Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!csli!cphoenix
From: cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space,sci.environment,misc.headlines,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported
Message-ID: <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 30 Mar 89 09:30:26 GMT
References: <18213@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <3451@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <77762DBH106@PSUVM> <1989Mar28.041030.2291@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM>
Sender: cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix)
Reply-To: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 22
Xref: utzoo sci.research:811 sci.space:10352 sci.environment:722 misc.headlines:7482 sci.misc:3342

In article <1113@gvgpsa.GVG.TEK.COM> johna@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com.GVG.TEK.COM (John Abt) writes:
>>[quotation deleted]
>With unlimited cheap and pollution-free energy available, we won't be
>talking about the greenhouse effect, it will be the furnace effect.

Not necessarily.
Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
I don't know the statistics on the amount of energy in sunlight falling on
the earth, but it's some amazing number of times greater than the amount
of energy we use.  In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  The greenhouse effect
probably traps much more heat than would be produced by any fusion we could
use.  Worrying about a "furnace effect" from fusion is almost as groundless
as worrying about one from solar energy.  (That came up in sci.nanotech a 
while ago, and I gave the same answer except, "Imagine how cheap it would
be, with nanotechnology, to...")

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu