Thanks for the comment Jed. I was afraid that my attempt at defining the problem was difficult to follow and you have confirmed that worry.
What should we consider as global warming if it is not the actual heating of the globe? If excess heat is not ultimately the result of the release of carbon dioxide and its partner compounds then I do not understand how to define the phenomenon. I am looking at the problem from the viewpoint that coal in this case effectively keeps on burning for many years. Of course the initial heat release rate is far more intense than the relatively slow process of trapping sunlight over many years during which the gas resides within the atmosphere. Never the less, the final tally associated with burning of a finite quantity of coal should be the equivalent to a multiple of the initial heat released when that quantity burns. Now, if the carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere does not have a finite lifetime of existence, then my assumption is not true. Radiated heat that escapes during the night has to be associated with the earth temperature as the source. I am suggesting the initial fuel burning heat as well as sunlight contributed heat that is trapped by the released gas will contribute to (increase) this initial black body earth temperature that leads to radiation into space. Global warming would mean that the temperature overall is hotter and consequentially more heat must be radiated if we are to maintain status quo. The two are by necessity connected and one can not be separated from the other. If we make the assumption that waste heat does not matter in our effort to confront global warming, then why would we not just define heat trapped by the global warming gasses as waste heat? Joules are joules in my opinion. Actually I think that we have to confront the entire heating process that the earth faces if we are to make headway. This has to include all sources of heat, including any new heat that arises out of the usage of LENR technology. LENR technology might very well allow us to dispose of the current heat trapping gases as you seem to be suggesting. LENR does not suffer from any heat multiplication effects that are obvious. I bet my thoughts are still not entirely clear. Sorry about the poor wording of my answer as it has been a long day. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I had hoped that my arguments would start a discussion about the effects of global warming mitigation attempts and to frame the information in a manner that would clarify any solutions based upon the underlying problem. I was thinking of commenting on this but I am busy preparing for ICCF17. I am not sure I understand your assumptions. Global warming is caused by CO2, not by waste heat from energy generation. Waste heat does cause "heat islands" in cities, and this does affect the weather. It also makes things several degrees hotter locally, in some urban areas. But that has nothing to do with global warming. Waste heat from energy generation -- cars, factories, electric power, cooking and everything else -- quickly escapes from the atmosphere. I think it takes about a half hour. After the sun goes down in the Sahara desert, the air cools down in about a half hour. The sand does not trap and radiate much heat. By midnight it is actually cold. If we were to increase total energy output by a large factor with cold fusion, it might cause more heat islands and other disruptions. However, I think it is likely that cold fusion will lead to less primary heat generation overall. It will be more efficient, because of things like cogeneration. Even if we end up using more energy, there will less primary generation. For a while, anyway. You have to realize that our present energy systems are incredibly inefficient. Especially electric power. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf If primary energy generation increases too much I hope we will move heavy industry into space, with space elevators. That will free up the land now taken up by factories -- another bonus. I would like to see all blast furnaces, automobile plants, semiconductor plants and so on located 35,000 km away. A lot of that stuff probably works better in a vacuum anyway. The ultimate clean room! Or in pure nitrogen. We will never run out of industrial real estate up there. Loud noise and disruption do not travel far in a vacuum. There is plenty of room at the top -- to reverse Feynman's dictum. There is also unlimited amounts of raw material. Probably a trillion times more easily accessible material than there is on earth. So we should transfer all mining and refining up there too. I discussed this in my book after consulting with various experts. - Jed
