tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59182391351716353272024-03-05T11:55:39.131-05:00Nuclear Energy Can Save USAmerica's 100 nuke plants equal 4 million barrels of oil per dayshawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-809464942707210202012-09-18T18:24:00.001-04:002012-09-18T18:24:32.445-04:00shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-78975915933906410502010-06-16T09:50:00.020-04:002012-02-22T06:46:59.507-05:00Most Likely Last PostI 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".<br />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<br /><br />Hi Dick: That sounds reasonable to me, or at least does not violate any logic, if you assume a Creator. Fascinating stuff. Bob Sawyer<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Note: See complete discussion of evolution theory in<br />www.oldguyswisdom-ornot.blogspot.com.<br /></span></span></span>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-60122233978956731162010-03-21T06:51:00.011-04:002010-03-26T12:15:11.046-04:00Check climate on spaceweather, nsidc, NOAA.<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /></span></span></span>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-89817455406046200972009-07-11T11:45:00.010-04:002009-07-20T08:57:55.444-04:00The Arctic Ice Cap Melt Season Is On.Unfortunately for the polar bears, winter Arctic Ice Cap data in my May 23, 2009 post may have been exaggerated. More reliable looking (carefully specified), data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado shows that April 1, and May 1, 2009, ice cap coverage was only about 700,000 to 800,000 square-km (300,000 square-miles) more than the same dates in 2007 (lowest year of ice cap coverage). This is much less than(up only 6%, not 15%--this may just be an aberration of ocean currents, rather than evidence of lower solar energy) the 2,000,000 square-kilometers reported by some Canadian source. The Center says that the melt season is gaining steam. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. I will watch NSIDC closely next winter.<br />If a slightly cooler Sun does not really mitigate global warming from fossil fuels, then we still have to develop massive supplies of pollution-free energy, primarily from nuclear and wind farm plants. America’s 100, one-gig nukes, deliver energy equal to four million barrels of oil per day. Since the world currently uses 80 MBPD, oil energy is equal to 2000, one-gig nukes. Since oil energy is about 40% of world energy, world energy is equivalent to 5000, one-gig nukes. It is likely that with 300-400 each in China and India, 1000 or more will be built this century, but that will not be enough.<br />Many believe that wind turbines will be the best solution. It would work, but only if huge numbers of large turbines are built, and there may be a limiting factor. The Altamount Pass, CA, wind farm (frequently cited), has 5400 turbines. Many of these must be small, since the total rated energy only equals 62% of a one-gig nuke. Furthermore, the rated energy is only delivered for some percentage of any day due to wind variation (25% is often stated as the norm). Suppose that the pass has steadier wind, and delivers 33% of the time. 33% of 62% is about 20% of a one-gig nuke. It would take five times 5400, or 27,000, wind turbines with the same array of sizes as the Altamount Pass, wind farm to equal a one-gig nuke.<br />There are some serious problems with wind turbines; the blades kill many raptors and bats (a very useful species). However, I think that the Achilles Heel for wind energy may be cement for the concrete footings for the towers. Nukes also need lots of concrete (75,000 tons/plant), but my gut feeling is that a wind farm equal to a one-gig nuke would take 5, 10, or even more times this much. For 2500-kw turbines: 2500 into one million kw (one-gig nuke) equals 400 towers. With 33% wind, 1200 towers (three times 400) are needed. 1200 into 75,000 tons, allows only 65 tons per footing. To me, this seems incredibly light. Larger, 3600-kw towers are planned for New Jersey, in shallow water, off-shore for good wind. Underwater footings to support 30-foot diameter masts would have to be buried in the seafloor. Each might well take dozens and dozens of times more than 65 tons of concrete. (Does anyone have any data on this subject?) Furthermore, even now, with only a few thousands of towers constructed worldwide each year, production of cement, an energy-intensive industry, produces 4% of world CO2. Cement production for massive tower deployment may cause so much concurrent CO2, that the benefit of CO2 saved during years of operation, will be nowhere near what the industry hopes.shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-89118368286579339062009-05-23T17:57:00.004-04:002009-05-27T02:47:23.627-04:00Hints of a Cooler Earth from the Winter Just PassedA report from an unknown (to me) Canadian source says that the Arctic Ice Cap expanded by 2 million square kilometers (700,000 square-miles) more in this winter than in the average of the last three winters. What impact this will have on the Arctic summer, minimum area of the ice cap, is not known (but we will know in a few short months). In the summer of 2007, the ice reached the lowest coverage ever recorded. <br /><br />Per the National Geographic, the ice area at the end of summer for the last 28 years has been as follows (in million square-mile): 1980=3.01 / 1985=2.66 / 1990=2.39 / 1995=2.36 / 2000=2.43 / 2005=2.16 / 2007=1.67 / 2008 /1.81. In the 28 years, the end of summer ice has decreased by 40 %. This seems to show, without any doubt, that the Earth has been warming up. The culprit is most likely to be the CO2 from burning of fossil fuels. <br /><br />A new situation may be developing; that is, a cooler planet because of reduced solar heat. A theory, new to me, was discussed in my last post. This theory supposes that since there was a significant world cooling, the Little Ice Age 300 years ago (1615—1705), coincident with the Maunder Minimum period of very low sunspot activity, the current low incidence of sunspots may predict a new ice age. It is hard to imagine how sunspot activity could effect Earth weather, and many scientists scoff.<br /> <br />Now, I have theory. I have not seen it anywhere, but it could easily be circulating. Per Spaceweather.com, of March 17, 2009 (it can be checked on their archive), Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) from the Sun are more scarce than sunspots. “When the sun is active, we see several such CMEs on a daily basis. Now, the rate is one per month. That’s very little solar activity.” CMEs were only discovered about 1972, using a cronograph on the OSO 7, Orbiting Space Observatory. Each CME involves <br />billions of tons of ejected material. Maybe the low sunspot activity 300 years ago, was only a visible marker that the sun was experiencing a period of very low CMEs, as it is now. A cooler Earth could be at hand.