[Phys-L] Re: NAS President Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming

[anngeorg at PACBELL.NET (Bernard Cleyet)]

> The bottom line to all of this is that there won't be any quick and
drastic
> cuts in CO2 emmissions from the U.S. or from the world for that matter.
> Weaning our energy systems off of the fossile fuels (currently 90% of
> supply) will take 50 year at best and more likely will take most of this
> Century to accomplish.   However, it is by no means certain that we can
> actually totally replace our fossil fuel energy with 'green technologies'
> and even less certain that we could do this for 9 billion people all
living
> at a 'western' standard of living.  There are money, land usage, and
> materials problems with scaling up any of the current 'clean' energy
> technologies to really take over from coal, oil, and natural gas.
Try one
> of my newer Energy Management Simulators to get a feel for the
problem--see
> web site below.
>
> Rick


The Chicken Littles warn that we'll be weaned, of oil at least, in much
less than a century.  The alternative is switching to a coal economy,
but I think it'll be as difficult as the alternatives mentioned by RT.

France will be well off; it's electricity is already derived ~ 76% from
nuclear and 12% falling water.  When the Hubbert peaks France will
easily add a few more to its approx. 58 plants, and don't forget, except
for buses, about all of its mass transit is electrically driven.  It's
been predicted that soon wars will be over water not oil, well, I add
over uranium.  Just think the US will invade N. Korea for it's uranium,
not WMD, and France will beef up its troops in Francophone Africa.


Wiki's Hubbert peak, note the propinquity of the US's peak and the '73
"oil shock":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_Peak


How France does it:



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html


An optimistic and supposedly reliable source (Physics Today):


http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html



Still:  "A knife−edge issue

"The major source of the world's energy supply, the fossil fuels, will
decline in availability within several decades. It is of paramount
importance that the public and policymakers recognize the ensuing
shortages and the urgent need for policies that will address them. In
particular, an urgent commitment to solar and nuclear energy
technologies appears to be mandatory for the long term."


bc, who thinks coal, unlike Chicken Little's umbrella, won't work; who
also can't wait each day to drive his new Prius.  More on that later?


Richard Tarara wrote:

> Obviously any of the below would reduce CO2 emissions greatly, however
> let's be reasonable here.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
> >
> > 1) By how much would the emission of CO2 etc. be reduced if 100% of US
>
> electricity were from nuclear reactors?
>
> Not likely to happen.  Currently we get over 60% of our electricity from
> coal and about 15% from nuclear.  We would need on the order of 300 new
> nuclear plants to take over the coal burden.  It is also the case that our
> energy demand for electricity is increasing (as a percentage of total
> energy use) even though the electrical usage is only on the order of 20% of
> total usage [actual values depend on whether you look at gross or net
> usage.]  Even with the incentives of the new energy plan, it could be 10
> years before the first new nuclear plant would be built.
>
> > 2) By how much would the emission of CO2 etc. be reduced if 100% of US
>
> vehicles were powered from rechargeable electric batteries (using nucl
>
> > ear electricity)?
>
>
> Not likely because of the lack of progress in battery technology.  Fuel
> cells (run on hydrogen separated by electricity from water) are a
> possibility, but current prototype vehicles run hundreds of thousands of
> dollars.  There is the whole infra-structure, chicken & egg thing here
> too--you can't sell hydrogren powered cars (combustion or fuel cell) until
> there is a wide spread network of hydrogen 'filling stations' and who will
> build those if there are no hydrogen powered cars to buy the fuel.
>
>
> > 3) By how much would the emission of CO2 etc. be reduced if we used
>
> trains and busses instead of automobiles?
>
> The infra-structure cost of mass transit (other than busses) is just too
> prohibitive to expect to see much happening without some kind of major
> federal program feeding billions of dollars into such a project.  [New
> urban rail project go for 50-500 million per mile.]  Getting people to ride
> busses is not going to be easy either.  However, one CAN reduce gasoline
> usage by 30-40% just through car-pooling [70% of our driving is done
> commuting to work].  Agressive programs could do a lot with this without
> any infrastructure costs.  However, there will be GREAT opposition to any
> reduction in 'driving freedoms.'  We've built an entire culture (and a
> large chunk of our economy) based on the automobile, and moving away from
> such will be very difficult and disruptive to the economy (short term at
> least).
>
> For actual numbers, one can find such info on the web.
> <http://www.eia.doe.gov/> is the place to find all the information you
> would need.
>
> The bottom line to all of this is that there won't be any quick and drastic
> cuts in CO2 emmissions from the U.S. or from the world for that matter.
> Weaning our energy systems off of the fossile fuels (currently 90% of
> supply) will take 50 year at best and more likely will take most of this
> Century to accomplish.   However, it is by no means certain that we can
> actually totally replace our fossil fuel energy with 'green technologies'
> and even less certain that we could do this for 9 billion people all living
> at a 'western' standard of living.  There are money, land usage, and
> materials problems with scaling up any of the current 'clean' energy
> technologies to really take over from coal, oil, and natural gas.  Try one
> of my newer Energy Management Simulators to get a feel for the problem--see
> web site below.
>
> Rick
>
> ***************************************************
> R.W.Tarara
> Professor of Physics
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, Indiana
>
> Free Physics Instructional Software
> Windows & Mac
>
> New Energy Management Simulation software just posted.
>
> www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
> ***********************************************