Hello vortex members. I have long solved difficult problems by trying to get to the bottom of the issue, particularly by looking at experiments from an alternate perspective. I have been thinking about the global warming problem for some time and think that a good thought experiment might shed light upon the facts.
It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. We know that this is true since the purpose of burning these fuels is to generate heat which then can be converted into other useful forms of energy. Once heat has been released, I propose that the behavior of this heat is constant regardless of whether it was generated by fossil fuel burning or LENR or other technologies. Thus, for a thought experiment let us burn a kilogram of solid coal which yields a certain calculatable quantity of heat and the associated carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I am leaving the detailed calculations for other vortex members for the time being to make the argument simple. The gas released due to our combustion then diffused randomly throughout the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming according to popular theory. This gas that we released also has a certain probability of being absorbed by growing plants or other means of sequestration. Since several mechanisms exist to take our carbon out of the atmosphere, then there must be some time constant associated with the process that defines the half life for it to remain active. Now, while the gas resides within the atmosphere it can act as an agent to trap additional energy according to various theories. So, how much additional heat does our emission ultimately trap? A process such as the one outlined would be used to define an effective energy multiplier. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. Here is where I am counting upon the knowledge of our members, for whom I have the highest respect. Let's come up with the factor X in some manner as it will allow us to compare LENR devices to fossil fuel burning ones as they relate to heating of our planet. This is true since the efficiency of nuclear reactions is so much beyond chemical ones, that we can assume that they only contribute heat to the earth and little else of consequence. It is important to give the proper consideration to the X factor that I am proposing for at least one very interesting reason. Consider, if X is a thousand to 1 then we could gain a moderate amount of margin for earth heating as we move forward. The numbers suggest that we not recklessly throw energy at every process as has been mentioned by many on this forum. If heating is the final product, then we can not afford to do that unless we want to find ourselves right back in the middle of a major energy issue. It will take untold number of joules to bring the poor of the world up to reasonable standards and this will rapidly eat at our newly gained margin. In a much worse case we might calculate that X is far lower. As example, if X is 10 then our conversion from fossil fuels to LENR will buy us precious little time. In this case, the earth is going to continue to heat up due to man made effects with only a slight delay. The good news is that the cost of energy will be low enough that we can mitigate the heating problems without starving. I am afraid that vast areas of the earth will become inundated by the rising sea levels, but we have demonstrated the ability to adapt provided the change does not occur to rapidly. Perhaps new building codes come into play that restrict the construction and maintenance of buildings that are deemed too low relative to sea level. I guess it is more like you build them once and move inland instead of rebuilding. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
