Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Taylor J. Smith]

Jones Beene wrote:

We are 15-25 years away from a run-away greenhouse
effect now.

Horace wrote:

Is this just a guess?

It seems to me entirely possible we may be in a runaway
mode right now.  Measurements of the tundra surface show
methane release is increasing and the area of thawing
regions are increasing ...

Hi All,

It's possible that 12,000 years ago solar radiation
markedly increased, and that we are now in a warm room
that could last another 20,000 years, based on the length
of the next to the last interglacial (two before ours).
Things in a warm room heat up.

One way out is to rapidly melt the Arctic ice cap so that
the cold Arctic winds could deposit at least 50 feet of
lake effect snow over North America south to the Ohio
River each summer.   Reflection of solar radiation from the
snow would lower the temperature of Earth; and the snow
would stop only when the Arctic Ocean froze over again,
leaving a mile-thick sheet of ice over Cleveland as per
most of the last few hundred thousand years.  The ice
cover would help block methane release.

Dusting vast stretches of the oceans with iron to increase
CO2 consumption may be a good idea; but that may not be enough
to stop the current release of methane in the Arctic.  Short of
melting the Arctic ice cap, the next best thing would be stopping
the use of all fossil fuels.  The increasing Himalayan
rock face would remove existing CO2 as carbonates in the
runoff to be fixed by shell fish.  This may not work if a
deviation amplifying methane release is already under way.

What would replace fossil fuels?  We could go to a methanol
economy, making the methanol from wood chips produced
by stump cutting rapidly growing poplars on tree farms.
We could use our existing infrastructure -- tanks,
pipelinces, gas stations, with minor modifications
to our engines.  We would thus stop sending billions to
people who want to kill us and enslave our women.  Also,
tree farming would provide many jobs.

Jack Smith

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Horace Heffner]

At 7:12 PM 2/9/5, revtec wrote:

God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it
is central.  Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked
to our perception of God.  Our attitudes toward God sized problems are
determined by our concept of God.  The thermal condition of this planet is
set by the output of the sun.  Compared to a one or two percent
fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is
totally irrelevant.

A more complete answer and some corrections, follow.  Note last paragraph.

The objective of achieving even a 10 percent reduction in solar insolation
factor seems to me to be feasible.  This might be met by dispersing
orbiting  aluminum (or CaO, or lunar soil) nanopowder from latitudes 50 to
-50, at, say, an altitude of about 800 km.  This might be accomplished by
deploying a ring of satellites that orbit between those latitudes, and then
firing rockets in a direction normal to the direction of travel and a
radial line through the earths center and such a satellite.  The rocket
firing would thus not change the orbit altitude, only the poles of the
orbit.  In this manner the nanpowder would be deployed at a constant
altitude. During the firing the nanopowder would be deployed, possibly into
the exhaust.  It might be possible to design an electric rocket that uses
the nanopowder as a reaction mass, and which runs on solar power.

It is presently possible to obtain metal nanopowders of dimension 8 nm.
These then have volume of (8x10^9 m)^3 = 5.12x10^-22 m^3/particle, or
1.95x10^21 particles/m^3 of, say, aluminum.  Aluminum weighs 2.70 g/cm^2 =
2700 kg/m^3.  There is thus (1.95x10^21 particles/m^3)/(2700 kg/m^3) =
7.22x10^17 particles/kg.

If we assume that one such particle can reflect incoming photons of about
10^-6 m wavelength about 10 percent of the time within a radius of 10^-6 m,
then each nanoparticle has the required coverage of Pi*(10^-6 m)^2 =
3.14x10^-12 m^2.  This gives a coverage of (7.22x10^17
particle/kg)(3.14x10^-12 m^2/particle) = 2.98x10^6 m^2/kg.

The radius of the earth is 6.38x10^6 m, and if we deploy at 800 km then the
effective radius of our deployment sphere is 7.18x10^6 m.  Given that the
area of the zone of a sphere is 2 Pi R h, the total deployment area is
2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)*((7.18x10^6 m)*sin(50 deg.)) = 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6
m)^2*(.766) = 4.96x10^14 m^2.