<br /><br />PS: Check Twitter/ArcticSurvey. A British team (two men, one woman) attempted a 1000-km, three-month trek from Canada to the North Pole. They had to be airlifted out May 14, after 2.5 months, 460 KM. They must have met much more severe weather than expected. One phrase was, "Temperature is up to -25C so we will..."shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-87403534183890646552009-01-15T09:34:00.049-05:002009-03-15T07:51:03.638-04:00A Coming, Little Ice Age May Be PerceivedOver the last decade, I have become convinced (as most people are), that the Earth's atmosphere is warming dangerously; almost certainly from fossil fuel burning. Since last fall ('08) though, a theory, new to me, has been circulating. This theory says that a low incidence of sunspots on Sol's disc, means that the sun is cooling slightly. If true, lower sun temperatures could easily trump anything that we humans could do. The theory says that low sunspot activity 300 years ago was the actual cause of the "Little Ice Age" which occurred at that time. <br />Sunspot activity itself can be checked easily on spaceweather.com, which reports day by day on visible spots (as well as a daily archive back to 2000, auroras, meteor showers, passing asteroids, etc.), with each new spot identified by number. Normally sunspots average about 120 per year, with peak years of 450 or so, and minimum years of few spots, in an 11-year cycle. The last two years have been at the minimum point of the cycle, with only 30 spots in 2008; and only four spots in November, through January ('09). January's spots, #1010 & #1011, were very weak. This is not proof yet of anything, but if a correlation can be found with colder weather it will make for an interesting hobby for years. Several avenues are possible <br />The Weather Channel, TWC-TV; periodically reports running totals of record high, and record low, temperatures, as they occur randomly across America. For the eight years, through 2008, they report that record High/Low readings were 266,000 to 133,000 (by chance, 2.0 to 1). To me, this is proof positive of global warming. America, a large country in middle latitudes, should be a fair sample of the entire world. Depending on how they keep reporting this data, either as a new running total for 2009, or just as updates on the 8-year score; catching their figure every few months, or every quarter could show if a trend (2.0 to 1, ratio decreases over time),toward dropping world temperatures develops. This would be a clear sign that the Ice Age is coming. Accurate data will be supplied eventually by NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), but their site only shows data (slow temperature rise) through 2005; it will be more fun to guess before real data appears.<br />Many scientists say that the sunspot theory is not correct. However, if the sunspots stay rare, and world temperatures drop for years, it will become time for concern; there is no assurance that a drop will not exceed 2-degrees C, as in the Maunder Minimum, "Little Ice Age", 300 hundred years ago. Worry, worry.<br />CORRECTION: I believe there is an error in my logic above. With 6% of world population, we have 25% of the world's economy. 25% of CO2 over only 1.5% of the Earth's surface may cause the most intense fossil heating in the world (not a fair sample area). The US may be the last place where slight solar cooling would overcome fossil heating. Any warning of an Ice Age, must be from NOAA world temperatures (http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E17.9.pdf), (great data; check it out), but they will take several years to catch up with the current era of minimum sunspot activity.shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-72618282725951507892008-09-01T13:00:00.026-04:002008-09-11T13:04:05.548-04:00Rising Seas: Not the Only Danger of CO2.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">As discussed in the August, 15, 2008, post, our sun, the star Sol, may be entering a cooling phase, which in turn could be related to sunspot cycles. As a slightly variable star, Sol's cyclic changes in heat output will take centuries to determine. However, a possible few decades of cooling could give Earth some relief from rising seas, i.e., if cooling is not extreme (See also August 15 post). However, other dangers of CO2 can't be muted by a cold spell.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">30-50% of the world's CO2 is absorbed in the ocean, about the same also in plant life on land. Another serious danger of CO2, is that the ocean's acidity is increasing. Per LA Times articles, resurgence of ancient conditions, poisonous jellyfish, burning seaweeds, and toxic clouds from algae blooms are already being detected in many oceans. Important lakes, and rivers like the Hudson in New York, can be saved from pollution death by decades of effort, but what could be done for 140 million square miles of ocean if we let it get out of hand.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Luckily, efforts to fight deforestation (20-30% of CO2 emissions), are increasing. Per Project Earth show on the Discover channel, studies of large-scale forest reseeding from aircraft look practical. Also, discussions at Bali, for a treaty to replace Kyoto, seem headed toward financial incentives for indigenous people to save their forests. About time! Last year, the World Bank announced that they had G-8 support for a $250 million forest rescue fund, but they were not certain of investor response unless a new treaty covered the risks.</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;"> (Even so, $250 million is not much money for the work that is so critical.) If most of this CO2, say 20% of the world's emissions, could be averted, it would be like 900, one-gig nukes, replacing 900, one-gig, coal-burning plants.<br /></span></span> <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;"><br />PS: Sol is at the low-point in its 11-year sunspot cycle. Sunspots should not be frequent, but last month, August 2008, was the first, full-month in a century, which has passed without a single visible sunspot (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, satellite).</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" > Some experts think this may presage a cooler sun and cooler weather for Earth, but no one knows for certain.