuclear industry that
made similar pollution-free assertions were misleading and should be taken
off the air. Uranium enrichment involves the creation of dangerously
radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas, which several weeks ago leaked in such
quantities from a plant in Illinois that entire neighborhoods were evacuated
at 3 a.m.

Carbon-14 and iodine-131 are routinely released into the air from nuclear
plants. And from construction to waste disposal, nuclear plants require
burning of fossil fuels. The average nuclear plant has to operate for at
least 10 years before it generates as much energy as is required to build
and fuel it.

Claims that "operational and proven repositories for waste products" address
that problem are similarly wrong. There are no permanent operational
repositories for spent fuel from reactors.

The proven repository referenced is Yucca Mountain, which is anything but
proven. The government's independent oversight panel has repeatedly found
serious flaws with the proposed design, which isn't even finished. A
half-dozen court cases filed by Nevada will be heard this month, and a
Supreme Court battle is likely; a victory in any of the six could nix
repository plans. Even if the Yucca repository is built, it's too small to
handle future waste inventories.

Other points that Martin should have clarified: U.S. energy independence
won't be a result of nuclear power; most imported oil is used to fuel cars,
which won't run on nuclear power anytime soon. Assertions that wind and
solar can only meet 2 percent of our energy needs contradict a recent
Washington Post article that stated wind farms on "(t)he plains of North
Dakota alone could supply one-third of the nation's demand for energy." And
while France might be adding reactors, Germany just announced plans to end
use of nuclear power.

There's no doubt that demand for energy in the United States will increase
in coming decades. But Martin never once mentions the cheapest and most
effective methods for meeting higher demand: energy efficiency and
conservation.

Wenonah Hauter is the director of the Critical Mass Energy and Environment
Program at Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy
organization based in Washington, D.C. More information may be found at
www.citizen.org/cmep.


* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
_________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

-Albert Einstein

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ,

Nuclear power isn't an answer As of yet you haven't provided a viable alternate solution (heck, I'll even listen to a pipe dream - just give me something to indicate you've put a little thought into this).

The way I see it, there are two other possible solutions:

1. Shift immediately a large portion of our power grid to wind/solar. This is doable with existing technology, but would cost a substantial fraction of the US GDP for the next several decades. It is also not free from environmental impact.

2. EMP and return to the stone age - then again, they still used coal in the stone age. So really, I guess the only other way is to just kill every human on the planet.

Oh, one more:
3. Pray for fusion.

Also: there are a number of major flaws in that article. Since I know you won't read a rebuttal, I'll just point out the flawed passages: Even the Department of Energy admitted that "economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate.".... [entire paragraph] Twice, Martin claims that nuclear power causes no air pollution. In 1998, the Better Business Bureau recommended that ads by the nuclear industry that made similar pollution-free assertions were misleading and should be taken off the air [entire paragraph] ....ehh, ya know what, forget it. EVERY following paragraph is unsalvagably flawed. That article can serve as a good archive of the most argued misrepresentations and misunderstandings of nuclear power.

[theroyprocess]

A-plant must shut now for health and safety of county's residents


Published in the Asbury Park Press 2/27/04
By EDITH GBUR
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch wants to clarify its position regarding the shutdown and decommissioning of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey. The main concern of most citizens is closure of Oyster Creek.

On Feb. 17, the largest municipality in Ocean County, Dover Township, passed a resolution calling for the immediate shutdown and decommissioning of the plant. Since June, 16 towns have adopted resolutions regarding Oyster Creek. Eleven of them -- Berkeley, Brick, Dover, Ocean Township (Waretown), Beach Haven, Harvey Cedars, Lakewood, Little Egg Harbor, Point Pleasant, South Toms River and Surf City -- have passed resolutions calling for decommissioning the plant.

Ocean County municipalities in New Jersey are closest to the nuclear plant and are at high risk if there were a nuclear catastrophe.

Regardless of what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides on the 20-year license extension, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch will continue to call for an immediate shutdown.

Even if the license were not to be extended beyond its expiration date of 2009, the plant will still remain open for another five years. Safety, health and security are immediate concerns. An accident or a terrorist attack at Oyster Creek could make the area uninhabitable. High levels of strontium-90, which have been associated with cancer, have been found in samples of baby teeth of numerous children throughout Ocean and Monmouth counties.

We can't wait another five years until the license expires. If Oyster Creek shuts down tomorrow, the lights would still go on and washing machines would continue to work, together with all the other appliances. No one would miss the electricity it presently produces.

