environment,energy,greenhouse,gas,carbon,dioxide,global,nuclear energy,clean energy,emissions,global climate change,environmental impacts, Nuclear Energy Can Save US: 2010

Nuclear Energy Can Save US--America�s 100 nukes equal four million barrels of oil per day.

Billions of lives and civilization itself may be at risk from the Global Warming & End of Cheap Oil, Crisis. Rising sea levels and rising oil prices could be the end of civilization as we know it. The problem is so huge that the most powerful answer, many nuclear plants, must be deployed. Currently, America‘s 100 nukes deliver the energy of four million barrels of oil per day. Wind and solar cannot do the job, and may delay the real answer too long. Still, all kinds of clean energy, plus conservation, plus reducing deforestation, will be needed to help the poor half of the world, and for civilization to survive through this century.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Most Likely Last Post

I am getting lazy, and I truly believe that the nuclear renaissance will proceed inexorably, worldwide. Regarding the climate issue of the last 6 posts; from reports now, the Sun is getting active again, and we may not get the reprieve from warming that seemed possible last year. Keep checking nsidc.com , particularly through the summer, arctic melt season.

The exchange below with Robert Sawyer, an acclaimed sci-fi writer, and Hugo/Nebula/Aurora winner, is the real subject of this post. The idea was derived from my March 31,2008 Post.

Robert Sawyer: I always enjoy your books, and sophisticated theories. Would you help a senior (83) with a simplistic thesis relating religion and evolution? I ran it by a priest, who said it made sense; by the Chair of Theology, Fordham University, not a Jesuit, who was neutral; and by the Vatican Astronomer, who did not respond. Could you tell me if the idea is at all new, or possibly trite? It occurred to me while writimg my blog, nuclearenergycansaveus.blogspot.com\, but was probably triggered by your book, "Calculating God". by B & B Uplift War books, and Hawking's comment, that "The Big Bang numbers seem to have been selected (to me, he meant designed) so that creatures like ourselves would appear".
God could have written the numbers, knowing that our planet (and others), suitable for life, circling a cozy star for energy, would come to be, without guidance. Stars with planets seem to be the norm (a growing astronomical consensus). However, didn't Hawking go too far to imply that life was also in the numbers? I believe that, a conscious, omnipotent, Creator would have had to create life, here and maybe gazillions of other worlds. God would know that the infinitely, Intelligent design of His RNA/DNA system, was inherently capable of evolving creatures (not needing Intelligent Design adjustments) in God's Image (my Catholic faith's belief). If God created life on many worlds, His random process of evolution could not possibly evolve any two identical species; but we would all be in God's Image, if God's Image is Intelligence. For one thing, Intelligence can contemplate God's existence. If Mind, even of a non-technical nature, capable of discourse with humans, should evolve in Earth's oceans or on land, they would also be creatures in God's Image. Some primates among chimps, bonomos, and orangs (close to humans in DNA). plus dogs and elephants, plus orcas and dolphins in the ocean have already passed the mirror recognition test; knowing that it is themselves that they see in a mirror held to their eye. Dick Shaw

Hi Dick: That sounds reasonable to me, or at least does not violate any logic, if you assume a Creator. Fascinating stuff. Bob Sawyer

Note: See complete discussion of evolution theory in

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Check climate on spaceweather, nsidc, NOAA.

The recent harsh winter in America (Ireland and England as well), does not mean that Global Warming is behind us. However, though this is logical, there may (just may) be something else happening, namely, a slightly cooler period of solar activity. Data is available online that we can watch daily, or yearly, for the rest of our lives. Then at some point, maybe in decades, the scientific community may a solid theory that we can all believe.
I wish that there was not so much fervor, and anger, around the subject. I believe that nuclear energy will do the job. Renewables should be part of the mix, but they are not quite ready for prime time or for all-in gambles. Spain has damaged its economy, maybe facing bankruptcy, because of a massive solar energy program, that was at the least, premature. China and India though, may save the world this century, with many hundreds of large nukes, and many thousands of wind farms, etc. that they are planning.
Spaceweather.com can be checked frequently to see it the current low level of sunspot action will continue, or in time, start ramping up again. 300 years ago, the Sunspot Minimum, named after a scientist, Maunder, lasted about 80 years, and was coincident with a so-called Little Ice Age when worldwide temperatures were 1-2F colder. Sunspot activity may not be the only culprit, and may instead be just a sign of low coronal mass ejections, as described in the 05/23/09 post below.
To me, the very best way to get some fix on climate is www.nsidc.com (National Snow and Ice Data Center of the University of Colorado). Look for Arctic Sea Ice News, click More, and two images come up; a satellite view of the arctic ice cap, and a graph of ice coverage, compared to normal coverage for the date and for several recent years. Both images are updated daily. The late summer graph, when the cap is at its smallest extent seems to be by far, the most informative. Last summer, traces for 2007, 2008 and 2009, were all shown, along with the baseline for a 25-year normal. These show that 2007 coverage was about 40% below normal (Al Gore was clearly right about the polar bears). However, 2008 and 2009 show a rebound of 1/3 less ice melt. Checking this daily, particularly during August, will give a quick snapshot of one fraction of the climate story. On the screen showing the satellite image and chart, go to Archive column on right, for the 09/01/09 issue. This is near the low point of the ice cap summer melt, and shows '07, '08, '09, traces.
Definitive data is provided by NOAA.com. This site gives exact, worldwide yearly average temperatures. 1998 was the hottest year on record, with later years to 2005 being slightly cooler. Unfortunately, the 75 or so, character website address in 01/15/09 post below only covers through 2005. I would like to know how to get more current data, even yearly, but haven't found it yet.