</span><br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-4804423801497708562008-08-15T18:27:00.022-04:002008-09-05T17:09:01.271-04:00Reprise: Will the Earth Get Hotter or Colder?<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Why is the Earth's weather an emotional, political subject? There are scientific facts that can be found, and that should be reported precisely, so that over decades the public can clearly see how the Earth is doing. Scientists of good will can debate what the facts mean, and over time the public will come to understand who is on the right track.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">The following statement was in my July 30, 2007, post: "Within the Little Ice Age, another drop of 3-degrees F, occurred worldwide for 70 years (1645-1715), due to lower Sun energy, in the so-called Maunder Minimum of sun spots. Sol is a slightly variable star. If such an event occurs now.....it would offset Global Warming to some extent." However, the world may get more than I bargained for. The WWW.dailygalaxy.com (2008/06), reported that there are currently no sunspots on the sun, and that the world cooled 0.7C, in one year through January 2008. Whether no sunspots means cooler sun is still debatable. This is the minimum period of the normal sunspot cycle, but some say “the sun looks dead” and some others are worried about how long it will continue.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">In Nature, 326:52, 1987, Ribes E., et al, reported that during the Maunder Minimum of sun spots, the sun’s angular diameter was larger, and rotation slower, probably leading to a cooler sun for 70 years. This would certainly trump any human influences.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Per a statement in Scientific American, the ocean level rises two millimeters each year. Why do we not take a million or so satellite readings each month, and report the actual mm rise, even to the second or third decimal place? Why don’t we average millions of temperatures worldwide and give the Earth’s temperature each month as well? Why don’t we also measure “The Solar Constant” (misnomer or not) by satellite, and tell each month whether the sun is giving more or less heat? The heat may or may not relate to sunspot activity, but in decades, we should know where we stand</span></span>.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Regardless of the climate, air pollution from fossil fuels, especially coal, will still be a problem, and fresh water will be critically scarce. Thousands of nukes, or millions of wind turbines, or some combination, will still be needed to get us through this century.</span><br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-51907895879509862532008-05-11T06:55:00.025-04:002008-05-21T07:48:28.697-04:00Jatropha Trees; Good; But.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Much is being made nowadays in newspapers, magazines, TV and websites about the remarkable jatropha tree. This oil bearing tree can produce good biofuel from marginal land. It does not need to use good farmland the way corn ethanol does. Furthermore, it is claimed that this tree can thrive in arid climates; it would therefore be drought resistant to a large extent. (This does not mean it couldn't do better with good soil and water.) This tree might be a better solar energy source than photovoltaic (pv) cells. Organic materials need no factory, just progressive growth by generations, from nursery to deployment. It would be labor-intensive, which could also be a good thing in poorer countries. </span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">There is good data about India's large-scale jatropha tree farming for their national railways in 2006. From CNBC-TV, India produced 350,000 tons of biofuel from 650,000 acres (1,000 square-miles) (no info given on land/water quality).</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Per google, one barrel oil is about 1/8 ton--India therefore produced 2,800,000 (2.8M) barrels on 1,000 square-miles in one year (BUT, this yearly crop is equaled by just 70 days average energy production from one, one-gig nuke; there is no free lunch with solar). Globally, if as much as one million square-miles (1000 times India's railway farm) suitable for jatropha could be planted (an enormous undertaking, but doable), 2,800,000,000 (2.8B) barrels of clean biofuel could be produced. This would be about 1/11 of the 30 billion barrels of current world oil consumption; 4% of the world's total current energy, since oil equals 40% of the world's energy supply. It would also be equivalent to about 200, one-gig nukes.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Subsistence farmers in poor countries, aided by government-supplied, seedlings and training, could hope for cash crops worth more than $2000/acre at current prices; even more money in coming years. African tree farms, possibly with millions of bored water wells, would be a natural benefit for rich European nations to use as Kyoto Treaty carbon offsets.<br />PS: Per Bloomburg.com, Japan, Italy and Spain face combined fines of as much as $33 billion (B) for failing to reduce emissions as promised in their agreement to the Kyoto Treaty. Just think how far tens of $billions would go toward starting a Green Revolution for Africa.<br /></span></span></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-54460240866684745072008-05-05T04:16:00.005-04:002008-09-07T13:51:08.778-04:00Is Ted Turner Right About Cannibalism?<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Ted Turner was widely quoted recently, saying that starvation and cannibalism is facing the Earth within a very few decades. Cannibalism is not humanity's normal response to starvation; there has been much starvation in our past, and even today here is massive silent starvation in the form of malnutrition among the world's poor. America's agricultural policies are largely to blame and should be changed; but that is another subject. </span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">However, Mr. Turner is probably alluding to runaway heating of the atmosphere and spreading droughts; much more serious even than the problem of rising sea levels. Climate change is surely happening, but not on the scale he threatens, unless he means an era of methane eruptions from frozen hydrates in tundra and oceans. Geologists believe that such eruptions occurred 55 million years ago, and raised atmospheric temperatures by as much as 14-degrees C. This era saw a large-scale die off of many species, our species could certainly not survive such a change.