Regulations are in place to ensure a safe, permanent shutdown of Oyster Creek. A $350 million trust fund has been set aside for the decommissioning process, which follows the closure of the plant. At a minimum, security has to be maintained and the fuel rods would have to be removed from the reactor.

Since 1963, 19 nuclear plants have been shut down and are being decommissioned. This is due to economic factors and citizen opposition. The NRC has never been responsible for shutting down a nuclear plant.

We have been asked questions about the decommissioning process. Will the workers lose their jobs, how long will it take, will jobs be lost or gained, who needs to be involved?

On March 29, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch is sponsoring meetings on "How to Decommission the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station." The evening session will take place at the Administration Building (Room 119) in Toms River. The afternoon sessions will be announced. The presenter, Ray Shadis from Maine, is an expert on decommissioning. He founded "Friends of the Coast," which helped to shut down the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant in 1996. It is still being decommissioned.

Edith Gbur, Dover Township, is chairwoman of Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch. Its Web site is www.jerseyshorenuclearwatch.org.

[russ_watters]

Disgusting. That sort of thing makes me physically ill.

[Allah]

theroyprocess you are an environmental nazi, you are IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL. All you say is NO, you provide absolutely no useable alternative. You say that nuclear power plants are being shut down. The PLANTS ARE BUILT FOR A REASON. Someone one day just didn't say "I think a nuclear power plant would look nice here." They are there to provide power and if they are removed, then a greater burden is placed on coal. You supposedly dislike coal and oil yet YOU DO NOT FACE REALITY. You are living in a dream world.
The famous liberal Jimmy Carter, who hates nuclear power, built the only oil burning air craft carrier. It not only pollutes like a beast, it requires a literal floatilla of ships to keep it supplied with oil. These ships also add pollution to the atmosphere. When will people like you openly admit that you are ONLY USING THE ENVIRONMENT AS A TOOL IN AN ATTEMPT TO ATTACK CAPITALISM?


As for Radioactive waste,
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/8/8
It is simply a matter of time until nuclear energy is COMPLETELY CLEAN.

[Njorl]

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer. He did not oppose nuclear energy. He increased regulation of nuclear energy, for good reason. The industry had become reckless. Stricter regulation was the only chance to save it, but it failed.

People often confuse Carter's call for reduction of nuclear energy use with oppostion to nuclear energy on moral grounds. Even in that speech though, Carter called for a reduction in the use of all fossil fuels. Even one who espouses the use of nuclear energy must admit that there are drawbacks. Carter was an advocate of energy conservation. He saw elimination of waste as the biggest, easily attainable energy resource for the US.

Carter also came out against proliferation of reprocessing techniques, but that was because of weaponry concerns.

Njorl

[Allah]

if Carter had his way, then we would not have air conditioning when it is hot and we would not have heat when it is cold.

Conservation is logical, but that was not the result. Jimmy Carter's energy policy has given rise to the backward energy policy we have today. It is exceedingly difficult to build any power plant. We can't build Nuclear plants because they have radioactive waste. We can't build Coal plants because they pollute. We can't build Wind Farms because every community says "NIMBY." Then, those same people who oppose the plants wonder why some states have energy shortages!

Maybe "hates" was too strong of a word, I probably should have used "does not prefer." However, He still built the only oil burning aircraft carrier and yet he is seen as the quintessential environmentalist.

[Njorl]

if Carter had his way, then we would not have air conditioning when it is hot and we would not have heat when it is cold.

Conservation is logical, but that was not the result. Jimmy Carter's energy policy has given rise to the backward energy policy we have today. It is exceedingly difficult to build any power plant. We can't build Nuclear plants because they have radioactive waste. We can't build Coal plants because they pollute. We can't build Wind Farms because every community says "NIMBY." Then, those same people who oppose the plants wonder why some states have energy shortages!

Maybe "hates" was too strong of a word, I probably should have used "does not prefer." However, He still built the only oil burning aircraft carrier and yet he is seen as the quintessential environmentalist.

What was Carter's energy policy?

Njorl

[Itachi]

this site may be interesting

www.altenergy.org :uhh:

[pervect]

What I'd like to see is development of thin film solar cells along the lines of

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/facstudies/solar.pdf

With low interest rates, extremely high utility rates (oil at an all time high, natural gas also very high), conditions are ripe for solar powered homes, especially in California where the utility rates are "on the moon" due in substatinal part to various well-publicized market manipulations.

Low interest rates are important because you need an up-front investment to buy the solar, and you want a ROI comparable to what you could get elsewhere.

Note that natural gas in CA has already exceeded the price targets in the URL above, since 1 million BTU's is rougly equivalent to 1000 cubic feet of natural gas, we are already in the $4-$5 range for 1000 ft^3.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/update.html

Basically, mass production of thin film solar cells should already be competitive with current energy prices in California. Currently, though, the volume is low, so the price is high, making it uneconomic.

