From: spamme9@gmail.com   
      
   On 5/1/2012 8:00 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:   
   > On 5/1/12 4:44 PM, mike wrote:   
   >   
   >> What if it works and we have infinite cheap energy??   
   >> Well...we'll use it.   
   >> And much of what we need involves exothermic reactions.   
   >>   
   >> So, who's working on that endothermic process that   
   >> will save us from the exothermic process that we   
   >> invented to save us from fossil fuels?   
   >   
   > I think this is a really important question. The new exothermic   
   > technologies should be considered as no more than temporary zero-carbon   
   > bridges from combustion to unfueled, energy-neutral production methods.   
   >   
   > As you (and Don Lancaster before you) point out, any technology that   
   > releases more heat into the atmosphere than can be radiated away from   
   > the planet will lead to catastrophic overheating.   
   >   
   > We already have some experience in such energy-neutral technologies as   
   > wind, solar, and hydro. We'll need to continue and intensify efforts to   
   > innovate, discover, and implement new technologies.   
   >   
   > In the meantime, at least some of the zero-carbon "bridges" may allow us   
   > to significantly diminish the human contribution to greenhouse gas   
   > production.   
   >   
   > We may even need to, as Orson Scott Card suggested in one of his novels,   
   > use our new-found genetic engineering sciences to develop a hardy plant   
   > that produces large white blossoms or large black blossoms, whenever   
   > climatic conditions are seriously out of balance...   
      
   There's always the quick fix backup plan...nuclear winter.  Also makes   
   a big dent in the overpopulation problem.  Two birds... ;-(   
      
   >   
   >> Or do we just let Mother Nature take care of it by   
   >> killing us off.   
   >   
   I've been reconsidering my position on the severity, but don't know the   
   numbers.   
      
   If I burn a BTU worth of coal, I put a BTU worth of heat   
   into the environment.   
   The greenhouse gasses change the dynamic of the interaction between   
   the sun and the earth to cause additional energy   
   to enter the biosphere.   
   So, I expect a short term increase in the RATE of absorption from the   
   sun.  And there should be a decrease in this additional component over   
   time with some half-life.   
   If I integrate all that, how many extra sun BTU's did that BTU of coal   
   cost us?   
      
   And there's  a related issue about the heat capacity of the system.   
   If I could magically bring the earth back into thermal equilibrium,   
   then change all energy consumption to clean exothermic energy with   
   no greenhouse gasses...   
   At the current rate of energy consumption, how long would it take to   
   raise the temperature of the atmosphere by one degree??   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)