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently studying the frozen hydrates, which dwarf the</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">combined known oil and natural gas reserves, to see what conditions might cause large eruptions, or "burps" of methane. I would like to ask the ORNL if it would be possible to mitigate this very serious problem, by flaring-off the plumes, if they should happen to occur. It is certain that the plumes could be detected by satellite; it seems likely that flaring would cause orders of magnitude less heat than letting this potent greenhouse gas spread through the air for decades; could plumes be ignited by incendiary rockets, lasers, or some such?</span></span><br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-23315023560000553192008-03-31T06:16:00.015-04:002008-05-30T16:00:18.336-04:00Greens Get Silly, But Are Very Right At Times.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">To me, fighting construction of the Tellico Dam to save one unimportant species , the Snail Darter, was silly. Nature has tried and discarded gazillions of species over geologic time.</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">(To digress, it would be interesting to have a guess of how many different species there were in humanity's family tree, from the earliest forms of life to ourselves. My Christian educators never said that evolution could not have happened. Couldn't God have started life on earth, knowing that the Infinite Intelligent Design of the DNA molecule, would inevitably evolve creatures in God's image? God's Image could mean intelligence; i.e. intelligent creatures like ourselves capable of contemplating God's existence. The form that we would arrive at might not have mattered.)</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Back to the Greens. They were right about the hole in the ozone layer. With that heads-up, the world is in process of trying to stem the problem. Couldn't loss of the ozone have forced us to live some form of nocturnal life, since sunlight would become deadly?</span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Likewise, I am firmly convinced that they are right about climate change, and the very serious consequences future generations will face. However, they then get all ideological and fight the hard-headed answer, nuclear energy. Since it is so difficult to get everyone moving in the same direction, I believe that diffused (weak) solutions, from conservation, efficiency, and better forestry, to solar, wind and biofuels will take too long to work. The massive, concentrated energy of nuclear plants is the best chance that humanity has for survival.</span></span></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-26061911168618089022008-03-23T09:51:00.003-04:002008-03-23T13:58:22.512-04:00One Nuclear Kilowatt Equals Five of Solar<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">As a senior, concerned for humanity's very survival, who thinks that nuclear is the only clear answer, I would still be delighted to see 100,000 square-miles of pv cells, and thousands of concentrated solar energy plants in our future. However, there is not enough manufacturing capability in the world to produce such an immense array of structures this century, not even in several centuries beyond. This huge quantity would be needed because solar energy is so weakly diffused. In 12 hours of daylight, a pv cell can only accumulate 4, or at most 5, hours of sunlight for rated output. A nuke delivers rated energy more than 22 hours of the day, 95% of the hours of every year.</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Solar enthusiasts make the most of the situation, by saying that a solar cell produces the energy during the heat of the day when it is most needed for air conditioning. This is only a small percentage of the electric energy a household needs. (NOTE: It is my belief that by 20-30 years from now, all air conditioning may well be outlawed; people will be able to survive without air conditioning.)</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Other proponents point to houses constructed by experts, that have every possible detail of shape, materials, insulation, heat pumps, etc. in the design. Such houses can be energy neutral, or better. However, America's 300 million people, possibly 75 million households, are not likely to find more than a million with enough enthusiasm and resources to make this a practical part of the energy solution. Government programs can help, but only as a percentage play; unless climate change becomes so serious that everyone must sacrifice and join the fight. If we wait too long to see if to see if solar energy will work, this enlightenment may come too late. The massive potential of nuclear energy would give a much more certain future.</span></span><br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-58473194703860942242008-03-11T09:05:00.009-04:002008-05-09T09:52:25.898-04:00Scary Climate Modes: Universe Today Report (Part Three)<div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">The so-called Greenhouse (GH) Effect is not similar to that in greenhouses for flowers. The real GH however, is in fact, essential to all organic life on Earth. The partial blanketing of Earth by water vapor, CO2 and other gases keeps our atmosphere near +15-degrees C (above freezing), rather than the minus 15-degrees C (a frozen planet), that it would otherwise be. Relative to life, CO2 plays a zero-sum game. Plants absorb CO2, helping them to grow with the C (carbon), and giving off the O (oxygen) . Plants then take back the O, combine it with C, to emit CO2 when they die and decay, or are burned. Higher up the food chain to animals, and humans, all other life operates the same way. This interchange is, and has been for millenia, in equilibrium; but in modern times the system has changed. Fossil-fuel burning creates excess CO2, deforestation (slash and burn) adds 30% more. Rich and poor nations</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;"> therefore each have there own fronts on which to fight the anti-GH war. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.</span></span><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;"><br />Some respondents to the UT report, mentioned that humans and animals exhale CO2. Though that is right, its simply part of the life/CO2 equilibrium. However, there is a more dangerous gas, methane, that results from eructation (burping) and flatulence from cows, sheep and other ruminants. They can eat cellulosic food like grass, and digest it with unique microbes, producing the methane. Methane is only 6-7% of GH gas but stays longer in the air and is more efficient at increasing heat than CO2. Seemingly, there is no way to mitigate this gas, so we must do what we can about CO2; build thousands of nukes, and millions upon millions of wind turbines. </span></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;"><br />Some respondents acted as though the GH is ideological, especially because of Al Gore's climate proposals. He is a good man, but some seem to say there is no problem, simply because Al says that there is. This is as silly as extremists of the opposite stripe, who say that there must be skeletons of LGM at Roswell, because the USAF says there are none</span></span>.