[juju]

Hi,

What can we do now?
more solar electric, solar thermal, and wind.

What can we plan and research for?
new sources based on new theories of physical reality.

People who do the latter are called crackpots.

juju

[avemt1]

Are you calling the United States President a crackpot?
In his presidential report he said that he was going to fund hydrogen feul-cell reseach, and the person who had the idea in the first place probably did not worry about being called a crackpot.

[LENIN]

Nuclear, solar and wind power are needed. By my opinion nuclear power is courently the best solution becouse it can produce large amounts of power and it doesn't depend on the weather.

[SergejVictorov]

Honestly I don't know what we are waiting for. We could switch to fusion power very quickly if we wanted. There are already very great concepts around, for instance focus fusion (http://www.focusfusion.org/). With the additional research needed, fusion could be done within a short time.
The plants are not even expensive to build, and free from all environmental concerns.

What is keeping us asleep?

[Blissfulpain]

people like you... and people like me.... in fact everyone pretty much. now, this is in no way ment as an insult or personal attack.. but i'm just saying that unless you are willing to lead the project or start a group to spearhead the application of the research, then it takes an extremely long time for the government to step in.

people tend to be motivated by self interest.. i'd say most decisions can be boiled down to self interest, but i'd prefer to stay out of nit picky debates on that... as i find the time is wasted. You have a life, maybe kids, maybe a wife, girlfriend... have bills to pay? in a bit of debt? well most of us are.

what would get you to devout your life and risk your social stability? organizing and fundraising for the construction of a fusion power plant? unlikely... do you have the experience to carry something like that out? the charisma? etc.

anyways i think ya get my point. Society creates risk for the loss of social status which can be detrimental to quality of life... hence few people ever find a cause in which they feel strongly enough to risk nearly everything. so the answer is to change society and reduce your risk.. or encourage someone else to lead instead of you :)

doesn't life suck? HA!

[nightcleaner]

This has been an interesting discussion, and the heat of the argument shows that there is a serious concern afoot, on both sides. We will not get anywhere by focusing our intelligence on destroying each other.

I am not a fan of the neoconservatives, who seem to me to be seriously deluded in a made up world of half truths and outright lies, but greens who get frustrated and turn to black violence are no help either. We in the west need new thinking desperately, but those who propose new ideas are often subjected to riducule instead of invited to the table for open discussion. People who claim to be mentors use their position of influence to slap down anyone who does not follow their own pet theory. I must confess that I have largely given up hope for Western civilization. We have almost sucked this continent dry, and one only has to look at the fate of the ceders of Lebanon and the oaks of Spain and the wheatfields of Carthage to see where Western "wisdom" leads. It is not reasonable to think that we can suck the entire planet dry and then send some lucky few seeds into space to try to start again somewhere else.

Clearly we have to learn how to live here on Earth for the long term or the human experiment, in my view, is finished. Of course I hope I am wrong but the evidence even locally is overwhelming. We are drowning in our own wastes.

My conclusion from the evidence is that the Western military industrial machine is collapsing due to being grossly over built on weak foundations. This may take more decades to unfold, but the little shrieks from badly worn gears are everywhere. We are living way beyond our means and passing the bills on to our children. The rich and powerful do not see this because they are very well-insulated by their own constructions. But you cannot live in your castle forever. You have to get out sometime, and when you do, the starving peasents may be waiting for you in an unfriendly mood. I would tell them not to string us up, but they are not inclined to listen to me either.

This is not a very cheerful message. However I do still cherish a little flower of hope, for humanity, if not for the West. We might crack the space-time code, and find the zero-point energy. We might come to our senses and use our GDP for sustainable growth rather than for military excursions. (How many wind generators could we have built for the cost of the war in Iraq?) We might even convince the capitalists that their personal success is the cause of poverty and disease for the world's children. It is not ok to be wealthy when your neigbors are starving, and they will let you know their opinion in the matter whenever and however they get the opportunity. This is not part of a fiendish plot to overthow capitalism. It is merely human nature.

Well I started out here to give the following link, which shows that our (enemy, trading partner, competitor?), China, is thinking in terms of survival. I havn't seen these ideas discussed here. I would like to hear what our mentors think about these concepts. I have saved this next bit for last, in hopes to avoid riducule, but here it is. Marshall T. Savage, who seems to have dissappeared from view, proposed a millenial solution back in the last century, involving oceanic thermoelectric conductors, similar to what the Chinese are now attempting. As far as I can find out, he was totally ignored here. Maybe he moved to Beijing?

chroot, Russ, Integral, SelfAdjoint, I do want to thank you for being here. I have never had an opportunity to learn so much. This internet thing is an autodidacts paradise.

