StoppingClimateChange.com               Cellulosic Carbon's Potential Is Large Enough To Replace All Oil.
The objective of this website is to provide an effective plan to stop the growth of Climate Change from all fossil fuel sources completely within 5 years. The plan is economically feasible, uses only developed technology, won't change the world's energy use habits, vehicles, or commercial infrastructure, provide mankind with genuinely cheap, abundant, sustainable clean energy, wherever fossil fuel fire is used today, and is rapidly scale-able to a global size large enough to actually stop the real growth of Climate Change.
Ending Climate Change has two parts: Part1, stopping climate change's growth. This is the quick and easy part. Part 2, sucking enough CO2 out of the air to bring the atmosphere back to what it was at the end of WWII. This may prove to be impossible.

 Carbon-captured Fossil Heat or Nuclear Heat + Hydrogen + Biomass System - (Slides) - Dr Charles W. Forsberg .pdf  - Quick slide show explanation.

Recycling air's CO2 into clean fuels - abstract sketch above - is shown in sketch below using standard industrial equipment to assemble GTL molecules [ GTL ] to make CO2-neutral fire fuels.
We can continue to provide mankind whichever energy they need, whenever they need it, in whatever volumes they need it. A combination of clean energy producing technologies for stopping Climate Change's growth.  CO2's carbon has an essential function in most fire.
Equipping our existing nuclear reactors with Lightbridge much safer higher output fuel rods [pdf] and building additional NuScale modular reactors in the U.S.' Northern tier states to provide enough electricity to power 100 times as many electric cars and heat cities.
Example: To replace the fossil fuel burning furnace in the average house's furnace with an electric furnace/air conditioner would call for 20 to 40 amperes (A) at 220 volts (V). Most post-WWII houses have 200 A, 220V power panels.

 Forest thinning machines that do the job of a controlled forest burn might harvest enough brush cellulosic carbon to replace America's need for oil to make gasoline.

 Discussion pages. >  Foreword     Oil Industry 2.0     Cheaper Than Coal?     The Technology    
Equipment pages. >   1 Original Plant Site  2 New Plant Description  3 Energy Park and Industrial Power Plants  4 Hydrogen, Steam Generators  5 Biomass Preparation Equipment  6 Plasma Torch Gasifier  7 GTL Refinery  8 Fuels Description
 

   (Left, Click to enlarge.)  CO2 disposal capacities for Michigan counties. (Right) Integral amine carbon captured natural gas or oil power plant for Clean Energy Parks. 

Many countries and regions have only tiny or depleted oil patches (i.e., like Michigan), lack advanced energy infrastructure, and need something like Hybrid CO2.
1. CO2 emissions can be reduced to near-windmill levels by adding amine carbon capture to the turbine's exhaust (somewhat like adding a catalytic converter to a car).
2. Substantial reductions in the cost of plant energy since you are making your own Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) CO2 and burning its unrefined crude oil.
(If you add postcombustion carbon capture, plan on the amine equipment taking up as much as 4 acres.)

CO2 is used two ways in the above Hybrid CO2 Energy Park.
1, In a carbon-neutral fuel-product loop where plants extract CO2 from the air, the carbon (the ‘C’ in CO2) is extracted from the plants and used as one of the essential ingredients (carbon carries the hydrogen in hydrocarbon combustion fuels) to make synthetic gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. When the vehicle exhausts the burnt fuel's CO2 back into the air, this creates an energy cycle that does not add to, or reduce, Climate Change.
2. Using CO2 for ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery’ to power the Hybrid CO2 Energy Park itself. In most parts of the world there are trace oil patches that cannot be profitably pumped because the oil is attached to rocks and won’t flow easily by itself. The Permian basin oil patch in Texas is an example. For instance, Michigan is the U.S.' 17th largest oil producing state. Many of its wells are 10 barrels-a-week 'strippers'.
It so happens that liquefied CO2 acts as a solvent when mixed with crude oil. Oil companies pay good money to buy tank cars full of liquefied CO2 and inject it, along with water, into the ground in a circle around underground patches of oil. This loosens the oil from its surrounding rocks and the water pushes the now loose oil toward oil wells located in the circle's center. These oil wells pump the oil and CO2 mixture to the surface and into tanks. The CO2, being a gas under pressure, bubbles to the top of the oil where it is recaptured, then recompressed to re-liquefy it, and then is injected into the ground again. Not all of the oil is recovered and, after several trips up and down, the CO2, unable to free up all the oil every time, is lost (sequestered) underground forever.
Typically, one barrel of CO2 will get you about 5 barrels of crude oil before the CO2 is completely absorbed by the ground forever.

