From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 11:38:42 MDT
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> Eugene Leitl Opined:
> <<Here's a solution, for a difference: try to bind atmospheric carbon
> dioxide in land biomass (planting and maintaining forest ecologies -- it
> looks pretty, and makes nice microclimate, too, and there's timber to be
> had there) and sea biomass (e.g. using iron for fertilizer, which allows
> you high-productivity aquafarming, or alleviate the overfishing problem).
> Secondly, fill up cavities created during (surface) mining with plant
> biomass and seal them up, taking bound CO2 out of circulation. Here's
> another solution: use hydrogen rich fuel, such as methane, resulting the %
> of CO2 produced by Joule burned. Here's another: don't burn at all, but
> use fuel cells, not Carnot processes. Here's another: use photovoltaics,
> and solar hydrogen. Here's another: save energy, by using it more
> efficiently (Gosh, whodathunkit?). There are others, but this short list
> will do. >>
>
> Great. All this Amory Lovins stuff is technically do-able, why not? The
> problem is, its unaffordable, otherwise other nations, other societies,
> whacky indiv iduals would be doing it. Any number of countries would be
Methane fuel cells are certainly NOT undoable. Neither is
planting trees or aquaculture. If the global warming reports
are even half-right the cost of not doing something helpful is
high enough to justify even things that otherwise would not be
economically optimal.
> off the grid, and everyone would be driving methane cars, and the world
> would look look article from Wired (they get Viridian every onece in a
> while). But thats not planet Earth, circa 2002, and journalists and
> greens and atomic power plant enthusiasts can promise and exude all
> kinds of confidence that they like. Or you can blame oil companies for
> surpressing data and inventions, this works especially well in
> conservative circles, although I am sure the anti-globalists have caught
> on to this meme by now.
>
Atomic power, done more rationally and with the overkill regs
and litigation removed, is extremely viable. Globalism as
currently practiced (rather than the preaching) has some serious
problems so I wouldn't be in a hurry to sneer at those who point
them out.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:27 MST