Thanks, and please visit:

http://www.china.ahk.de/gic/biznews/industries/environment/oceanic-energy.htm

nc

[TENYEARS]

REALITY CHECK CHILDREN AND ADULTS: All change is guided by physics and will always be and has never been anything but. The total sum of all the power is what causes the direction. While there are those who make hundreds of billions and that may be closer to the trillion mark on oil/gas production, DO YOU THINK IT WILL CHANGE? They will squash everything in plain site or anything which even smells like change which is detremental toward the simple pumping, processing and moving of that which they do not own and yet irresponsibley produce and use. TUCKER great simple movie of the reality of the entire world and not just one man attempting to make a better car. To change the world with such a powerful flow, you must outwit them and allow the industry to continue and yet bend the direction of the flow toward a more responsible end. All that is happening now and will happen is irrelevant foolishness. Like the media attention a stranded single whale gets because a camera happens to be on it. This is the nature of the world and of society. Real change must happen as a group, commited toward a common cause. In this case the cause is humanity, the people must be all the people on the planet. There are plenty of ideas, but what must happen is the joining of all the minds for a single cause with INTENSITY like the world you now know will slowly die and in less than 500 years, the cities will be made rubble and the infrastructure will crumble. This is a will be for many parts of the world which you now know. This for many can be a simple projection of the present path, but unfortunately, I have seen this. I will be. How bad it will be is up to you, your children, your childrens children and so on. The seed for change will start with you. You cannot stop a river with you body, but you can slowly reroute it, and then with continual effort, direct the river toward an end which is responsible. Imagine the work, but imagine the result! I do see the future kiddies and adults alike. I beg you to prove me wrong on all accounts for the rest of my life.

[selfAdjoint]

Well, of course you have seen it. But speaking for myself I agree 100% with your analysis, but I can't believe in your solution. There has never been that kind of unanimity in any population, except during direct attack by another population. The Russian and French revolutions were not about the uprising of the people but about complex happenings at the top which replaced one elite with another. THEN they mobilised the people, because in both cases they were under attack.

[4newton]

Nuclear power is the only method that will meet the power requirement of the world in the next 30 years.

The responsibility of any government is to meet the basic need of its people that can not be provided by the people themselves. Energy is the first priority. If you have energy all other needs may be produced from energy.

If conversion of all the energy that falls on the earth could be 100% converted for use it would take the area of Australia to produce the energy that is used today. All wind and solar energy is provided by the sun and requires conversion of the sun’s energy.

Fusion power would end up being much more dangerous than nuclear power. If you are able to make an efficient fusion generator you are also able to transmute other elements. Guess what could be produced at a very low cost of about 300 million. I don’t think it is a good idea to expand on this here.

You could convert any power plant to nuclear by placing the core 500 to 3000 feet under ground. This would prevent any major disaster, by accident or intent, and also prevent the easy removal of material.

Carter was trying to stop the world from going to a MOX economy. This point has been passed. If you can trust the French why aren’t we not reprocessing fuel. We are building a reprocessing plant to reprocess decommissioned warheads but the government said that it would not be used to reprocess waste from power plants. Why not?

[TENYEARS]

Well, of course you have seen it. But speaking for myself I agree 100% with your analysis, but I can't believe in your solution. There has never been that kind of unanimity in any population, except during direct attack by another population. The Russian and French revolutions were not about the uprising of the people but about complex happenings at the top which replaced one elite with another. THEN they mobilised the people, because in both cases they were under attack.

Yes, I agree with you, but sometimes, you must walk forward even though you know the odds are overwelming and you will indeed fail, for for one not to try is inconcievable. Sometimes even though it is all you can do, it is what you must do. Sometimes, in light of these odds in the spirit of the true human spiriit, a new seed is born from a witness of what it sees. It is stronger, it is clearer and it is what will carry us on. Until some time back, I thought there was no hope for what I had seen, for what wittles away at my soul, and yet one day I looked up at a tree and suddenly right there I saw it in a moment part of the future manifested in that tree right through it. No this was not a figurative future, it was what will be. There will be something left, but never as it was, and not as we know it now.

If the truth is acknowlged as real by science there is a chance that it will free some who may have not been freed. Sometimes it takes but one word. Sometimes it takes only knowing that it is said. Sometimes, it is hearing the words of another when those words are born of truth. In those moments, humans become free, free from what they believed was themselves to find themselves. This self, this thing is an experience of true humanness, not beyond but what is to it's truest sense. I tell you this from my experiences, it is more than you believe much more.

