Don Libby As long as we say "there is no fusion energy" there will be no fusion energy. I am trying to encourage a program similar to the Apollo Program for the development of fusion. ITER is being built in France to demonstrate D+T fusion. Unfortunately, it is planned as simply another physics experiment not as a pilot energy plant. Several groups are working on laser induced pellet fusion and I know of two groups working on the B+P reaction. We need to ramp up these efforts with money and incentives. The world energy market is about $8 to $10 trillion per year. If we would spend 0.33% (~50 billion) per year on fusion it could be a reality in 10 years and fusion along with renewables could replace all combustion of fossil fuels by 2050. Read Sir David King "Fast forward to Fusion" in New Scientist April 10 2004.
As far as fission is concerned we will simply have to differ. When I look at the threat from waste, for which no fully satisfactory disposal method has been presented, the potential for weapons proliferation, and the limited a supply of uranium I find fission unsatisfactory. Breeder reactors could increase the life time of a fission source but with a very large increase in the high level waste and much easier access to fissile materials for bombs. Cesare Marchetti is an old friend and I have told him personally that he is nuts for publishing his ten to the twelfth. We do not need to encourage reproduction of humanity. We may be nearing the carrying capacity of the current earth as you are probably aware grain reserves are down to less than a year and various factors are combining to force up the price of food. The problem with all these efforts to come up with some kind of economic equation to justify action is the REAL complexity of the problem. There are a group of justifications for ending the combustion of fossil fuels, each with different drivers to ever product any computer type model. The reasons I see as pivotal are: Fossil fuels are limited and at current and projected use rates Liquid fuels will be exhausted this century, thus the need for a replacement. The chemicals in fossil fuels are extreme valuable as feed stocks for plastic, rubber, fibers and pharmaceuticals Currently the United States, Japan, Europe all depend for oil supplies from people who occasionally take pleasure in harming us. Carbon Dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is effecting the climate, probably in undesirable ways. Stitching from liquid fuels to fuels from coal will increase the life time of fossil energy with a much greater threat from carbon dioxide. Sequesterization of carbon dioxide is a terrible idea. It is simply a way to hide the threat from us today, and pass it on to some unknown generation in the future. If renewable energy sources are harvested at high levels they will also cause damage to the environment. As examples examine the damage caused by some of the large dam projects, from Aswan to the Three Gorges. Laurence Williams Chief Scientist (Retired) Lockheed Martin Ordnance Systems Phone 330 829 2963 Web www.endtoglobalwarming.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Libby Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Global Change: 2467] Re: Cost/benefit of human extinction Larry, I have two comments. First, there is no fusion energy, so RFH is not possible at this time, sorry. Coal and biomass pyro-processing would be your hydrogen sources prior to 2050. On the other hand, there is fission energy, and we do need to double it by 2050. Second, I believe you are referring to the IIASA publication "On 10^12: A Check on Earth Carrying Capacity for Man" by Cesare Marchetti, 1978. It is not a "plan", it is merely an essay on the physical possibility to refute the notion that Earth has a fixed carrying capacity for humans. The first sentence reads "This paper is obviously not meant as a proposal for tomorrow's action." Whether it is possible is a separate question from whether it is desirable. -dl ----- Original Message ----- From: "larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change To: "globalchange" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 11:49 PM Subject: [Global Change: 2466] Re: Cost/benefit of human extinction Robert Constanza has examined related economic scenarios and published in science. You might like to contact him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This group has extensive access to good predictions about the changes in the climate. http://www.climateprediction.net/download/license.php There is a Professor from the International Institute for Systems Analysis that claims he has a plan for the earth to suppport one trillion people. I think he is nutz, and even if he is not nutz I do not think many of us would like to live in his world. I have a reference to his program but at the monent I am unable to locate it. If anyone is interested I will make the effort to find it. I believe that if we developed the RFH energy system we could end the threat from the worst of global warming by the year 2050. Unfortunately it would take a big effort and maybe some small sacrifice from the citizens of the advanced nations. On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Fiddaman, using just CO2 and ignoring ocean acidification, > > suggests ... a discount rate of 1--2%. > > The difference between a one year CO2 pulse and addition over 70 years > is interesting, but I am not sure how he relates it to discount rates. > > I've got a big logical problem with using discount rates to work out > how much should be spent today to save future generations some costly > damage, as I've alluded to in my previous post. A discount rate above > 0 discounts far future generations to nothing, but a discount rate of > 0 means a small annual damage incurred by a huge number of future > generations would justify spending all our resources today, leaving > our own generation nothing to live on. > > Surely how much deprivation the spending means today has to figure > somehow? > > Put differently, I am happy to put money I don't need into an account > that pays 0% interest. But even 100% interest isn't going to interest > me, if I am asked to deposit the money I need to buy food to survive. > > ------------------------ > > Climate change economics boils down in practise to considerations like > "I'll buy a smaller car and I'll have done my bit to save those cute > polar bears." > > And that's the way it should be I suppose, we compare in simple terms > what we give up for our climate change investment and what we get > back, and then judge whether the sacrifice is worth it. It's just that > when I look at climate change economics, I do it with some awe for the > real power of compound interest, and with a belief that there are many > real investment opportunities with huge returns today. > > Do you see what I am driving at? Just because some people use discount > rates in silly ways doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the > bath water and deny that there are real investment opportunities with > returns well above zero and powerful compounding opportunities, and > that this needs to figure in our decision making. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