The total deployed mass is thus (4.96x10^14 m^2)/(2.98 m^2/kg) = 1.66x10^8
kg, or 166,000 metric tons.

Assuming the deployment of this amount of payload can get the price down to
$10,000/kg, the cost of deployment is (1.66x10^8 kg)($10,000/kg) =
$1.66x10^12.  The price of, for a limited time, saving the earth when it is
at the defined point of stress is about 1.7 trillion dollars.

The worst assumption in this rough first estimate is probably the
assumption that an 8 nanometer particle can provide 10 percent reflection
back into space of low infrared to visible radiation, radiation averaging
about 10^-6 m wavelength, over an area about (10^-6 m)^2.  If lunar soil is
used, then much less energy is requred to get it into orbit and transport
it, so there is no practical constraint the mass that can be moved in a
multi-trillion dollar project.

Hopefully such a dispersal will be planned to occur at sufficient altitude
that it will last long enough for us, or subsequent generations, to solve
the global warming problem.

This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary.  There
is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs
for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF.  If that gas can be
produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the
process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction
materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would
diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming.

Elimination of all of mankind's energy consuption is about equal to a half
of a tenth of a percent decrease in energy trapped by the greenhouse
effect.  Similarly, if we reduced the solar input by a similar amount,
roughly 0.04 percent, we could double our energy use with no net effect -
provided there were no additional greenhouse gases generated.  It is the
emission and retention of greenhouse gasses that is the problem, not the
waste heat from energy generation/utilization.  Annual world energy use is
about 1/2000 the energy the energy the sun sends us each year.

The world energy consumption is about 400 quads/year, i.e. 400x10^15 BTU/y
= 1.17x10^14 kWh/y, and is forecast to be about 470 quads in 2010.  The
world power consumption is thus roughly (1.17x10^14 kWh/y)/((365 d/y)*(24
h/d)) = 1.34x10^10 kW.

The sun puts out roughly a kW/m^2, the earth's radius is 6.38x10^6 m, so
the earth presents about 3.2x10^13 m^2 cross section to the sun, thus
obtains energy at a rate of about 3.2x10^13 kW from the sun.  The total
energy consumed by humanity is equivalent to an increase 

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[John Berry]

But what effect would this have on satellites and future spaceships?
If this is a good idea (and I doubt it) the orbit of the particles would 
have to be limited so they are easy to steer round.

Horace Heffner wrote:
At 7:12 PM 2/9/5, revtec wrote:
 

God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it
is central.  Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked
to our perception of God.  Our attitudes toward God sized problems are
determined by our concept of God.  The thermal condition of this planet is
set by the output of the sun.  Compared to a one or two percent
fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is
totally irrelevant.
   