[Jenab]

But it seems that instead of using more energy and mental energy talking about these things it makes more sense to get the dependancy tyrants out of power.
That was a good idea, but it is too late to implement it. Most people failed to foresee that economic growth had limits, and those who did foresee it often didn't care about the consequences of those limits.

Capitalism was praised by businessmen (who were getting rich) and by philosophers (e.g. Ayn Rand) who dwelt tediously on the energy with which capitalism created prosperity, while trivializing its tendency to accrue that prosperity mostly to a few people and generally ignoring what must occur when the natural source of fuel for industry runs dry. Capitalism is energetic. But it is not healthy. Capitalism is a cancer: it grows like mad, kills a world, and dies.

We had, for a while, a large middle class whose comfort induced them to complacent shortsightedness and a willingness to believe whatever the primary beneficiaries of capitalism told them via newspapers and radio/television broadcasts. The mass of society became a herd unaccustomed in thinking carefully about the largest issues affecting them - or, perhaps, that's what it always was.

The "Sophomore Smart Guy" effect was rampant. People found it socially advantageous to affect the possession of great knowledge in casual debates with neighbors or coworkers. What usually happened is that someone would watch TV until he had memorized the latest summary of current events the media masters decided to air on that day, doped of course with copious amounts of politically correct dogma, and then go among his acquaintances and "enlighten" them with everything he had "learned." The silly monkeys actually gained admiration and social status in this way.

In a society in which they had no influence on government policy, it might not have mattered what the formerly large middle class believed about capitalism (or anything else). Unfortunately, they did. About 200 years ago, we lost our aristocratic governing systems, which were replaced with parliamentary democracies, for which the Representatives were selected by a vote of a restricted class of citizens. Over the years, the restrictions for voter qualification were loosened to the point where it became meaningless to speak of qualifications, while the men who were becoming leaders simultaneously devolved from those having a paternal concern for the well-being of their nations to those who cared about nothing except keeping the power and benefits of their positions.

There are two major flaws with this democratic system. First, and as opposed to an aristocratic system, a parliamentary democracy enables the obfuscation of accountability for unwise or improperly motivated laws. Whereas, say, a king may be a stupid or evil man, the people harmed by his laws at least know who to blame. But when parlimentary legislators are likewise motivated by greed, or unable through their ignorance to see what must be done, there is often no means by which the guilty or the incompetents can be identified.

Further, parliamentary democracy sharply discourages honesty among elected officials. Running a country properly is a complicated business involving questions of trade, engineering, science, labor, moral issues (justice), etc. No one person can learn all he must know to appreciate whether he should vote for or against a given proposed law, and if he should vote against it what alternative law might be better or whether any law is necessary. If he seeks expert help, he will be swarmed with covert lobbyists whose interests have been paid for by someone whose interests might be affected by the proposed law. The "experts" become merely a political resource utilized by consultations duly recorded by media reporters, and then the legislator goes off to flip a coin, or estimate where his personal interests lie, and votes accordingly. Not one of them will admit publicly that he knows nothing about the matter that the law would treat, and parlimentary legislation is at best a game of shooting in the dark. It can become a game of intentionally shooting at the wrong targets.

A king, likewise, can't know everything about running his country, but he doesn't try. He divides his country into estates and sets others to govern them as feudal lords. The king holds each noble accountable for failure. Major nobles might similarly charge lesser ones with the management of smaller tracts of land. Under normal circumstances, problems are usually local and remedied by a coordination among the nobility. This leaves the king, as the national government, free to restrict himself to smoothing over small perturbations in the social, political and economic spheres, often less through law than by merely expressing a wish or a request to one or several nobles. When a major perturbation arises, the king has the majority of nobles at his call, provided that he has refrained from doing any evil or foolish act that a substantial part of the nobility want to hold him accountable for. A king that pushes his luck the wrong way can lose his head.

A parlimentary government can persuade people - usually with a fair measure of success - that the laws which were given them were those that they had voted for. The falseness of that picture often goes unnoticed, particularly when the media carefully refrain from remarking on it. The fact is that the voters in a parliamentary democracy elect their legislators, not their laws, and that there is always the possibilty that a special interest group may hijack the predominent influence over the making of public policy by corrupt means, including bribery (of which campaign financing may be a form) and subversion (e.g., through control of the media). Once this has happened, the voters may vote however they please, but they will no longer have any major say in the forming and execution of government policy. The citizens may change the actors on the stage, but they may not change the script of the play.

