Addressing Global Warming---L4

[Ronn! Blankenship]

Some contrasting opinions I have encountered 
recently (like mainly in the past 24 hours or so) 
which I'd like to hear your responses to if you have the time and inclination:



At 06:02 PM Saturday 4/26/2008, dsummersminet at comcast.net wrote:
>As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious plan to
>handle global warming.  As is my wont, I will preface my recommendations
>with a bit of analysis that will serve as a foundation for my later work.
>
>[snip]
>
>OK, having said that, let’s go to green technologies.  The first and most
>obvious one is nuclear power.  Nuclear power is a well proven technology.
>It has been used competitively with fossil fuel plants.  The “subsidies”
>for nuclear power have mostly been indirect benefits from governmental
>nuclear weapons research.
>
>Nuclear power has been subject to criteria for safety that has not been
>paralleled by most other industries.  In particular, risk is assessed using
>a linear model to assess damage from low level radiation, even though
>studies of low level radiation, on average, show a very small benefit to
>low level radiation.
>
>I discuss this at some length in my blog at
>
>http://science-community.sciam.com/blog/Dan-Ms-Blog/300001389
>
>But, the essence of the report is that, if the linear model is correct, it
>should be apparent in the dependence of morbidity rates on natural
>background radiation.  In particular, if the linear model is correct, the
>high levels of radon in the Denver area should result in a very strong
>signal in lung cancer deaths among non-smokers
particularly non-smokers in
>households that do not contain smokers.  But, instead, the large scale test
>from that area show a homesis effect: death rates are lower.
>
>Now, with the uncertainties in correcting for different people with
>different risks living in different areas makes this result consistent with
>no effect.  But, after 60 odd years of analysis, the evidence is, with the
>rare exception that can be ascribed to statistical anomalies, that there is
>no measurable risk associated with low doses of radiation.
>
>Given this, and given the low measured death rate when a near worst case
>scenario took place (Chernobyl
with less than 100 deaths according to the
>official commission monitoring the situation), it seems a no-brainer that
>the benefits in reducing CO2 emissions outweigh the relatively small risk
>inherent in nuclear power.  Further, even the accidental death rate
>associated with other power sources compare unfavorably with nuclear energy
>(including Chernobyl).
>
>There are some difficulties associated with nuclear power.  In particular,
>the use of breeder reactors could enhance the possibility of weapons grade
>fuel being used.  One possible solution to this is the “poisoning” of the
>fuel with other material that would have to be separated out to obtain bomb
>grade material.  But, if we accept breeder reactors, the projections are
>that we can have nuclear based electricity for at least 100 years.



<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti>



>[snip]
>
>Hydrogen was a big deal for a while, but according to Wikipedia
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
>
>there are a lot of efficiency problems along the supply chain.  Googling
>the question, I find that hydrogen is now produced from methane
..and that
>while the theoretical efficiency of producing it from electric power is OK
>(80%-90%), no one seems to be doing it on a massive basis.  This sends a
>clear red flag to me. In theory, it is doable, but the practicalities are
>beyond us now.  This is a technology that I wouldn’t count on nor would I
>spend resources on large scale engineering efforts (e.g. like the 200+
>million dollar compressed air facility that I do support), but one that I’d
>invest R&D dollars in fundamental research on the problems.



Did you see Ahhnahld's appearance on the Tonight 
Show this week where this was one of the topics they discussed?


. . . ronn!  :)