A more complete answer and some corrections, follow.  Note last paragraph.
The objective of achieving even a 10 percent reduction in solar insolation
factor seems to me to be feasible.  This might be met by dispersing
orbiting  aluminum (or CaO, or lunar soil) nanopowder from latitudes 50 to
-50, at, say, an altitude of about 800 km.  This might be accomplished by
deploying a ring of satellites that orbit between those latitudes, and then
firing rockets in a direction normal to the direction of travel and a
radial line through the earths center and such a satellite.  The rocket
firing would thus not change the orbit altitude, only the poles of the
orbit.  In this manner the nanpowder would be deployed at a constant
altitude. During the firing the nanopowder would be deployed, possibly into
the exhaust.  It might be possible to design an electric rocket that uses
the nanopowder as a reaction mass, and which runs on solar power.
It is presently possible to obtain metal nanopowders of dimension 8 nm.
These then have volume of (8x10^9 m)^3 = 5.12x10^-22 m^3/particle, or
1.95x10^21 particles/m^3 of, say, aluminum.  Aluminum weighs 2.70 g/cm^2 =
2700 kg/m^3.  There is thus (1.95x10^21 particles/m^3)/(2700 kg/m^3) =
7.22x10^17 particles/kg.
If we assume that one such particle can reflect incoming photons of about
10^-6 m wavelength about 10 percent of the time within a radius of 10^-6 m,
then each nanoparticle has the required coverage of Pi*(10^-6 m)^2 =
3.14x10^-12 m^2.  This gives a coverage of (7.22x10^17
particle/kg)(3.14x10^-12 m^2/particle) = 2.98x10^6 m^2/kg.
The radius of the earth is 6.38x10^6 m, and if we deploy at 800 km then the
effective radius of our deployment sphere is 7.18x10^6 m.  Given that the
area of the zone of a sphere is 2 Pi R h, the total deployment area is
2*Pi*(7.18x10^6 m)*((7.18x10^6 m)*sin(50 deg.)) = 2*Pi*(7.18x10^6
m)^2*(.766) = 4.96x10^14 m^2.
The total deployed mass is thus (4.96x10^14 m^2)/(2.98 m^2/kg) = 1.66x10^8
kg, or 166,000 metric tons.
Assuming the deployment of this amount of payload can get the price down to
$10,000/kg, the cost of deployment is (1.66x10^8 kg)($10,000/kg) =
$1.66x10^12.  The price of, for a limited time, saving the earth when it is
at the defined point of stress is about 1.7 trillion dollars.
The worst assumption in this rough first estimate is probably the
assumption that an 8 nanometer particle can provide 10 percent reflection
back into space of low infrared to visible radiation, radiation averaging
about 10^-6 m wavelength, over an area about (10^-6 m)^2.  If lunar soil is
used, then much less energy is requred to get it into orbit and transport
it, so there is no practical constraint the mass that can be moved in a
multi-trillion dollar project.
Hopefully such a dispersal will be planned to occur at sufficient altitude
that it will last long enough for us, or subsequent generations, to solve
the global warming problem.
This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary.  There
is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs
for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF.  If that gas can be
produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the
process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction
materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would
diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming.
Elimination of all of mankind's energy consuption is about equal to a half
of a tenth of a percent decrease in energy trapped by the greenhouse
effect.  Similarly, if we reduced the solar input by a similar amount,
roughly 0.04 percent, we could double our energy use with no net effect -
provided there were no additional greenhouse gases generated.  It is the
emission and retention of greenhouse gasses that is the problem, not the
waste heat from energy generation/utilization.  Annual world energy use is
about 1/2000 the energy the energy the sun sends us each year.
The world energy consumption is about 400 quads/year, i.e. 400x10^15 BTU/y
= 1.17x10^14 kWh/y, and is forecast to be about 470 quads in 2010.  The
world power consumption is thus roughly (1.17x10^14 kWh/y)/((365 d/y)*(24
h/d)) = 1.34x10^10 kW.
The sun puts out roughly a kW/m^2, the earth's radius is 

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Nick Palmer]

OK revtec, at least I read your posts!

you wrote "The thermal condition of this planet is 
set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation 
in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally 
irrelevant"

The thermal condition of the planet is set by the 
output of the sun PLUS the heat "retaining" capacity of the atmosphere and land. 
Without the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, Earth would be an ice 
planet. This solar output red herring is the latest rhetorical trick of the 
global warming deniers. Obviously it has an effect and so does volcano CO2 
output -another (earlier) rhetorical trick, also water vapour. THESE are 
all irrelevant because they are NATURAL variations we have little or no control 
over. If the solar output was dropping and we could predict that there would be 
no large scale volcanic outpourings for a century or twothen 
environmentalists may look kindly on INCREASING our output of CO2 etc to 
stabilise things. The point is, the arguments of the global warming deniers are 
more or lessfunctionally equivalent to the guy who doesn't switch the 
electricity off when herewires a house because peoplecanget 
struck by lightning...

Nick

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:
However, since the energy
provided by CF would for the most part *replace*
carbon based fuel consumption, it is mostly an offset . .
.
This all assumes
the efficiency of CF is similar to heat enigines, or that
waste heat is used effectively.
I think those are very safe assumptions. It is easier to use cold fusion
heat effectively than it is to use other sources of heat such as
combustion, because these other sources produce poison gas, and they are
much too hot (i.e., there is an impedance mismatch). Also, efficiency is
bound to improve in the future. It could hardly be worse than it is
now!
As I said, I discussed this in the book in some detail.
- Jed

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Jones Beene]

--- Nick Palmer wrote:
 
 The thermal condition of the planet is set by the
 output of the sun PLUS the heat retaining capacity
 of the atmosphere and land. Without the natural
 greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, Earth would be
 an ice planet. This solar output red herring is the
 latest rhetorical trick of the global warming
 deniers. 