<br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-71107691779952181692008-03-05T12:58:00.004-05:002008-03-07T17:37:04.874-05:00Scary Climate Modes: Universe Today Report (Part Two)<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >Several comments to the climate report brought up good subjects.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >One person said that sea levels had risen and fallen 30-feet, from time to time in the past. These were likely minor cycles, within the thousands-year-long Ice Age histories. My environmental bible, National Geographic, says that Ice Ages are probably caused by cyclical changes in the Earth's oval orbit around Sol. From the height of the last ice caps, 18,000 years ago, the oceans have risen 360 feet. Since 360 feet is 1/15 of a mile, about 11 million cubic-miles of ice must have melted, spreading 10MCM of water over Earth's 140,000,000 square-miles of ocean.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >The remaining ice in Greenland (which is melting more rapidly each year) has the potential to raise sea levels by 20-22 feet. The West Antarctic ice shelf contains slightly more ice; enough for an additional 24-foot rise. This shelf has disappeared several times in geologic history; the last time being 600,000 years ago, so experts are clearly worried about its stability. The East Antarctic ice cap is even more massive, and its melting could raise levels more than 200 feet. This is not a worry to experts, since this ice cap has been stable for 15 millions years.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;" >Another comment was about Sol, our Sun. Sol is a variable star, but just slightly; its output changes only slowly over long periods. During 70 years, near the middle of the Little Ice Age (1645-1715), Earth's temperature dropped an additional 3-degrees F, due to lower energy output from Sol. Something like this, right now, would give humanity time to get its clean energy act together, but that can't be estimated because long-term data is not yet available. However, Sol's energy can be measured quite closely. From 1955 to 2000, Earth's oceans have warmed by 0.7-degrees F, but Sol's energy output has increased less than one-tenth of one-percent, not near enough to cause the warming (Scripps Institute of Oceanography).</span></span><br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-67420932903452188722008-02-28T14:48:00.002-05:002008-02-28T15:12:16.836-05:00Scary Climate Modes; Universe Today Report (Part One)<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family: verdana;">A recent post on Universe Today quoted scientists who are worried about two special aspects of the Earth's climate changes. Computer models show that no reduction in CO2 emissions, except to zero, will stop the Earth's climate from heating. Climate scientists also worry about the "tipping point" problem; runaway processes that could occur, that cannot be reversed. (See my Feb. 4, 2008 post on the same subject.)</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family: verdana;">For the computer models, the old, Greek philosopher Xenophon may have been onto something, when he proposed that you cannot walk across a field. To do so, you have to walk halfway, then half of the remainder, then half again, ad infinitum; and you can never get there. Good silly fun, but just suppose that it relates to what the computer models are finding. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family: verdana;">A very good book on Earth's geologic history, Stepping Stones, by S. Drury (1999), said that in 1997, the CO2 emissions were about 30 billion tons. Furthermore, one half of the CO2 is sequestered in the ocean as calcium carbonate, in the rain of shellfish exoskeletons to the ocean floor. If we could cut CO2 in half to 15 billions tons, we would seem to be home free; 15 billion tons could be sequestered. However, according to theory, the ocean would still only sequester one-half, or 7.5 billions tons, and so on, and so on. </span></span> <br /></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-288175390570516952008-02-24T12:01:00.009-05:002008-03-07T10:28:16.808-05:00America's 100 Tiny Nuclear Plants<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">America's 100 tiny nukes produce energy equal to 4 million barrels of oil per day (4MBPD) (1.5BBPY). This fact doesn't seem to impress anyone; I still cannot understand why.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Per Google, 250,000 deadweight-ton VLCC's (supertankers) carry two million (2,000,000) barrels of oil. These ships are near 1000-feet long, 150-feet wide, with 60-feet draft. It would take 750 of these behemoths to import the 1.5BBPY that would equal the energy from America's 100 tiny nuclear plants. Such a fleet, aligned end-to-end, at five ships per mile, would stretch 150 miles. This is power almost beyond words; but is just 2% of the world's energy generation.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-family:verdana;">Per the EIA (eia-doe-gov) spokesperson at the Bali Climate Conference, the world needs to produce 50% more energy by 2030. Also, to avoid the worst problems, 19/42 of 2030 energy must be from zero-CO2 sources, therefore giving 15% less CO2 than right now. Since the world's fossil (oil, coal, gas) energy now is equivalent to 200MBPD, 75BBPY, 7,500 miles of VLCC's, 50% more energy would take 11,625 miles of supertankers. Since 19/42 of this total must be clean energy, the energy from 5,000 miles of supertankers would have to be eliminated. At 100 nukes per 150 miles, this would equal 3300 more, one-gig nukes; obviously impossible to build by 2030. All other clean energy sources must be developed with urgency, even frenzy, if this goal is to be met. Anyone who thinks it would be easy is flat-out wrong.<br />PS: Currently, worldwide, about 450 nukes of various sizes, produce energy of 350, one-gig plants. This is 7% of total world energy production, oil equivalent of 14MBPD (better than Saudi Arabia), versus 84MBPD of oil consumed. Also equal to 500 miles of supertankers.