I agree that it is important that we be careful in our actions toward global warming and other problems that keep arising as a result of our population growth and technology. One way that we can us LENR to our advantage against global warming it to put it to work removing some of the heat trapping gases from the air. I just read that CO2 has a half life in the atmosphere of between 30 and 95 years. Other gases are much worse at retaining heat and would be ideal to sequester if at sufficient concentration. According to the premise that I suggested and under discussion, LENR only releases its waste heat once and there is no atmospheric multiplication. If it can be used to absorb long lasting and heat retaining gases to place them in a safe place, then the long term problems associated with these gases can be mitigated. I guess you could look at this as a reverse global warming process with a modest amount of waste heat release. I am getting used to living on the earth and would hate to relocate without a major fight. I am thus far convinced that we can keep our home for a very long time into the future. Dave
-----Original Message----- From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat I agree, that sooner or later global warming from waste heat will become an issue...unless we can cancel the waste heat with waste cold which is considered impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Now, if the laws of thermodynamics are absolutely true (or if we simply believe they are absolutely true) and we also believe economic growth is good, then we *must* move out into space. I prefer to question all these truths, so we don't do things or force or coerce other people to do things out of a false sense of necessity. Harry On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM, David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: > On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: > 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. > > In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X > times the initial heat outlay. > > I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy > incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) > was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved > payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). > > Unknown to me is the added heat energy from "new" CO2 and methane. If our > present rate of warming is caused by (really wild guess) 1% more retention > of solar energy than "before", then that 1% is 60 times more than our total > energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and > nuclear parts it won't be much different. > > Hey, a wild guess is better than none. > > So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody > unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, > exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to > get back in trouble. > > Ol' Bab. > > > > 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 > >
