[Vision2020] the energy cost of oil sands

Mon May 7 14:25:05 PDT 2007

Mark et. al.

I don't understand the big breakthrough in mining the moon for He3 for
fusion over the already planned fusion reactors using fuel already on
Earth.  Sure, its a potential future energy source, but from what I have
read on this subject, practical affordable fusion power is decades away,
perhaps as far off as 2050.  There are still debates in the scientific
community whether practical affordable fusion power will succeed.  He3
fusion reactors from moon sourced He3 will in fact involve the extra costs
of mining the moon and shipping the fuel to Earth.  How is this an advantage
over the deuterium/lithium/tritium test-bed fusion reactor now being built
in France, called ITER?  The fuel for this reactor design is already
abundant on Earth.  And in fact, one of the articles you listed indicated
that He3 fusion is more difficult than deuterium/lithium/tritium fusion.

Info on ITER in France.

http://www.fusion.org.uk/news/n050628_iter.html

If I have this wrong, please explain.  But I do not see how mining the moon
for He3 will do anything to solve the problem of human induced global
warming.

Furthermore, all dominant trends indicate fossil fuel consumption globally
will continue to increase for decades.  We can't wait until 2050 for a
possible breakthrough in fusion power.  Efforts to sequester enough CO2 to
lower output in absolute amounts, or lower fossil fuel consumption in
absolute amounts, face extreme obstacles, for very powerful economic,
political, social and lifestyle reasons.  China and India are developing at
a rapid rate, and cheap energy fuels this development.  Huge amounts of
cheap energy is an essential driving variable explaining why the USA has the
world's largest economy (using per capita more energy than any other
nation).

For example, coal is currently the cheapest energy source for electricity.
The USA has the world's largest coal reserves.  If the USA is serious about
reducing CO2 output, CO2 sequestration would immediately be mandated for CO2
power plants, with a huge investment in developing and implementing this
nascent technology, assuming it can be done on the large scale required.
This would increase the cost of electricity from coal, which would help
competing Green energy sources (wind, solar etc.) increase their presence in
the marketplace.  This basic "no brainer" step to seriously address global
warming is not happening now in the USA.  And if the USA cannot implement
this change, what are the chances that China with its huge coal reserves
will also implement this approach?

Perhaps if the recent attempts to get the EPA to regulate CO2 are taken
seriously, given that the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of EPA regulation,
the USA will start to implement CO2 sequestration for coal sourced energy,
along with CO2 taxes for new motor vehicles (England already does this, with
the CO2 tax increasing as the gas economy goes down) and increased CAFE
standards.

If CO2 sequestration for large scale coal energy generation is not
practical, well... Either don't use coal, or risk extreme global warming,
given the reliance on huge coal reserves for cheap energy in the USA, China,
and elsewhere.

Perhaps a practical affordable breakthrough technology, that could win the
25 million dollar prize billionaire Richard Branson recently offered for
atmospheric processors that can remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere,
will be developed.  I would not count on this, though, to justify the
continuing increases in CO2 emissions, with the potential disastrous
consequences from global warming we are risking.

Serious proposals are being discussed to inject sulfur into the upper
atmosphere to block sunlight to slow global warming, mimicking the cooling
effects of volcanic emissions.  Placing large numbers of "mirrors" in space
is also proposed.  These efforts would be very expensive, and perhaps have
serious side effects or unexpected long term consequences, but if global
warming becomes the disaster predicted, desperate measures may be adopted.

Ted Moffett

On 5/6/07, mark seman <fcs at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  If we can survive global warming for another decade or two by changing
> our energy production/consumption habits, it looks like we'll be mining the
> moon of its He3 resources for fusion energy here on earth.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/02/914/
> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=201211
>
> http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/50749;jsessionid=baa9
> ...
> and many others.
>
> Mark
>
>  <bau at moscow.com>
> mark r. seman, architect
>        v=928.925.7617
>        f=928.776.9107
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]*On Behalf Of *Ted Moffett
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 06, 2007 5:55 PM
> *To:* Mark Solomon
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] the energy cost of oil sands
>
>
> Mark et. al.
>
> The irony!
>
> As some promote nuclear power to substitute for CO2 emitting fossil fuel
> energy, we read this suggestion to use nuclear power to assist in fossil
> fuel development and use, and thus facilitate increased CO2 emissions...
>
> We hear the skeptics about human induced global warming talk about the
> uncertainties of climate science, questioning the necessity of taking
> dramatic action to reduce CO2 emissions.  Of course, if the Earth's climate
> was being considered for an insurance policy against damages, and there was
> a 50% chance of the estimates of damage from human induced global warming
> predicted by the IPCC coming true, no insurance company would offer
> protection, or the price would be astronomical.
>
> This website below at first struck me as a extremist and unscientific
> analysis of the threat of human induced global warming, but after careful
> reading, it now seems like a warning from the point of view of a worst case,
> though possible, scenario, backed mostly by credible climate science.  There
> is a section on the damage to the insurance industry from severe climate
> change:
>
> http://www.planetextinction.com
>
> ------
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> On 5/4/07, Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Extracting the oil from the bitumen is so energy intensive that nuclear
> > plants may be built to power the refineries.
> >
> > http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=24103fc4-5c
> > c5-4161-894c-de070a035c77&k=98326
> >
> > m.
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070507/ab79f499/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: baU.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13679 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070507/ab79f499/attachment-0001.jpe 