<br />PPS: Our 100 plants save 150 miles of supertankers, equal to import costs of $150 billion per year for $100 oil, $300 billion per year of $200 oil, etc.; prices will fluctuate, but inevitably go higher, decade by decade. Each 100 new nukes will save equal $ imports each year.<br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span> </div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-27920658828844961242008-02-02T09:33:00.000-05:002008-02-02T10:24:23.429-05:00Negative and Positive, Energy/Climate Feedbacks<div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>A negative feedback mechanism could be a silver lining to a bad process, that reverses the damage automatically. Naively, I thought that the disappearance of oil might have this effect. As oil is used up, the world will have to substitute for its loss with clean nuclear and wind energy, and oil will not be pouring CO2 into the air. However, a recent History (HIS) channel program, shot down this hope. Their take is that oil is primarily responsible for doubling the atmospheric CO2 from the level before the Industrial Revolution. Also, the oil remaining would easily cause another equal increase, which could be catastrophic. </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Even worse, are the positive climate feedbacks scientists are talking about now. As the air heats, forest fires burn more frequently, and fiercely, which heats the air more. As floe ice melts in the arctic, less of the Sun's energy reflects into space, and is instead absorbed by the water. As areas of frozen tundra thaw, methane hydrates percolate into the air, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>This leads to the idea of a "tipping point". There is a slim, but real, danger, that a point may be reached where no amount of nuclear and wind energy can stop the feedbacks. Also, rising sea levels may not be the most serious problem. Per the History channel program, in past geologic times, atmospheric CO2 several times higher than current levels produced a Venus-like Earth. If the world does not press nuclear and wind energy, right now, we will be playing with fire.</strong></span> </div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-44104788387543380162008-01-16T10:39:00.000-05:002008-01-20T16:54:50.859-05:00Bottlenecks to the Coming Nuclear Renaissance<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>The world is ready for nuclear energy, to prevent climate change; America's NRC expects 30 applications for plant licenses within the next few years; 70 nations have announced interest in nuclear energy; a Global Nuclear Uranium Partnership is in the works; the US has let contracts to study reprocessing of spent nuke fuel (which is not waste); both China and India each seem poised to build 300, one-gig nukes during this century; and uranium mine production is rising everywhere; but can all the needed plants be built and staffed? All countries must rely on the same worldwide resources for engineers, and specialized factories. </strong></span></div><p align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>There are at least three potential bottlenecks for deployment of enough plants to save our world economy and civilization itself--concrete, staffing and ultralarge forgings for the reactor vessels. Reactor containment structures will have to compete for concrete with the footings for millions of wind turbines. Concrete, currently in short supply, can probably ramp up. However, this will add to emissions; concrete production causes 4% of the world's CO2 right now. Nuclear staffing will be a race of long lead times for plants vs. retirement of industry old timers. </strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>The most critical looming shortage is massive forgings for reactor vessels; and The Japan Steel Company, is the only one in the world that can do this work. Since 31 nuke plants are in the worldwide pipeline now, and Japan Steel has a 3.5 year backlog; will they be able to handle demand from 70 nations in coming decades? Last month, two American companies announced that they had placed orders for vessels even though they do not yet have licenses; a gamble they felt was necessary. Its past time, for some American company like GE, or foreign facility such as ThyssenKrupp to see the enormous business potential, and build a second plant for the world--before it is too late.</strong></span></p>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-14362563657900175862007-12-20T11:14:00.000-05:002008-01-03T06:54:55.781-05:00Proceedings of Bali Climate Conference (Part Two)<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Conference extremists want US to pay reparations for emissions, which is totally unfair. America took no deliberate action to cause harm, but will do its part, in cutting fossil fuel. Other nations however, must control deforestation; likely 1/3 of total CO2 emissions.<br /><br /></strong></span><span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;">CO2 is most directly related to burning of fossil fuels, and America consumed 25% of the world's total; namely 80Q of the world's 310Q fossil fuels in 1990; and will consume estimated 22%, 130Q of world's 600Q total fossil fuels in 2030.<br /><br />A goal for emissions by 2030 to equal the 1990 level, would take the following clean energy (or equiv.):<br />US 130Q-80Q=50Q (equivalent to 8.5 billion barrels of oil) = 570, one-gig, nukes or 1.15 million, one-meg, wind turbines; or combination of these two clean sources.<br />World 600Q-310Q=290Q (equivalent to 48 billion barrels of oil) = 3200, one-gig nukes or 6.4 million, one-meg wind turbines; or combination.<br />NOTES: 1. All energy data from eia.doe.gov 2. One billion barrels oil=6Q, since US 7.5 billon barrels equal 42Q (2005)<br /><br />A goal for 2050 would be more difficult to achieve, since oil may well be gone and additional clean energy will be needed to compensate. Antinuclear activists who closed down nuclear energy because of a few minor events, are the real villains of the coming climate and oil crisis. Chernobyl was not serious, compared to the Bhopal, India, chemical plant leak (thousands dead, and twice as many blinded and maimed), and Three-Mile Island problem was nothing at all. If the world had 2000, one-gig nukes right now, with the capability to ramp up to producing dozens more each year, there wouldn't be anything to even discuss</span>.