Yes and no. You are leaving out a big item here,
perhaps the biggest item of all - natural CO2
removal, which is negatively impacted by thermal
pollution. There seems to be denial by those who do
not think that human produced thermal pollution is a
risk factor. It is a huge factor. On the positive
side, it can become less so IF distributed sources
such as cold fusion or ZPE can be perfected before it
is too late. It is not  'just' the heat itself but
WHERE the heat is dumped. 

If heat rejection from power plants takes place
directly in the river/ocean environment as a heat
sink, which is often the case with nuclear and
coal-fired plants, then the effect of human thermal
pollution is magnified many fold over dumping heat
into the atmosphere where some of it can radiate away
much faster than in the oceans. But there is much more
to the interlocking cycle than re-radiation.

Around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans
since the industrial revolution has already dissolved
into the world's oceans! with some positive and some
adverse effects for marine life. But also helping
tremendously to slow the rise of atmospheric CO2 as
some of that has already been safely removed by
blue-green algae. 

This factor has led short-sighted individuals, even at
the highest levels of government, to think that the
Earth is self-regulating. NO! that is not the case
past a certain tipping point. That self-regulation is
only true in the short term, and we are now passing
rapidly through the stage of self-regulation.

The most active marine life for taking CO2 _out_ of
the ocean is algae and single celled organisms which
are FAR more productive in colder water. Fish know
this but humans, even some environmentalists, do not
seem to get it. Yet fishermen from California and even
Mexico for instance, routinely go to all the way to
Alaskan waters at great expense- why ... duh ... that
is where the fish are, and the fish go there because
that is where their food is. It is not that algae
like cold water, and in fact they could grow faster
in warm water, in theory, it is just that cold water
holds far more CO2 in the surface layers where they
can get both the carbon and the light necessary to
convert it into protein easily. ALGAE (and humans,
eventually) NEED COLD WATER to flourish. Period.

Let me try to hammer this in one more time as there
seems to be some strong persistent and incorrect
opinions on this.

Scientists who undertook the first comprehensive look
at ocean storage of carbon dioxide found that the
world's oceans serve as a massive sink that traps the
greenhouse gas - up to a point - that point being
ocean temperature. If ocean temps do not rise much,
then CO2 is removed and there is a self-regulating
effect. But the effect of thermal pollution is
MAGNIFIED in the oceans, which is where 90% of CO2 can
be removed easily. The hotter oceans get, the less CO2
can be dissolved in the surface layer. The less that
is dissolved, the less that algae can remove. It's not
rocket science.

The research says that the oceans' removal of the
carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed
global warming considerably for 150 years, but that 
*grace-period* has effectively ended because of rising
ocean temperatures. And the CO2 removal cycle is now
failing at a faster rate in recent years because the
oceans have gotten too warm to absorb any more CO2.
The self-regulation effect in now on hold and will
turn to runaway before it returns to
self-regulating, unless something is done. Ironically,
the melting glaciers have actually helped to oceans
cooler, but that is also self-deceptive to think of as
a real fix for the problem.

This is the big point... no the HUGE point about
focusing attention on thermal pollution - but ocean
not  atmospheric. Do not fall prey to the suggestion
that Earth is self-regulating in the long term. It is
not. The reason we are not in a runaway situation
already is that single-cell ocean life has kept up the
pace with us, but that process is now fully maximized
and can do no more.

We are 15-25 years away from a run-away greenhouse
effect now. I can only pray that God, however that
force is personally defined in the sense of discretion
or foresight, has 'chosen' the later date, which will
permit us some extra leeway needed to overcome
entrenched ignorance and greed, such as we see now at
the highest levels of our great petrocracy.

Jones

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Frederick Sparber]

Jones Beene's excellent treatise on Global Warming is worthy of praise.

A Liquid Nitrogen fuel economy (as opposed to hydrogen) for Cryocars and
other LN2-powered
vehicles ranging from scooters to mail trucks would concurrently offer
a way to extract CO2 and particulate pollutants from the atmosphere.