Finally, the human lifespan is brief in relation to the march of events in history. That's why a good many of those who knew of the calamity to which fossil fuel dependency must someday lead failed to act with wise foresight. There is a sort of practical mindset that reasons that reality is restricted to one's own lifetime: the past is safely unalterable and the future isn't real. Because the individual's consciousness will cross its terminal event horizon at some point and will no longer be a part of this universe, he reasons that the post-mortem universe might as well be regarded as non-existent.

Because we can see only too clearly the consequences of a general faith in this self-centered philosophy, for people who live at a later time, we are justified in categorizing its adherents under the general label of "death forces." Agents of the death forces appear great and small: bankers, career politicians, students pursuing an MBA degree, stock market speculators, and corporate executives are frequently among them. Engineering students, astronomers and carpenters usually are not. Someone's career choices often reflect whether his purpose is to get rich while others do most of the work or whether one is willing that someone else get rich, provided that one may make substantial contributions - tools, knowledge, infrastructure, etc. - to other people.

The post-oil collapse of industrial civilization will kill perhaps nine billion people. But those who survive may, and probably had better, learn to eliminate from themselves the tendency for regarding the future, beyond their lifetimes, as unreal, or as having a lower "utility", than the present. Self-consciousness should be replaced by a national consciousness; national being "people related by birth." Nature spent millions of years perfecting tribal affinities for creatures like us, and it was a mistake to have engaged in the pretense that selfishness could better organize people.

Jerry Abbott

[4newton]

Jenab;

As with all people with your line of thought you first of all have no understanding of democracy or capitalism and second you have no real solutions to the real problems. Your solutions to all problems are to have an all-knowing elite that will solve all the problems.

All human establishments have problems. A quick check of history will tell you what works and what does not. The undisputed best form of government as indicated by results is the United States. When put in perspective the United States has very few real problems and under our form of government corrections are easy to make.

dependancy tyrants out of power

It is the obligation of the government to provide those things that only a government can. Any government that restricts or rations resources is a failure. It is an insult to the science community to think that problems of energy can not be solved. This is especially true when all the energy we need is already in our hands.

When I was young I could not understand how so many people in history could be so stupid to be against science and the industrial revolution. As we see people do not change very much. This mind set has gotten even worse so that today we turn or backs on science and deny new life as a solution for today’s problems.

It is interesting that you totally ignore the solutions I have posted. You are not interested in the problem or in solving the problem you are only interested in using problems for political purpose and power.

[selfAdjoint]

You say the empirical example of the US validates our form of government. But that's only a little over 200 years of data. When the Roman Empire was 200 years old it was going great. Likewise the Chinese Empire has stable dynasties over 200 years long. And what about the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan?

[juju]

If the staus quo is incapable of change, then it will rapidly decay. Our form of government is one of the best only because it allows itself to change when necessary.

juju

[selfAdjoint]

I hear you, and I am patriotic, but the last few years make me worry for my country(Bush &co., Enron, et al., the growing split between the working people's share of the income and the rich people's share, the influence of corporations on Congress, and so on).

[TENYEARS]

Simple systems last. The Roman empire was simple and yet became more complex. What hope do you think a society like the modern world has? Can't you see it? You don't need to see the future to project such things. The world as you know it can not last. It will implode upon it's own weight. That is why the american indian forfathers did not want to adopt new ways, because not only did they know the circle complete, but that all a human could be was within themselves and a simple relationship with their surroundings which was in actuality quite complex. When humans began to believe gold rushes is when we came to an end as human beings. This gold rush is believing someting outside yourself will give you what you really desire. The only hope is the truth and nothing but the truth. Even science proving such a thing will not give you what you need, for what you need is within yourself. Only then may you step outside yourself.

I have seen the future what appeared to be 500 years hence. It is not a pretty sight and yet we will exist. In our lifetimes you will see space veichles capable of landing on a roof tops and leaving again.

[juju]

Simple systems evolve to more complex ones due to the necessity of change.

It is simple. Change or die. Just that simple.

Remeber the revolutionary slogan. Change it or lose it.

It is that simple.

juju

[4newton]

You say the empirical example of the US validates our form of government. But that's only a little over 200 years of data. When the Roman Empire was 200 years old it was going great. Likewise the Chinese Empire has stable dynasties over 200 years long. And what about the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan?

There has never been a forum of government like ours that has so influenced the entire world in this short time. As long as we don’t turn away from the basic concept that freedom of man is above the power of man to give or take away our government will last indefinitely. The cat is out of the bag. Even if our country should fall we have made the map for all to follow. The nature of man has lead us here and will always bring us back.

