Re: [asa] vast new gas supplies

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 23:45:33 EST

Hi John,

Just so you won't die wondering...

Personally I've moved even further TOWARD the view that AGW is a scientifically sound position - mainly because I don't see any substantial arguments have been advanced against the consensus position.

The only reason for my silence is that I have nothing to contribute to what is a very enlightening discussion at several levels.

I personally don't know what to make of Glenn's data (North American cooling) -- particularly given that in my local context every factor points the other way.

That said, the observations regarding weather data from Darwin is intriguing. If I can find the time I'll have to run it past a couple of people I know in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO -- being up with this sort of thing their opinion would be helpful, I think.

Otherwise, I'll just keep lurking.

Blessings,
Murray

>
> " So I am very skeptical of everything. I am suspsicious of the real
> agenda behind the AGW movement. "
>
> Interestingly enough, it appears the tone on this list has shifted
> somewhat since the initial cocksure AGW cheerleading. I was open and
> willing to be convinced but the more I hear it seems my skepticism is
> increasingly warranted.
>
> Randy I want to thank you for your challenge to "engage with the data".
> I think that is honest science and that approach has really helped us
> pinpoint and focus in on the core issues of the debate on this list.
>
> BTW, we are still waiting for a response from you or Rich after you have
> engaged with the data that Glenn and Don have referenced. I am sure one
> will be forthcoming, right?
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *To:* Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>; asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Thu, December 10, 2009 1:38:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] vast new gas supplies
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com
> <mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com <mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think of it in terms of what is available. When will it be
> depleted and when will that sub-industry collapse, leaving
> humanity without energy? Of course there will be economic
> collapse long before actual depletion. Unless there are vast
> new sources of uranium we don't yet know about I don't see a
> long term answer to energy supply.
>
>
> On the contrary, nuclear is an extremely long term answer to energy
> supply. Existing fission reactors use only U-235, which is 0.7% of
> natural uranium. As such it is a limited resource. But fast
> breeder reactors can be used to convert the U-238 (99.3%) of natural
> uranium to the fissionable product Pu-239.
>
>
> Are there any governments proposing the usage of breeder reactors? My
> assumption is these styles of reactor are frowned upon because plutonium
> presents a huge waste storage problem. The other thing I don't know
> about is whether breeder technology is as safe in its operation as more
> conventional models. I think the anti-nuclear lobby will have a cow
> over breeders. Given these are the same folks that embrace AGW I
> expect a huge political warfare to take place before any widespread
> deployment of plutonium generators. Because of this I just ignore the
> presence/possibility of breeders as a solution.
>
> Seems to me a peak energy crisis is the real crisis, not a warming crisis.
>
> Look, we have been really good at putting particle pollutants in the air
> to increase the albedo of the planet to get a cooling effect. And we
> could do that deliberately. If the people who are so concerned over GW
> are serious they would be fighting the anti-pollution measures that are
> lowering the albedo. They would also be proposing nuclear if they were
> serious. Do they in fact do either? I suspect not. So I am very
> skeptical of everything. I am suspsicious of the real agenda behind
> the AGW movement.
>
>
> According to Wikipedia there is enough U-238 around to be an energy
> supply for five billion years, but I think this must be a mistake -
> I would have put it at several thousand years.
>
> In addition it is possible to use U-233 that is bred from Thorium -
> an element that is 3.5 times as common as uranium, as an
> intermediate term solution.
>
> For the long term solution, one must look to Nuclear Fusion.
> Current reactors are based on a D-T reaction which requires the
> breeding of Tritium from Lithium - an abundant element, which
> according to Wikipedia would last 3000 years if all the worlds
> energy came from this source. If it became feasible in the future
> to have sustainable power from a D-D fusion reaction then (again
> according to Wikipedia) there would be sufficient for 150 billion years.
>
> I wouldn't trust any of these figures, to be honest. For a better
> estimate, consult David MacKay's book "Sustainable Energy without
> the Hot Air", which is available on the web. However, Fusion is an
> extremely long term solution, and it appears that, given Thorium and
> Fast breeder reactors, that nuclear fission is almost certainly a
> sufficiently long medium-term solution to allow the fusion solution
> to be developed.
>
> Iain
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 9 23:46:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 23:46:12 EST