LN2-powered vehicles function well at 60 below zero and even better at
100 degrees above (offering great air conditioning to boot).

Apparently the effort in this direction (University of Washington) was
quashed before it got
beyond preliminary trials:

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm

Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new
zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid nitrogen as
the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a steam engine, except
there is no combustion involved. Instead, liquid nitrogen at –320° F (–196°
C) is pressurized and then vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient
temperature of the surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the
radiator of a car but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to
heat and boil liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is
fed to an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine,
converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is nitrogen,
which is the major constituent of our atmosphere
As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-hr/kg)
of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to gasoline but better
than that of readily available battery systems. Studies indicate that
liquid nitrogen automobiles will have significant performance and
environmental advantages over electric vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with
a 60-gallon tank will have a potential range of up to 200 miles, or more
than twice that of a typical electric car.

Frederick. 

Re: Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[orionworks]

From: Frederick Sparber

 Jones Beene's excellent treatise on Global Warming is 
 worthy of praise.

 A Liquid Nitrogen fuel economy (as opposed to hydrogen)
 for Cryocars and other LN2-powered vehicles ranging
 from scooters to mail trucks would concurrently offer
  a way to extract CO2 and particulate pollutants from
 the atmosphere.

...

 Researchers at the University of Washington are 
 developing a new zero-emission automobile propulsion
 concept that uses liquid nitrogen as the fuel.

For those curious about nitrogen powered engine technology that is currently 
under development in other parts of the globe check out:

http://www.perendev-power.com/contacts.htm

and

http://www.perendev-power.com/home.htm

It would not surprise me if the University of Washington ended up having a 
battle on their hands as Perendev has also been hard a work developing the same 
technology for quite some time. I would think they might consider claiming a 
patent infringement.

Steve Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Horace Heffner]

At 7:45 AM 2/10/5, Jones Beene wrote:

We are 15-25 years away from a run-away greenhouse
effect now.

Is this just a guess?

It seems to me entirely possible we may be a runaway mode right now.
Measurements of the tundra surface show methane release is increasing and
the area of thawing regions are increasing.  The arctic is warming and the
warming produces a strong postitive feedback effect.  The environment has a
capacity to convert CO2 to oxygen that is inversely related to temperature.
It could take a long time to cook us all, but that doesn't change the fact
that a feedback driven runaway is unstoppable except possibly by
unprecedented world scale efforts, or a dramatic shift in ocean currents.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Horace Heffner]

At 1:23 AM 2/11/5, John Berry wrote:
But what effect would this have on satellites and future spaceships?
If this is a good idea (and I doubt it) the orbit of the particles would
have to be limited so they are easy to steer round.

Horace Heffner wrote:
[snip]
This is really a last ditch effort, and may be totally unnecessary.  There
is enough methane hydrate in the Northern hemisphere to meet all our needs
for generations, probably well over 1x10^14 CF.  If that gas can be
produced and converted to hydrogen, without burning the carbon in the
process, and all the carbon in the gas is converted to construction
materials, the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere hopefully would
diminish at a sufficient rate to avoid runaway warming.
[snip]

This concept in general and the issues you raise were developed and debated
in the very recent thread A last resort attack on global warming.  You
can review it at http://www.escribe.com/science/vortex. The concept was
proposed as a final option in the event of *runaway* global warming, which
could make earth like venus, with a surface temperature above boiling.
Better to do without GPS, communications satellites etc. than to stew all
life.  However, there is a launch window through the polar regions, and
possibly even directly through the nano-belt provided appropriate external
nano-particle shielding is provided, possibly aerogel:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=399812page=1

(URL courtesy of Terry Blanton.)  All other means should of course be
pursued first, including production of methane hydrates and conversion of
that methane to hydogen, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, geothermal
power.  At the same time conservation measures, which have barely been
utilized, may have the capacity to get us half way there.

Also, read the post Message from Russ George about ocean CO2.  This is
really stunning information. It may be possible to reduce atmospheric CO2
by fertilizing the oceans with iron.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Jones Beene]

Horace,

 Is this just a guess?