[CharlesP]

The "too little oil for global warming" idea is nonsense. Human caused global warming is well underway and already causing significant dislocations of wildlife, and interfering with human economies.

[4newton]

If global warming is taking place as it seems then we should take steps to stop it. The only logical and easy step is to introduce reflective particles into the upper atmosphere. Requiring aircraft to distribute it as they fly around the world could easily do this. This way everything could continue the same.

There are many ways to solve problems. If you restrict yourself from the solutions of choice then you must take the default solution. The only solution that never works is trying to force people to change.

[Astronuc]

Uranium enrichment involves the creation of dangerously radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas, which several weeks ago leaked in such quantities from a plant in Illinois that entire neighborhoods were evacuated
at 3 a.m. from page 1 this thread

UF6 is not 'dangerously' but 'mildly' radioactive depending on enrichment. The issue is one of HF/F2 being produed when UF6 reacts with water either in the environment or in ones lungs. Incidentally, At atmospheric pressure (14.7 psia), UF6 is a solid below a temperature of 134°F (57°C). So most likely the HF was issue off-site. On-site they have to clean up uranyl fluoride (UO2F2).

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/uf6/propertiesuf6/index.cfm

[docbill]

USING THE ENVIRONMENT AS A TOOL IN AN ATTEMPT TO ATTACK CAPITALISM?


The problem with capitalism, as applied in the West is it is extremely short sighted. There is no value assigned to things like the long term health of the planet. Many people will even gladly give-up their own future for a better today. Case and point, how many people willingly smoke at a high cost today for immediate pleasure, even though they know eventually it will result in a horribly painful death years too soon.

One of the chief roles of the government is to look after long term interests. I don't know the solution to the global climate problem, but I do know it is not likely to come about from purely capitalistic means.

Case and point, consider even my own personal economics. I own a car that gets about 360 miles per tank, with a 12 gallon tank. Typically I own a car for at least 100000 miles of driving. That means over the lifetime I own the car I will burn approximately 3300 gallons of fuel. Now it turns out they sell hybrid cars of a simular configuration that get approximately 30% better milage. That means I could save almost 1100 gallons of fuel by making my next car a hybrid. However, the hybrid car costs about $6000 more when I compare it with a non-hybrid I consider equivalent. In addition, the hybrid may be more expensive over the life of the car for maintenance. So gasoline would have to reach $6/gallon before it wouldn't cost more money to buy the hybrid car.

However, I fully believe global warming is and will happen. I also believe the use of petroleum is responsible for the huge rates of cancer we see today. So if everyone would switch to hybrid cars I fully expect my son would live a longer and happier life. Now if I am willing to put money aside every week for his college education, why in the world won't I buy the hybrid car?

The reason is the "Tragedy of the Commons". This is a famous problem that happened with over grazing in common farmland as a result of each farmer looking out for best interest. For a single farmer to cut back on the number of animals grazing in the commons did no good. His family would simply go hungry, and someone else would use the space he didn't use in the commons. Likewise for the hybrid car, it does no good. The extra money I spend to get the hybrid car goes into somebody's pocket. Most likely part of it will be spent so they can have more recreational fun in a SUV. Consequently, even though I reduce my person usage, the overall usage will probably remain the same. My son will have no better of a future because of me purchasing a hybrid car, but he might have a better future if I instead donate the money for cancer research.

The government needs to step in. And say, well yes it is going to cost you more money, but you MUST use less fuel. And then provide enforcement to make that happen. Sometimes the enforcement can be a carrot, like a tax credit for buying a lower emissions vehicle, and sometimes a stick like not allowing auto manufactures to sell certain vehicles.

Bill

[Morbius]

The problem with capitalism, as applied in the West is it is extremely short sighted. There is no value assigned to things like the long term health of the planet. Many people will even gladly give-up their own future for a better today. Case and point, how many people willingly smoke at a high cost today for immediate pleasure, even though they know eventually it will result in a horribly painful death years too soon.

Bill,

If that's what they want to do - fully cognizant of the risks, and as long
as they don't infringe on others... why should anyone else step in?



One of the chief roles of the government is to look after long term interests. I don't know the solution to the global climate problem, but I do know it is not likely to come about from purely capitalistic means.


I don't see this role of government in either the Constitution
[ check out the Preamble ] or the Declaration of Independence.

It is the role of Government to govern the country in accordance with
the will of the electorate. If the citizenry / electorate wants the
Government to look after these long term interests - fine, the
Government can follow the will of the people.

However, lacking a mandate from the people - I don't see any
legitimacy in "Nanny Government"

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

[nseidm1]

Some oil must be saved to lube stuff up. Pun intended.