</strong></span></span></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-56092587228454590372007-12-18T08:49:00.000-05:002007-12-19T12:49:43.576-05:00Proceedings of Bali Climate Conference (Part One)<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Two overriding ideas have come from the Bali Conference. Many of the 10,000 delegates, in particular those from Europe, blame America for all emissions problems, and think that they will get policies they like when the Bush administration is over. They ignore more important facts of history. The world, Europe especially, owes plenty to America, and all of its administrations for sacrifices to bring peace in two world wars, and two Asiatic wars; for huge balance of trade deficits that amount to nothing less than wealth transfers to the rest of the world; and for $trillions in foreign aid.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>No one can predict in detail how the future will play out, least of all government planners. This was seen clearly in the problems of rigid Soviet economics, versus the thriving free market countries at the end of last century. </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Fusion energy might arrive and solve all problems; but it always seems to be 50 to 100 years away. Barring that, this century's problems seem sure to center on energy. It will be difficult to convince any American administration, and also be counterproductive, for America to be rigidly constrained. If the end of cheap oil happens as a real crisis, free market capitalist countries, led by America stand the best chance of handling it. At some point, it may be right for America to promise steep emissions cuts, backed by its full faith and credit, with or without rigid numbers.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Already several nations face Kyoto Treaty fines up to $30 billion because they will miss the goals they promised. One negotiator said it had been hard to see how difficult the job would be; i.e., they did not see what they were getting into. For America's enormously complex economy, deciding numbers that can be met would be next to impossible.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">Bali posts, Parts two and three, will consider emission transparency, and aid to poor nations. Aid programs will be easy to sell, because America is always generous</span>. </strong></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-58708420438324499182007-12-14T10:26:00.000-05:002007-12-19T12:52:10.871-05:00Nuclear Subsidies; Tiny Vs. Renewable's.<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>A story in the Hawaii Reporter (</strong></span><a href="http://www.hawaiireporter.com/"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>http://www.hawaiireporter.com/</strong></span></a><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">), by Michael. R. Fox, Ph.D, describes the US energy subsidy program in the clearest manner that I have ever seen. Some critics have claimed that the $50 billion Nuclear Loan Guarantee is excessive. (My take; this is ridiculous. In the past there were some shoddy nuke programs, but transparency will guarantee that will not happen again; it is most likely that not a single $billion will have to be spent.)<br />On the other hand, Mr. Fox, with 40 years in energy, plus University teaching, says that the subsidies for renewables have been ongoing for three decades, with little to show. Now, there is a 0.52 per gallon subsidy on ethanol, which has only 2/3 the energy of gas (data from another source). If nukes received compensation for clean energy delivered, that was equivalent to the ethanol subsidy, one-gig nukes, which produce one million kilowatts each instant, and one million kwh each hour, would be paid a subsidy of $22,000 for every hour of operation.<br />The cost to build nuclear plants is wildly exaggerated by antinuke activists. Costs are also artificially inflated by government overregulation. In the early 70's many US plants were built for $100,000,000. Some of these were probably slapdash, but plants could be built quite safely now for a few $billion, under current strict supervision. Japan builds for $1.7 billion, and China, probably for less.<br />As for strict supervision, it is unfortunately too strict, and intrusive. Sometimes, changes are made in designs after construction starts. Then, instead of simple design revisions by software, concrete, rebar, cables, etc. have to be ripped out causing huge overruns. Also, the paperwork for construction is excessive. In one case studied, 44,000,000 pages of documents were produced, almost 2/3 of a ton per day. The nuclear renaissance which is starting in America, needs more common sense supervision than this for success.</span><br /></div></strong>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-79221269632052535952007-12-13T12:04:00.000-05:002007-12-13T13:05:11.443-05:00Bali Climate Change Conference Report<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Among the first issues being discussed at the Bali conference on climate change, is whether rich countries owe reparations to poor ones for climate problems caused by burning of fossil fuels. It seems to me this is a moral obligation that should be accepted.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>However, for America, there are good reasons why it should be given some slack; even decades worth. It would not be good for the world if America's might was hobbled by restrictions on its industries. Starting after WWII, America has created the modern world economy. While some economic excesses are a big part of the problem, the available capital and industrial strength that the world now enjoys, is the only reason to hope that the problem may eventually be solved. After WWII, America spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Europe, including the devastated nation of Germany. Also, rather than destroying Japan with reparations, America led them with trade (plus their ingenuity and energy) to where Japan is the world's third economy, and a real economic competitor. No one can call this imperialism.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>In more recent decades, trade with America, Europe, and Japan, has helped development of China and India. They should also be given some slack; if their economies succeed, then one-third of the world's population will be supported. </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;">In coming decades, the industrial might of the world must focus on construction of nuclear and wind energy plants; the only solutions visible right now. 5000, one-gig nukes, AND 12 to 15 million, one-meg wind turbines, plus car and appliance efficiency, controlled forestry, and biofuels (from anything except food) might pull the world through.