________________________________________________________________

Using Fossil Fuels to Make Clean Fuels

A reluctant bottom line: Personally, I prefer nuclear. The world may keep nuclear in reserve until it has more completely exhausted oil and gas. However, we need thousands of Clean Energy Parks immediately if we are to head off the worst of Climate Change and can do so by using carbon captured fossil fuels to power the manufacture of carbon-neutral fuels for general public use on existing vehicles and building heating systems.
We have a head start with the unneeded coal power plant sites themselves since worldwide there will be over 50,000 of them for the taking.
In addition, in the Michigan site examples cited above, perhaps a dozen unneeded Michigan coal power plant sites are located directly above some of the best and safest CO2 disposal geologic strata in the world.
All that is needed to sequester the CO2 is to drill a CO2 disposal well straight down on plant property. Nothing could be quicker or cheaper.

Going nuclear with the new smaller, safer reactor technologies will probably entail delays lasting into the mid-2030s. Even then, production will come in dribbles and drabs for at least another 10 years.

Gas turbines have been in mass production since about 1940 as jet airplane engines. Every day, about one million ordinary people trust them with their lives.  Either of the above two gas turbine configurations - conventional carbon-captured gas - or hybrid CO2 - should be able to do the job. Either of them will prove to have dirt-cheap initial cost compared to early Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMRs) facilities. Standard turbine/generator modules should be available for immediate delivery along with a standard outdoor concrete pad installation that can be completed in several months from at least 10 different world-class manufacturers who have already made tens of thousands of gas turbines for the world's electricity and aircraft industries.

Why do I prefer nuclear? Natural gas CO2 emissions from a non-carbon-captured gas turbine power plant are the same as the CO2 emissions from the cleanest coal burning power plant at 85% carbon-capture (considered excellent for coal). As I recall, CO2 emissions from coal power plants are about 13%, oil 7%, natural gas 3%. Link to fossil fuel CO2.
To capture 90% of a natural gas turbine's CO2 to make it CO2-competitive with nuclear calls for much better amine (or other) chemistry along with much larger absorption columns. The cost of doing this brings you face-to-face with the CO2 reality of carbon-captured natural gas vs. small modular nuclear reactors.
In this emissions region, oxyfuel carbon-capture offers substantial advantages over amine carbon carbon-capture despite it's greater costs.

The carbon-capture systems for the gas/oil turbines can be added later if carbon capture is not part of the turbine manufacturer's product line, perhaps by one of the more than 20 different global chemical process engineering & construction companies. Some of these E&C companies have been designing and building industrial-scale carbon capture process facilities since the mid-1930s.

Both gas turbines and nuclear facilities wear out. Some faster than others. Turbines, as short as 10 years; nuclear, as long as 50+ years. Both usually can be updated or refurbished on an as-needed basis.

________________________________________________________________

Observations

1. Greenies are barking up the wrong tree - the Tax Tree. Energy is a common commodity. Clean energy fuels must be genuinely cheaper than fossil energy fuels before they will be embraced by the world.
2. Climate Change's growth must be STOPPED before Climate Change can be REVERSED . (We are currently dumping over 100 million tons of ADDITIONAL CO2 into the air EVERY DAY.)
3. BECCS will prove to be a VERY BAD idea. BIOMASS should never be burned to produce industrial heat. Neutral carbon is too valuable. It is feedstock for producing advanced combustion fuels.
4. Fewer than 1/4 of the world's coal power plants would need to be rebuilt to stop Climate Change's growth from ALL fuel sources. The remaining 3/4 of the coal plants could then be shut down.
5. The world's oil industry has the ability to stop the growth of Fossil Fuel Climate Change by using "Clean Energy Parks" to replace all fossil oil and gas fuels with Carbon-neutral Oil and Gas fuels.

