on this browser"/>
The question has as its premise that there is a good reason to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. "Global Warming" or the more recent "Climate Crisis" are political constructs. It is not possible to determine global temperature with the number of data points that have remained comparable for 100 years -- much less to separate the other variables affecting Earth's temperature (including but not limited to Sun output and orbital dynamics). The true "Crisis" is our newfound willingness to allow politicians to destroy the coal/oil foundation of our present civilization. Any alternative sources other than nuclear would violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics -- and would quickly be forgotten except that subsidies will temporarily hide their full costs.
WELL FOLKS YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS ONE. ----- A CANADIAN SCIENTIST, WHOM I REPRESENT,
HAS SPENT THE LAST 20 YEARS, CONTINUING THE WORK OF TESLA (THE GENIUS, WHO
GAVE US AC ELECTRICITY) AND 2 YEARS AGO, DEVELOPED THE ABILITY TO PULL ALL
THE GREENHOUSE GASES, OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, OVER A VERY LARGE AREA, AND
FURTHER MORE SEQUESTER THEM INTO THE GROUND. THE BEAUTY OF THAT IS THAT THE
FARMERS GET A 25% TO 35% INCREASE IN GROP PRODUCTION, DEPENDING ON THE CROP.
WE INFORMED A CERTAIN GOVERNMENT OF THIS LAST YEAR, AND DEMONSRATED THIS OVER
ONTARIO CANADA. THE RESULT WAS.1-- THE UV CLEARED UP 5 POINTS AND THE
VISIBILITY INCREASED FROM 14 MILES, TO ABOUT 26. THE ONLY DRAWBACK WAS THAT
LAST SUMMER PEOPLE IN ONTARIO, HAD TO CUT THERE LAWNS ON AVERAGE ABOUT ONE
AND A HALF TIMES MORE THAN NORMAL. (WHICH VERIFIED THE CROP YIELD) WE ARE STILL
WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE US THE RESULTS. THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN BE OF
TREMENDOS BENEFIT TO MANKIND. IT IS MY JOB TO SREAD THE WORD, WORLD WIDE.
THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SLOW FOR ME. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS? PLEASE COMMENT PJ
Re: Nuclear power survey
This yes-or-no style survey on whether to get back to using nuclear power is misleading because the decision should be conditional. That is the nuclear industry should be restarted ONLY IF they do a good job with the underlying problems. Those problems include nuclear waste--how about fixing the current waste storage issue? There is also the reliability issue: a number of years ago I saw a TV documentary about a nuc plant in Texas that was breaking the rules left and right when it came to ensuring the plant was properly constructed (i.e., safe).
Basically, the nuc industry should be restarted only with these conditions put in strong laws which give the public the right to check up on plant builders/operators--politicians' promises are not to be believed.
Nuke power is one wedge
Amotht - ALL decisions are conditional, but we will do what we have to do. NONE of the alternatives are viable enough to take out all of the CO2 emissions, even if we cover South Dakota in wind farms or New Jersey in solar cells (each is the equivalent for US electricity consumption). ALL of the alternatives have to be exploited and EACH ONE has to take out a wedge of the upward CO2 slope... AND let's hope that the wedges all add up to enough of a reduction.
AND, let's hope the oceans (99+% of CO2) and the permafrost (repository of methane, 20x more potent than CO2) do not accelerate the problem beyond our capacity to respond.
In 1890's there was a panic over the imminent depletion of th http://www.ikeygen.org/ keywords1
the oil companies stay in business through the GREED of the individual. A greed for more and more enegery and lowest possible cost. So given the choice of a barrel full of liquid fossils (low capital expenditure) and lots of shade (high capital expenditure) the consumer is the source of the GREED that leaves us where we are. cutted from [url]http://answercop.com[/url] wiki
You are absolutely correct. It is ironic because individual greed should be driving everyone to opt for cheaper long-term options, such as solar and wind.
There are solar panels being developed that will cost only about ten cents per kilowatt to install. That's versus the current cost of panels that cost $2.00 per kilowatt. There are wind driven generators that can be mounted above the house. They look more like a strand of DNA than anything else. They work no matter what direction the wind comes from.
Nuclear power, i.e. fission, is a stop gap measure. True nuclear power, fusion, is the best source of virtually limitless power. Cold fusion, if possible, would be the better.
The use of uranium, plutonium, neptunium, etc. is dangerous. No matter how many safeguards are put in, there is still the chance of a major accident, i.e. catastrophe. We need to get away from their use as soon as possible.
Reclamation is a great idea, but can it be applied to all of the waste that already exists? A wild-haired idea would be to build cheap rockets, with not so cheap containers, and start sending all of the waste into the sun. The absolutely huge problem with this is that it has to be taken to a safe launch site, say Edwards AFB, so that it can be launched retro-grade. All that is needed is a system that can get the payload to escape velocity and then let the sun's gravity do the rest. All the nuclear material on earth wouldn't even cause the sun to hiccup. Building of the rockets and containers could all be done near Yucca Mountain. BTW, notice that I prefaced this with "wild-haired idea."
We have a lot of safe sources of energy on Earth,but all of them have one big problem.They are free and nobody can make money on them.
WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW [http://www.webelements.com/]