<html>
<body>
Greetings from Edmonton,<br><br>
The University of Alberta, where my daughter works, is receiving huge
funding increases from Alberta's oil, so I guess I shouldn't be
complaining.<br><br>
Here are some items from the "The Edmonton Journal" from the
last two days. First, there is a huge surplus of sulphur building
up from the oil sands extraction process. These pools and piles
pose environmental risks that Alberta's oil industry has not invested
enough to prevent. In 1995 a sulphur fire killed many people and
destroyed the cropland around the South African town of
Macassar.<br><br>
Second, a recent poll showed that 70 percent of Albertans want a absolute
reduction in pollution from the oil industry.<br><br>
Third, so what does the government do in response? In their new
strict pollution measures, the oil industry is exempted and allowed a 5
percent increase in nitrogen oxide levels and a 60 percent in volatile
organic compounds until 2015. <br><br>
Just as in the U.S., where oil is king, the kings get their way.<br><br>
P.S. A Canadian study on the effects of same sex parenting, done under
the previous Liberal government, was finally released by the current
Conservative government only after the authors insisted that it be
published. The results showed that lesbian parents might actually
raise slightly better children, results consistent with most all other
studies.<br><br>
Nick Gier<br><br>
At 01:25 AM 5/8/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
Ted,<br>
I understand some of the "benefits" of He3 are: less energy is
lost in the form of neutrons that escape magnetic containment and the
containment mechanism is less arduous for He3 reactors. He3 is rare
on Earth, but abundant on our moon. I don't know or understand much
of this science; a recent documentary piqued my interest and I visited a
few websites. Whatever the best technology is (will be) there are
significant plans being developed by various nations to mine the
moon.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">I do not expect fusion to cure mankinds
appetite for energy and neglect of nature's balance. I do think it
is interesting, the extent in which man will go to acquire new &
better w/o fully comprehending the resulting implications, and even
ignoring problems from past shortsightedness. Mankind seems to
frequently look away from the mirror to find solutions to self-created
problems. Sometimes that works well, but we are want to ignore one
obvious solution - namely don't do what we've been doing.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">As long as the major litmus test for
progress is monetary profit for private sector investors, I do not hold
much hope for environmental & social issues to be at the fore-front
until a crisis is at our door. Even though these issues offer
profit for entrepreneurial investors, it's slow for markets to change
direction.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">Mark<br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Mark et. al.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Info on ITER in France.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.fusion.org.uk/news/n050628_iter.html">
http://www.fusion.org.uk/news/n050628_iter.html</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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). <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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? <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>On 5/6/07, mark seman</b>
<<a href="mailto:fcs@moscow.com">fcs@moscow.com</a>> wrote: <br>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">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. <br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/02/914/">
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/02/914/ </a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=201211" eudora="autourl">
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=201211</a> <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/50749;jsessionid=baa9">
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/50749;jsessionid=baa9</a>
...<br>
<dd>and many others.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font size=2 color="#0000FF">Mark<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Mark et. al.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The irony! <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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... <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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: <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.planetextinction.com/">
http://www.planetextinction.com</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>------<br>
<dd>Ted Moffett<br><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>On 5/4/07, Mark Solomon</b>
<<a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">msolomon@moscow.com</a> >
wrote: <br>
<dl>
<dd><tt>Extracting the oil from the bitumen is so energy intensive that
nuclear plants may be built to power the refineries.<br><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=24103fc4-5c">
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=24103fc4-5c
</a>c5-4161-894c-de070a035c77&k=98326<br><br>
<dd>m.<br>
</tt>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>