There have been a number of recent computer simulations. The
number that keeps popping up, such as in this Oxford
University report, is that dangerous levels of climate
change will happen as early as 2026. Other studies how
sooner but this date of 2026 seems most accurate for such
things as the total extinction of seals, polar bears etc.
and methane levels which will cause human deaths in large
numbers in artic regions.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/021005Davidson.shtml

The United States is the only country with land in the
Arctic region that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. This
is a critical step because as you are no doubt aware, the
Northern ice cap is warming at twice the global rate...

That is probably why you feel that runaway has already
begun. But in some areas, there is little or no warming,
which is why there is any argument at all. If we could send
all the skeptics of global warming to Alaska for a tour of
the situation, there would probably be no skeptics left who
were not on the petro-payroll.

Jones

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Edmund Storms]

Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored.
revtec wrote:
What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF? 
 
Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming? 
Yes, this is an important goal.
 
Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable 
source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet?
Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point 
civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start 
now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as 
is the usual approach?
 
Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the 
waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming 
will accelerate by direct heating alone!  Could it be that with 
perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box?
Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and 
sources internal to the earth.
 
I brought this up before without getting a single comment.  Did I have 
silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I 
considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from 
revtec without reading a single word.  I really don't know.
 
God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that 
it is central.  Our perception of threats to our existance is directly 
linked to our perception of God.  Our attitudes toward God sized 
problems are determined by our concept of God.  The thermal condition of 
this planet is set by the output of the sun.  Compared to a one or two 
percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here 
is totally irrelevant. 
Not true.  We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun 
stays on earth.  The earth is not a perfect absorber.  Changes in the 
amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy 
retained by the earth.  This is the issue, not the total amount of 
energy emitted by the sun.
 
Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat.  Athiests 
think no one does. 
 
Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our 
increased heat load.  People, who either don't believe in God or don't 
trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves.
Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race 
has no understanding of how God works.  Christianity teaches free will. 
 If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we 
are free to do so. Why would God care?  Many species on other planets 
would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that 
intelligent life would go on.  We would be just one more attempt to 
produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are 
special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational.

 
Christians are thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle 
God sized problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think 
the solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental 
problems is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's 
surface.
Where did you get this idea?  This is not only not true, but not even 
rational.
 
For anyone who wants to play the God game, the stakes are fantastically 
high.
 
What will be the most likely cause of calamity: trusting God or playing God?
The route to survival is to observe how nature works and adjust behavior 
to be consistent with a behavior that allows survival.  This is true of 
individuals as well as nations. It does not involve playing God, but 
simply understanding the consequences of one's actions. The US, 
especially, has lost the ability to understand the consequence of 
actions, instead has substituted what a few people WANT to happen. 
Unfortunately, these wants seem to be justified by assuming that this is 
what God wants. The arrogance is overwhelming.

Regards,
Ed Storms
 
Jeff

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms wrote:
Eventually mankind will run out
of carbon-based energy. At this point civilization will collapse unless a
substitute is found. Why not start now to solve this problem rather than
waiting until the last minute, as is the usual
approach?
Of course I agree. But this leads to an interesting point. People
promoting conventional energy conservation, cold fusion, hot fusion and
other energy improvements have made a big mistake, in my opinion. They
have been trying to tell the public that we are running out of energy a
crisis is approaching and we must do something rather than wait until the
last minute. That may be true, but it is the wrong message. People will
see that there is still plenty of gas in the price is not really gone up
relative to inflation, and they will ignore us. What you should say
instead is: Cold fusion will save money! It will work better. It
will create many new opportunities. It will cause less pollution.
Those with the themes I emphasized in the book, rather than talking about
resource depletion.
It is often said that the stone age did not and because we ran out of
stones. People usually adapt new technologies because they work better,
not because older resources are running out. However, there are some
major exceptions to this rule, especially in the energy business.
Old-growth hardwood forest firewood in the US really was depleted, and we
were definitely running on a whale oil before we began using oil
(underground oil, I mean). Oil production in the US peaked around 1974
and it has declined drastically. OPEC production peaked late last year, I
think, just as Deffeyes predicted. There is no more available
hydroelectric power, although there is a huge reservoir of untapped wind
energy.
It is a little ironic that we have, in fact, begun to run short of
conventional energy, but that still is not a good sales
message to promote cold fusion. Conservationists have cried wolf too
often. They should have known better. Anyway, cold fusion has so many
other outstanding advantages there is really no need to emphasize
depletion.

