"Here we show that accelerated basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves is likely to have contributed significantly to sea-ice expansion. Specifically, we present observations indicating that melt water from Antarctica’s ice shelves accumulates in a cool and fresh surface layer that shields the surface ocean from the warmer deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves. Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model we find that cool and fresh surface water from ice-shelf melt indeed leads to expanding sea ice in austral autumn and winter." http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou...

This kind of thing gives access to much more fossil carbon than is considered in most carbon inventories because there is no need for the process to produce energy from the fossil carbon. It can just be an energy transfer from renewable energy that won't run out, to buried carbon that that is too low quality to be a fuel on its own. If we consider using renewably generated hydrogen to mobilize the remaining carbon in spent source rock, there is more than enough carbon to make the earth's surface uninhabitable for mammals nearly everywhere. http://www.newscientist.com/bl...

This allows the Peak Oil argument that oil won't be extracted if the ratio of energy return on energy invested drops too low (usually below about 3) to be discounted. Values well below one can now be exploited. Additionally, source rock may be injected with renewably sourced hydrogen to get at carbon that normally would be completely immobile. Kharecha and Hansen attempted to look at the effects of Peak Oil on climate. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... It appears they may have been seriously too optimistic. Exploiting source rock to mobilize all the carbon using renewable energy could lead to three or four doublings of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In essence, renewable energy provides the means to make most of the continents uninhabitable.

TMI discredits the Soviet system.

Al least he celebrates Christmas.

One of the arguments for the existence of God is that we are inclined to worship. It is argued that we would not have this god-directed faculty if there were no object upon which to exercise this faculty. Apparently this article urges that hero worship be substituted. Charisma over reason....

Well, if you only want to consider what is temporarily in the air, we'd want to see if the lawn watering promoted be electricity use cuts normal dust concentration enough to reduce the overall load. Coal ash has raw chemical edges and is less healthy than dust from the ground for that reason. But the radiation aspect is unimportant. You can read more details here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/f...

Consider laying the ash as a layer on the ground. There will be some radiation from the ground originally which is now screened by the ash. And there will now be just as much replacement radiation coming from the ash. It is neutral. No change in radiation.

Actually, no. Fly ash has the same concentration of uranium as soil so it has no effect. Nuclear accidents release very dangerous fission products and a quite a different situation. Burning coal actually reduces radiation exposure because carbon-14 has all decayed in coal. Carbon from coal thus dilutes the carbon-14 in our food supply and thus us as well.

The hydrocarbon's use as a fuel is ended. As a fuel, it is destroyed. I mention that because the thread was not distinguishing between renewal and recycling.

"Stellar nucleosynthesis, quiescent or explosive, forge the whole variety of nuclei from C to U but LiBeB nuclei are destroyed in the interior of stars, except 7Li which is produced in AGB and novae. The destruction temperatures are 2, 2.5, 3.5, 5.3 and 5 millions of degrees for 6Li, 7Li, 9Be, 10B and 11B respectively. It is worth noting that 7Li and 11B could be produced by neutrino spallation in helium and carbon shells of core collapse supernovae, respectively [96], [91]; however, this mechanism is particularly uncertain depending strongly on the neutrino energy distribution. It is clear that another source is necessary to generate at least 6Li, 9Be, 10B and this is a non thermal mechanism, namely the break up of heavier species (CNO, mainly) by energetic collisions, also called spallation." http://cds.cern.ch/record/3933...

Calculating from the report I pointed you to, that should be about 1000 rather than 90 based on the Chernobyl accident alone. Nuclear is too dangerous, and it may turn out to be the most dangerous, but I did not say so.

Just as I would be much happier if ICBMs remain unused. LNG terminals are built away from populated areas these days. Perhaps the word "strategy" is one that is hard for you to understand.