Re: [Phys-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

John C. has evidently forgotten the thread "The West Wing" (26 May  
2006).  wherein fossil was discussed.  follows an  excerpt:



Rick Tarara wrote:

>  In the
> near term (50-100 years) that will need to be nuclear if we get  
serious
> about reducing the use of fossil fuels for environmental concerns.

I insert here  the missing part of Rick's post that JD didn't quote:

To save space let me comment here on John Denker's note.

The common usage of fossil fuels is that it is fossilized remains of  
past
organic material--hence coal, oil, and gas.  Nuclear may be 'dug up'  
but is
not commonly considered a fossil fuel.

Yes, even using very expensive (to recover) nuclear fuel, it is only a
stop-gap measure, but one that might be important as we try to back  
off the
CO2 producing fossil fuels.

Assuming you don't totally dismiss human contributions to global warming
(something that is becoming ever more difficult to do, IMO), the real
danger may be that we actually DO HAVE a couple hundred more years of  
such
fuels (at 2-3 times today's prices) that could possibly be  
recovered.  What
effects would result from using 2-3 times more fossil fuel for  
another 150
years are open to speculation, but few atmospheric scientists would see
such as anything but a disaster.

Rick

--------------------------- follows JD's response:

1) First of all, let me point out that nuclear power reactors, as we
know them, *are* entirely based on fossil fuel.  Fossil means,  
literally,
"dug up".  The reactors depend on U235 that has been dug up.  This fuel
is neither renewable nor inexhaustible.

2) In 50-100 years, there will be virtually no environmental concerns
about fossil carbon fuels ... for the simple reason that if present
trends continue, in 50-100 years there will be no more fossil carbon
fuels.  On the other side of the same coin, the only way we can still
be using fossil carbon fuels in the future is if we use them at
greatly reduced rates, which greatly reduces the environmental
concerns.

Generating power from U235 doesn't qualitiatively change the story.
There just isn't enough U235 to make much of a difference.  The
only way nuclear makes a difference is if we switch to breeder
reactors ... which nobody is willing even to talk about, let alone
plan or permit, because of proliferation concerns.

Maybe the Iranians will help us out, by building breeder reactors.

The cost of solar energy is coming down, while the cost of oil is
rising rapidly.  Soon they will cross.  When they cross, there will
be major dislocations as industries switch from one energy source to
the other.  They will never switch back.

Chicago will never be self-sufficient in solar energy.  That's OK; it's
not self-sufficient in food, either.  We already devote the area of
several large states to growing food;   there is no reason why we could
not devote a state or two to producing electricity.

-----------------------------  the current thread continues:

On 2009, Mar 10, , at 23:17, John Clement wrote:

> I would say that the word fossil is generally only used in  
> connection with
> fuels which were deposited in the past by living things.  I have  
> never heard
> it used for uranium, or for many other industrial products produced by
> ancient living things such as sandstone.

bc purist.