The original message starting this thread said:

Christians are
thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle God
sized problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think the
solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental problems
is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's
surface.
Oh come now. No one in this forum has said anything like that! Engineers
and scientists believe in solving people's problems, not in killing
people off to bury the problem. Killing people -- or letting them die of
AID or bird-flu, is like fixing a broken computer by bashing
it with sledgehammer. (Okay, I have done that once and it was gratifying,
but that sucker deserved it.) I myself hope that the terrestrial
population will gradually be reduced to around 2 or 3 billion, perhaps
with billions of other people living off planet if they want to.
By the way, experts at the CDC and elsewhere are predicting that bird flu
will probably infect people within a few years, because it remains
pandemic among birds and of course virus evolution is rapid. If a
virulent form crosses to the human population it will probably kill
between 5 million and 1 billion people. A friend of mine at the CDC just
left for Vietnam to work on this problem. Researchers have strongly
suggested that governments worldwide fund the development of vaccinations
and improved Third World poultry production facilities to prevent a
pandemic. That is what scientists do -- they try to fix problems.
Governments by and large are ignoring these recommendations. The U.S.
government is spending $1 billion a week on war instead. It built several
splendid new CDC facilities in response to 9/11 bio-threat hysteria, but
it is now cutting back on funding for the professional staff and for
equipment, so the splendid new buildings are sitting empty, and the clock
is ticking, and the bird flu viruses -- contrary to the officially
expressed views of the Cobb County Georgia Board of Education --
definitely are evolving.
Here is a ghoulish question. If 50,000 children in Georgia are killed by
bird flu, will the Board rethink its assertions and calls off the jihad
against scientific knowledge? Probably not.
- Jed

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS _ Jared Diamond's Collapse

[Mike Carrell]

This post from Ed has roused me to comment.

Everyone chewing on this problem should go to their bookstore and get Jared
Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Ecology,
resources, and how people react to them are very much part of the problem,
and there are no glib answers but Pogo's: We have Met The Enemy and He is
Us. The specific catastrophes that have been discussed here are beyond the
publication time window, but the pattern is there. And there is reason to
hope, and Vortex and BLP and CF are part of that scene which are also
outside the scope. I have written to Diamond to call his attention to these
initiatives.

 Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored.

 revtec wrote:

  What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF?
 
  Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming?
 Yes, this is an important goal.

But not the only result. In this discussion both Mills' BlackLight Power and
CF should have equal voice, for their end result is very similar and BLP is
probably much closer to commercialization than CF; it has corporate focus,
finanace, and leadership. The far-reaching result is dismantling the
economic and political power structures based on the monopolization of
energy sources.

 
  Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable
  source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet?
 Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point
 civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start
 now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as
 is the usual approach?

See Diamond. One of his students asked what the thoughts were of the man who
cut down the last tree on Easter Island, which was once heavily forested.
Fundamentally, it is the short time horizon of people as consumers and as
investors in corporations who want quick returns and do not see the future
creeping up on them.
 
  Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the
  waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming
  will accelerate by direct heating alone!  Could it be that with
  perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box?
 Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and
 sources internal to the earth.

Correct. A heat engine produces a bit of heat and is done, but the
greenhouse gases inhibit the cooling of the earth by radiation of far
infrared to the cold blackness of space, as on a clear night. That continues
24/7 for decades or more. Whether that is *the* major cause of warming is
open to debate, for the computer models are not as complex as the actual
atmosphere of Earth.

 
  I brought this up before without getting a single comment.  Did I have
  silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I
  considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from
  revtec without reading a single word.  I really don't know.
 
  God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that
  it is central.  Our perception of threats to our existance is directly
  linked to our perception of God.  Our attitudes toward God sized
  problems are determined by our concept of God.  The thermal condition of
  this planet is set by the output of the sun.  Compared to a one or two
  percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here
  is totally irrelevant.