[scienceguy]

First of all, oil isn't the only thing that's being burned for fuel. There's forest fires, coal burning, etc, that take part in making way for glabal warming.

[Rileywwwnewpath4com]

A Wankel DKM doesn't need lubrication altho a very fine oil can be used. Global warming can be slowed and stopped in less than 5 years. Homes with their own mini-grid (wind/solar combo generation system) could cut residential usage to 15% of present levels in less than 2 years.

[theroyprocess]

We don't need nukes, coal or gas to make electricity. Mavemill units
could be also configured to make hydrogen fuel cells for worldwide
distribution to power remote electric generators, cars, heaters etc.
----------------------

Wavemill Technology
http://www.wavemill.com/technology.htm

The Wavemill® is a new, highly efficient technology that harnesses the immense, renewable energy contained in ocean waves. Its unique ability to extract and convert energy from both the rising and falling waves, as well as from surge forces - all without trade-offs - represents a technological breakthrough.

The Wavemill® is the first practical, high-efficiency wave energy converter capable of being factory produced as a cost-effective, off-the-shelf unit, rather than having to be built on site.
View Image


Significantly Higher Output Than Wind and Solar Technologies

Ocean wave energy is highly concentrated compared to other renewable sources, often offering 15-20 times more available energy per square meter than wind or solar. Because wave energy is highly concentrated wind energy, and because water density is much higher than that of air, the available energy from ocean waves is known to be many times greater than that of wind. For example, along the California coast, yearly averages show wave power as having a 17 times advantage in available energy per square metre. This advantage, at similar ratios, also holds true in the case of photovoltaic energy converters, more commonly known as solar panels.

No Direct or Upstream GHG's

Wave energy is both free and abundant. By taking advantage of this sustainable energy source, Wavemill® powered systems produce no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, thereby contributing to the reduction of global warming. This feature will also make larger Wavemill® installations very attractive to those brokering or trading in the emerging market for "carbon credits." Although this could mean lower acquisition costs for the buyer, thus leading to increased demand; it is not factored into WEC's current financial projections. Coupled with the opportunity to lower production and output costs, this key environmental benefit will make Wavemill® based systems highly attractive to a growing number of utilities, water resellers, developers, governments, NGO's, and entrepreneurs worldwide.

Free Energy Reduces Costs for a Variety of Processes

Because wave energy is free, the Wavemill® can reduce the production and output costs of various energy intensive processes. For example, Wavemill® systems can be used for seawater desalination, power generation, water purification or hybrid water/power applications. The production of clean hydrogen fuel by the electrolysis of seawater is also on the horizon.

The Wavemill® is designed to power a variety of energy intensive processes, and because wave energy is free, their associated production and output costs can be greatly reduced. These include the desalination of seawater to provide safe, potable freshwater; the production of electricity and hydraulic power; the purification of unsafe water; and in the future, the production of clean hydrogen fuel and oxygen from seawater by electrolysis. Hybrid systems combining these processes are also practical. These capabilities can be built into Wavemill® devices to provide integrated, turnkey systems or can be connected remotely.

In the case of seawater desalination, the cost of energy - which represents the largest single cost in this process - can now be eliminated or greatly reduced, thereby making safe, freshwater less expensive to produce at a time when global shortages continue to increase. In the growing, global market for innovative, practical and cost-effective solutions, the modular and scalable Wavemill® will address a broad range of market needs and applications.

More Flexible than Tidal Energy

The Wavemill® is NOT a tidal energy device. Unlike those site-specific installations, which require highly unique conditions, the Wavemill® is designed for broad based site suitability and simple installation. Respected studies and reports have stated that because of its global distribution and highly concentrated nature, wave energy represents a logical choice as the most suitable alternative to traditional energy sources - once practical conversion technology becomes available. The Wavemill® provides that practical solution.

Simplicity, Extreme Durability, and Cost Effectiveness

James Watt, whose inventions revolutionized the modern world, stated "Of all things, but proverbially so in mechanics, the supreme excellence is simplicity." The Wavemill's elegantly simple design, full scalability, and innovative approach to production, installation, servicing and security all embody this philosophy.

For example, the Enclosed Surge Wall (ESW) caisson incorporates numerous parts and features into a single, highly durable moulded component. A strategy of incorporating maximum simplicity, durability, flexibility and serviceability is applied in the design of all of the Wavemill's major components, sub-systems and options.

[selfAdjoint]

How much TOTAL energy can we get out of waves? What's the power rating? Can the coasts support the continent?

[theroyprocess]

selfadjoint,
Ask the folks at WAVEMILL. I am not associated with them. But I'm
sure they will answer your questions.