eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (04/09/88)
In <4446@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman) writes: >In article <799@spdcc.COM} eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: !Huh? Do you seriously suggest that either nuclear or solar power have !significant effects upon the atmospheric CO2 concentration? i'd call thermal runaway 'significant'. so the answer is YES. CO2 is both a cause and an effect in thermal runaway. runaway may not occur until our power needs go up by a couple of orders (2) of magnitude or more. the 'points of no return' which may be present in the greenhouse effect are not known. it is a feedback cycle, and it would be wise to use energy sources which minimize both CO2 and thermal effects. please understand that thermal effects do not depend entirely on 'waste heat'. it's possible that if all CO2 production stopped tomorrow, the atmosphere would still runaway. then, how would you feel about thermal effects, as well as waste heat. !As for thermal, you know my attitude on that. regarding thermal energy, you energy source table is informative. regarding thermal runaway (greenhouse effect!), you haven't given me any food for thought. if you've got interesting things to say about the greenhouse effect, i would like to hear them. !} your tone seems to indicate that !} you believe you are the last word on subjects which are in dispute !} within the scientific community. ! !To the best of my knowlege there is no significant dispute over this !subject within the scientific community. of course there is. do you think that atmospheric science and planetary science are subjects that are completely understood ? sheesh... take a look at Willard Scott on the today show !! !}}Seems to me that nuclear is the best choice. ! !} what is the point in trying to contort the thermal & greenhouse !} effect arguments into an argument for or against nuclear energy? ! !Unless my posting was totally garbled by net-news, it included a table !showing the effects of various forms of power on the earth. If you !want to argue with my conclusion you will have to repost the parts of !!!! !the table that you disagree with and explain why you disagree. i won't really have to do that, Michael. you obviously love to argue about nuclear power and scumbag covert deals which kill civilians on many continents. i don't choose to argue these subjects with you -- there is little need to. i will look at your energy table again, though! and i'd be happy to argue about planetary science with you.