Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8222 sci.misc:962
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!bbn.com!eli
From: eli@bbn.com (Steve Elias)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: the "greenhouse effect" theory
Message-ID: <22138@bbn.COM>
Date: 15 Mar 88 22:11:19 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias)
Organization: BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 90

In article <3772@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>>>In article <781@lf-abe.BBN.COM> eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias) writes:

jfc>[ In response to description of the greenhouse effect, which, accelerated
jfc>  by fossil fuel consumption, may raise the level of the oceans enough to 
jfc>  flood coastal cities.]

	my comment about nuclear power is in response to JFC's statement
	that nuclear power will help us avoid the "greenhouse effect".

se>: : : 	nuclear power plants also contribute nontrivial amounts of
se>: : : 	thermal pollution into the environment, a significant factor
se>: : : 	in the greenhouse effect, especially if more plants are built.

jfc>The quote above reveals a lack of understanding of thermodynamics,

	wrong.  it reveals that i don't agree with your opinions on 
	the greenhouse effect theory.   

	there is no valid model for the greenhouse effect.  
	either one of our statements are just opinions.  if you are aware
	of some definitive new research, please do tell.

	the issue is only partially a thermodynamic one.  planetary and
	atmospheric science issues are also key.  
	
	the "greenhouse effect" is pure theory, whether it is applied to
	Venus or Earth.  it may be a commonly accepted theory, but it is
	far from proven.  

jfc>Thermal pollution is seperate from the greenhouse effect.  

	how do you know?   seriously!

jfc>It is likely
jfc>that the Earth is stable to the addition of small amounts of heat.

	it is unlikely that your statement can be backed up.

	power generation generates far more than a "small" amount 
	of waste heat, regardless of the resource used for fuel.

se>: 	an important concept: the thermal equilibrium of the planet.
se>: 	nuclear waste heat affects the equilibrium, too.  the energy
se>: 	contained in uranium is being released with great speed, on a
se>: 	geologic scale.  the same is true for the heat and CO2 from 
se>: 	burning fossil fuels.

jfc>Nuclear or chemical power plants both produce waste heat.

	waste heat is not a global issue unless the energy for it originates
	outside the earth/atmosphere system.  that's the thermo concept
	i'm trying to stress.  the greatest thermal danger is from solar
	power satellites, or solar farms on earth.

jfc>However, chemical plants also produce carbon dioxide which does the real 
jfc>harm to the heat balance by trapping IR radiation.

	neither JFC's nor the hypothesis i am backing is proven.

	"my" hypothesis actually belongs to Frank Drake of Cornell U.
	his calculations indicate that both solar power satellites,
	or a great number conventional power plants, could cause a
	thermal runaway or other disaster.

se>: 	when natural gas burns, the products are CO2 and water.
se>: 	natural gas can be produced by fermenting garbage -- reversing
se>: 	the CO2 production process...

>This is an ideal case, assuming perfect combustion (another article mentioned
>nitrous oxides; there may also be CO) and an effective large scale conversion
>of garbage.  I think I've seen figures showing that garbage can not produce
>more than a very small fraction of our energy needs; I'll check these.

	good enough.  i'm not aware of other byproducts of natural gas
	burning -- chemists please comment.  is there any fuel which
	burns more cleanly than natural gas???

>I consider myself informed.  I have read about nuclear power, reactor 
>design, and the accidents for which details have been published.

	all are different subjects than the one i've been discussing.

>I'm sure I could imagine some worst case scenarios for coal power which
>show it to be worse.  (I'd start with acid rain.)

	John, i'm not trying to bash nuclear or coal power -- just 
	commenting on the "greenhouse effect" theory.

	(i can't wait for summer.)