 Not true.  We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun
 stays on earth.  The earth is not a perfect absorber.  Changes in the
 amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy
 retained by the earth.  This is the issue, not the total amount of
 energy emitted by the sun.

True. But changes in the sun's output, coincident with man's activities, may
increase effects. There have been profound climate changes long before man
had any impact.
 
  Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat.  Athiests
  think no one does.
 
  Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our
  increased heat load.  People, who either don't believe in God or don't
  trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves.

This is based on conceptions of God based on the Bible, which is not that of
the majority of humanity.

 Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race
 has no understanding of how God works.  Christianity teaches free will.
   If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we
 are free to do so. Why would God care?  Many species on other planets
 would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that
 intelligent life would go on.  We would be just one more attempt to
 produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are
 special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational.

I agree with Ed to an extent. I will add that a great many people have
'religious 

RE: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Keith Nagel]

Hi Mike,

you write:
Labels are dangerous:

We need some new labels, ones more descriptive rather than
prescriptive. One might imagine from some posts here that
liberals might be found sitting around the barbeque
roasting unborn children, hot waxing their black helicopters
and anxiously awaiting the luciferian UN one world government
headed by the Clinton with two backs

...on the other hand, we have self described conservatives
saying in this actual forum such as

Actually the trees will be burnt up during the Tribulation. While I 
regard protection of the environment as irrelevant, I am quick to 
point out that there are more trees now than ever before.

I'm pretty sure real conservatives are cringing right now.

I propose a new label, in honor of those mighty statesman
and religious leaders of that fabled island Easter, those
who strove to build the mighty domes that grace that otherwise
barren and wasted land. Those people who when given a tour
of the island and shown the nature of things, lacked the simple
will to live and turned away and down the path of death. I dub
these folks

RockHeads.

Nominations?

K.

Re: solving really big problems

[RC Macaulay]

Revtec, interesting questions, more to ponder than 
to reply.

It depends on whether one believes in God ..or .. 
whether one believes God.

Richard

Blank Bkgrd.gif

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[revtec]

- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Bob Flower [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andy Becan [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS



 --- revtec wrote:

  Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more
  than offset by the waste heat output of billions of
  CF engines, and that global warming will accelerate
  by direct heating alone!  Could it be that with
  perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box?

  I brought this up before without getting a single
  comment.  Did I have silent agreement with this
  concern from most of the group, or am I considered
  totally nuts

 Not sure what you are referring to specifically, but
 back in April when I brought up the subject of thermal
 pollution in a long post to vortex, I believe it was
 you (or someone using the name revtec) who
 commented,

 I personally believe that we are overrating our
 ability to thermally affect  this planet, and that the
 earth is thermally self regulating to a much  greater
 degree than we give it credit for.

 Do I take it that you are now coming around to getting
 a proper understanding of the issue of thermal
 pollution, and now chiding others for following your
 previous advice?

 Jones

No.  I still believe the Earth has a propensity for self regulation.  But if
human activity manages to push the planet beyond the control limits a
concerned God can make further adjustments.

Jeff

Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS

[Steven Krivit]

At 08:21 PM 2/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
Jeff writes:
 What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of
CF? 
 Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global
warming? 

I think Bockris put it most succinctly: It is the basis of a way
to continue our Civilization. 
I've got more comments on the way regarding this in #9 and #10 of the
forthcoming issues of New Energy Times.

 Perhaps the reduction in CO2
emissions will be more than offset by the waste heat output of billions
of CF
 engines, and that global warming will accelerate by direct heating
alone!
Nope. Can't happen. Two reasons:
1. As I show in the book, cold fusion is so efficient, it would greatly
reduce primary energy use for a long time, even if energy consumption
increases. See chapters 14 and 15.
2. Heat from engines leaves the atmosphere in about a half hour. You
would have to increase heat from motors by a huge factor before it would
have a serious impact.
To add to what Jed said,
It was my understanding that global warming was primarily because of
solar radiation hitting the earth, reflecting back towards space, but
intercepted by the greenhouse gasses which absorb the wavelengths of
reflected radiation and converts it into thermal energy, thereby creating
a transparent blanket. 
Not so much from the heat that is generated initially from terrestrial
sources. Yes? No?

Steve