</span> </strong></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-23274569819120658022007-12-04T08:06:00.000-05:002007-12-05T15:51:06.213-05:00Insanity-The Only Word That Fits<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>A recent report, at </strong></span><a href="http://www.townhallmail.com/raslnam_thukkjkj.html"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>www.townhallmail.com/raslnam_thukkjkj.html</strong></span></a><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>, says that corn ethanol used 6% of the US 2000 corn crop, 20% last year, and about one-quarter this year. Furthermore, congress mandates 7.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2012 (no crop % estimate), and 15 billion gallons by 2022 (i.e. 36 billion gallons ethanol, with 21 billion from scrap stock such as saw grass). (Aside-saw grass technology is now yet proven, but is infinitely better than food as a feedstock. The sacrificed food will not just be corn, but includes other foods that will be left unplanted, crowded out by the corn acreage.)</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>The Org. for Economic Co-operation and Development says that rising food prices will threaten the nutrition and health of poor people worldwide, and that ethanol production causes greater environmental damage than fossil fuels . A Nobel Laureate, Paul Crutzen concurs; saying nitrous oxide from ethanol causes an increase in greenhouse emissions. Even worse, a Cornell </strong></span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>professor, David Pimentel, computes that from start to finish, growing and processing the corn </strong></span><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>requires 1700 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol. This is obviously a greater strain on the Earth, than even coal, which is simply dug up, moved, and burned in a power plant. </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>15 billion gallons of ethanol, equal to about 400 million barrels, is less than 20 days of US oil consumption, and could be produced more sanely by 25, one-gig nukes.</strong></span> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>PS: A United Nations spokesman said (10/29/07), that using arable land to grow crops for biofuels is a Crime Against Humanity. </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>PPS: I believe corn ethanol craze will end before five, or at the most ten, years from now.</strong></span></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-8229011237914479002007-11-28T06:32:00.000-05:002007-11-28T08:05:02.491-05:00Solar Energy Just Will Not Do (Part Three)<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>As discussed in Part Two of Solar posts, retail type solar energy installations (home-mounted) do not s seem to be a viable part of the Climate Change fight. Besides cost, esthetics have to be considered; remember the anger at roof-mounted TV antennas years ago. Also, "rebound" is likely to happen. A report last year said that several studies showed only 60% (my memory) of expected results were realized because of rebound; e.g., after saving, a person may then make his next car an SUV instead of a hybrid. Last, every transformation of energy causes a bit of energy loss; grid-linked systems lose a bit both times, sending and receiving energy to a public utility, the energy wholesaler. </strong></span></div><p align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plants are more likely to work, primarily because they are wholesalers with inherent benefits. However, even here the cost, and scale of manufacturing that they require may be a drawback. Per eia.doe.gov, CSP's, or thermal systems are ten times as prevalent worldwide, as PV arrays.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Getting a handle on the cost of CSP's is a problem. One recent report bragged that an area of 92 by 92 miles could supply as much energy as the world now produces. This is not new; call it 100 by 100 miles, or 10,000 square-miles, 1/300 of continental US, and the sunlight received is 12 times the current total world energy (See Part One, Solar post). The report did not say how they would get 8% efficiency to create the energy, nor how much it would cost to cover 10,000 square-miles with mirrors separated so as not to mask each others sun, and for the mirrors to be precision manufactured structures, not just millions of frame, row houses. Without such data, the real value of these plants cannot be estimated.</strong></span></p>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5918239135171635327.post-1505207640921974842007-11-25T07:53:00.000-05:002007-11-26T15:19:27.799-05:00Solar Energy Just Will Not Do (Part Two)<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:85%;"><strong>Even though, at ground level, America receives 3700 times as much solar energy as the 100Q of energy we produce from all sources (See Solar, Part One), solar energy cannot solve the Climate Change crisis that the Earth faces. Massively-concentrated, energy sources like nuclear plants, or strongly-concentrated, sources like wind turbines are the only available solutions.<br />As described in Part One, America's 3,000,000 square-miles receive 11PKWH (11 X 10 to 15th kilowatt-hours) of solar energy each year. Each square-mile receives four-billion KWH per year. A one-gig, nuke (one-million KW), operating 90% (about 7000 hours) of the year, "produces" seven-billion KWH; 1.6 times as much as each square mile, of land or solar cells, can "receive". Since 15% efficient PV cells only deliver one-sixth as much electricity as the energy received, one square-mile of cells only gives 0.65 billion KWH per year. One, one-gig nuke can produce as much electricity as 10.6 square-miles of PV cells (265,000,000 one-square-foot cells).</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">A well-detailed report (<a href="http://linas.org/theory/solar-electric.html">http://linas.org/theory/solar-electric.html</a>) docments: at average peak output of 10-watts per square-foot, 100 square-feet solar cells give one kilowatt; using battery-bank, or grid-tied systems; 168 square-feet; gives 1.92 KW, 8.8 KWH/day; in Austin, Texas; with average 5-hours/day sun; gives 3300 KWH per year. PV cells, $5 per watt; other parts, plus utility hook-up give total cost of $10 per watt, or $20,000 for 2000-watt system. To amortize this versus Texas electric costs, takes decades. Costs must come down greatly for widespread acceptance.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;">My Take: To equal a one-gig nuke, two million households must be able to afford $20,000 systems, yet still be interested in saving a small amount on their electric bills. Also, the $40 billion to build these systems could pay for ten, $4 billion nukes instead. </span></strong></div>shawrichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13751865929572813507noreply@blogger.com2