________________________________________________________________

Template Industries

Shell Pearl: The world's largest Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) refinery.  https://www.shell.com.qa/en_qa/projects-and-sites/pearl-gtl.html 
Showing what the oil industry could do to abate Climate Change using syngas-to-liquids GTL technologies. Check out Shell's introductory video "What is Pearl GTL?"
This website is about clean Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) fuels. What is GTL? You can go back and also check out Shell's other video "Shell's GTL Technology".

Shell Pearl clearly and simply illustrates the realization that the world's oil industry has the capacity - personnel, know-how, equipment, and economic ability - to rescue the world from much of the growth of Climate Change if the world would make it worth their while.
Global mass production of simple, standardized, trouble-free Energy Parks should bring substantial reductions in cost-per-park along with improved performance and reliability. Think what mass produced cars, airplanes, and ships have made possible.
(Plasma torches break matter down into it's basic atoms for re-assembly into new molecules.  Although rare on earth, plasma (think lightning and Star Trek weapons) is the fourth state of matter. Plasma is the most common form of matter in space.)
Notice the plasma gasifier has a 1,000 tons-of-garbage-per-day appetite so it needs to be located near 1 large or at the intersection between several medium size cities or in a forest near a number of sawmills and paper mills.

    http://plascotechnologies.com/  is using city garbage (MSW) to make electricity now! 
Check out their videos.
Don't let garbage go to waste!   -   Let's not fritter away valuable CO2-neutral syngas by burning it to make electricity.   Make green gasoline instead!

________________________________________________________________

The material presented on this web site was gathered from the internet or a few personal photos over the the last 10 years by a long-retired utility and industrial control systems engineer living mostly on Social Security.  His motivation for building this web site/blog rather than a model railroad is his concern that most of the people making decisions about Climate Change are from academia or politics and quite a few of their Climate Change mitigation solutions - i.e., wind, solar, massive batteries, etc. - display only a superficial awareness of the consequences of thrusting massive amounts of chaotically intermittent electricity from these sources into the electricity grids of modern industrialized countries.
Old coal power plant sites, diversified to be Clean Energy Parks, would be platforms for industries offering clean energy solutions such as fuel synthesis that need the stable, predictable, no-carbon 24/7/365 electricity and heat available from nuclear reactors.

National security expert Tom Nichols poured his expertise into a book about "The Death of Expertise" (Oxford University Press).
"Oftentimes younger people will say, 'Well, the internet is just a big library.' That's wrong; the internet is a big dumpster. There's no guarantee that anything you find on it is true."
"It's more democratic; isn't that good?" asked Silva-Braga.
"No. When it comes to knowledge, more democratic is not good, absolutely not. We don't decide how fast things accelerate in a vacuum by voting on it." - From MSN, 10/15/2018.

________________________________________________________________

Placing This Idea In It's Contexts

      

The entire world is covered with similar coal power plant sites about to be shut down either due to emissions or worn out. We couldn't be more fortunate. 
                                  

(Left) U.S. Coal Power Plant Shutdown Schedule: Red-2000 to 2014, Yellow-2014 to 2050.     (Right) Global Carbon Capture (CCS) Storage Locations.

Here is a coal power plant site scheduled for shutdown that is working very hard to provide local industry with a cleaner energy industrial park:  https://michiganhub.com/ 
Note: U.S. Supercritical and Ultra Supercritical Thermal (Coal) plants and their sites should be reserved for future carbon capture development and considered out of bounds for Clean Energy Parks.

There are about 50,000 more or less identical coal power plant sites worldwide that could make clean energy manufacturing locations.
No magic to tripling a coal power plant site's power output. Just install a three or more times as powerful carbon-captured gas turbine or modular molten salt reactor (SMR) adjacent to the abandoned old coal equipment.
 

                 
Lights = Cities = Coal Power Plants (click)                                         Major Oil Refineries (click)                         Gasification Facilities (click)

 

                                 

________________________________________________________________

"Nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause larger than yourself, something that encompasses you but is not defined by your existence alone" - John McCain.

"Technological fixes are often far simpler, and therefore cheaper, than the doomsayers could have imagined." -  ( From Foreword )

To stop Climate Change: 1, Electrify everything possible, 2, burn only cheap, clean non-fossil combustion fuels to provide all other energy needs.

Power = Power . . . . . . . . . Electricity explains the world.

________________________________________________________________

This website is based upon the understanding that fossil fuels will always be preferred as long as clean energy fuels are more expensive. Nuclear appears to be the best path to making cheap clean fuels.
Already, there are over 50 different baby nuclear reactors incubating in technology's development nest. You're bound to find several you like. I point out four on this website that are all very different, yet all very desirable for different applications such as producing electricity, extreme heat, hydrogen, desalinated water, and, of course, carbon-neutral combustion fuels.
The world also has over 200 thousand stationary diesel engines in the 2,000 and under horsepower class cranking out electricity and pumping water in rural locations. A swarm of tiny nuclear micro-reactors are being developed to replace these really dirty oil-burners.
Would it be worth living with nuclear's problems if that's what it took to end Climate Change's problems? Nuclear is the most powerful clean energy tool available. 
Of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.”  https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876
If environmentalism's base - such as Sierra Club - really cared about stopping Climate Change, they would have been 100% behind nuclear by 1990. In light of the bad things Climate Change is bringing to the world, their opposition to nuclear is simply criminal.
Nuclear's real danger is what happens when Climate Change causes crop failure, then famine, then mass migrations. Then nuclear weapons nations will be used to gain and keep control of the world's still-fertile regions regardless of other consequences.

________________________________________________________________

International Panel on Climate Change: Sixth (2018) Assessment Report:  https://www.ipcc.ch/ 

These people are talking about spending more money than the world has to reduce Global Warming rather than switching to cheaper, cleaner fuels such as carbon-neutral fuels and nuclear, made, distributed, and consumed using existing well-known equipment and distribution systems already built and in place.

________________________________________________________________

(From Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Q&A):  Q. In terms of mass, how much carbon does 1 part per million by volume of atmospheric CO₂ represent?
A. Using 5.137 x 10¹⁸ kg as the mass of the atmosphere (Trenberth, 1981 JGR 86:5238-46), 1 ppmv of CO₂ = 2.13 Gt of carbon.   [G = Giga, or billion.]
- - - So, 400 ppmv CO₂ = 852 Gt of carbon, or 852 billion tons of carbon, or, times 44/12 for CO₂ to include the weight of the 2 oxygens at 16 each and one carbon at 12 each = 3,124 billion (3.124 trillion) tons of CO_2.
This is why this website is about HALTING the GROWTH of additional CO₂, rather than pulling enough existing old CO₂ out of the air to make things right again.

It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO₂, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO₂ in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.  Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

 

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Frequently Asked Global Change Questions

  http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html 

Q. Are organizations elsewhere in the world studying technologies that could help us address the problem of global climate change?

A. Yes, quite a few. For example:

Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) (http://www.rite.or.jp/English/E-home-frame.html) in Japan was founded in 1990 as a "research hub ... for the development of innovative environmental technologies and the broadening of the range of CO₂ sinks."

GREENTIE, the Greenhouse Gas Technology Information Exchange, https://www.iea.org/tcp/fossilfuels/ghg/  (http://www.greentie.org/) an initiative of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), was established in 1993 "to improve the awareness of, and facilitate the access to, suppliers and experts of `clean technologies', particularly technologies that help mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases."

CADDETT (http://www.caddet-re.org/), the IEA/OECD Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies, "provides an international information network to help managers, engineers, architects, and researchers find out about the energy-saving techniques that have worked in other countries."

ScientecMatrix (http://www.scientecmatrix.com) is "a community of over 1000 scientists and technologists working on subjects as diverse as clean energy production from waste." [RMC]

________________________________________________________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -