StoppingClimateChange.com                                                                              Is It Really, Really Worth It?
Home Page     Sitemap      About      Foreword     Oil 2.0     Cheaper Than Coal?      The Technology      Footnotes & Links

Site Facilities:     1  Unneeded Old Coal Power Plant      2  New Power Plant Building       
Power Plant:       3  Power Plant Choices      3a  Pilot Plant Power Drop      3b  Carbon Capture Power     REACTORS:    3c  GA 1,560°F     3d  NuScale 550°F     3e  ThorCon 1,300°F     3f  Terrestrial  1,300°F 

Fuel Feedstock:  4  Hydrogen and Steam Generators      5  Biomass Preparation      6  Plasma Torch Biomass Gasifier     
Refinery:             7  Biosynfuel Refinery      8 Biosynthetic Fuels     
8a Cellulosic E85 BioEthanol     8b Cellulosic M70 BioMethanol     8c Cellulosic BioDiesel     8d Fuel Hydrogen

Is It Really, Really, Worth It?

It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned.
However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but from oxygen in the air the fire has attached to the carbon.
CO2's carbon has an essential function in most fire.

At 40 billion tons per year, we are adding over 100 million tons of CO2 to the air every day.

Plus a lot of Methane from oil field and commercial natural gas leakage.

                       

I pick away at this website with a melancholy heart because I'm confidant the mechanics of stopping climate Climate Change, as outlined in this website, are good enough to work but won't be tried because a world completely powered by clean energy won't be genuinely cheaper than a world powered powered by fossil fuels. For the next several hundred years the actual amount of available fossil fuels will be so great it's price will always be a bargain in free markets.
Notice the Radiative Heat Flux curves are going horizontal with additional CO2 or Methane. This is to be expected since we are dealing optical behavior of gasses. It means we have already seen the worst of it for CO2 but not Methane. The IPCC's lack of interest in industrial-strength mitigation technologies such as nuclear tend to lead one to think they know they are playing a game that has it's limits.

              

Perhaps 25,000 Clean Energy Parks are necessary if we are to completely stop Climate Change's growth.
The world has well over 50,000 coal burning power plants. 
How many total power plants are there?  Well over 100,000

HOW?  Electrify everything possible, replace coal with nuclear, replace oil and natural gas fuels with equivalent cellulosic CO2-neutral biosynfuels.

The less we have to change to stop Climate Change, the quicker, cheaper, and better.  The less our lives will be impacted by changes we do not want and can't afford.

Since fossil fuel's CO2 is altering Planet Earth's weather - effectively forever - we have to de-fossilize our fuels to begin re-stabilizing the environment.

If we continue to use fossil fuels, there are enough fossil fuels remaining in the ground to give the world a terrible case of Global Warming before they are all burned.

 

 

 

 

Here is one group's estimate of how much longer affordable fossil fuel deposits will last:

Most energy experts agree renewables such as windmills and solar cells cannot fill the entire energy gap the loss of fossil fuels will create.

Today, after 60 years, the world gets only about 14% of it's energy from nuclear so ramping up traditional nuclear to 50%+ by 2050 is not likely.

Worse, what nuclear we do have are your grandfather's big hunkers that don't run hot enough to make carbon-neutral synthetic oil and gas or pull CO2 out of the air.

This all adds up to an chronic energy emergency.

Stopping Climate Change's growth pronto means mass producing the new, small, higher temperature nuclear reactors by the thousands shipyard style and locating them on the world's existing coal power plant site properties as a way to end coal burning and begin the manufacture of carbon-neutral cellulosic oil and natural gas combustion fuels quickly.

 

The world's remaining mineral energy resources.

Already, there are over 50 baby nuclear reactors incubating right now in the development nest. You're bound to find several that you like. The four I point out on this website are all very different, yet all very desirable for very different reasons.


Lights = Cities = One to a Dozen Coal Power Plants.

Bottom Lines

Pennsylvania State Redevelopment Agency Seeks To Revitalize De-commissioned Power Plants.

An article for The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (4/21, Legere) reported that old coal-fired power plants which have been de-commissioned in the last decade because they “couldn’t compete with cheaper energy sources, lower demand and stricter air pollution rules” may find new uses as the result of a redevelopment project administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (PDCED)  https://dced.pa.gov/  . The agency’s “playbook – the first in a series planned for closed Pennsylvania coal plants – is written to inspire developers’ interest in reusing the shuttered Mitchell site and the surrounding 800 acres of woods and fields mounded with mining waste rock and a coal ash landfill.” PDCED Senior Energy Advisor Denise Brinley is quoted saying, “We want to engage with the development community in a meaningful way and get these sites back into reuse. We have a lot of work to do. There’s a lot of them.” The Post-Gazette added that “in Pennsylvania, 11 power plants have shut down coal-fired generating units since 2010 and another three have converted to run on natural gas.” TRC Companies Plant Redevelopment Specialist Ed Malley “said there is no federal law to keep closed power plants from sitting cold and dark indefinitely,” and he is quoted saying that “the whole thing turns on economics,” adding, “if there is a valuable piece of property that has a power plant on it, chances are that someone will want it. But if the site doesn’t have a lot of value, it is very difficult.”

* Climate Change Has Run Its Course - Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.
A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that 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.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”  - For the full article:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876 
- The author thinks the "Early Climate Change Movement" has run it's course and the cynical pleas of the "Windmill Greenies" are being heard less often.

The fossil fuel industry cannot be "opposed" away.
Fossil fuel's combustion heat will always be too important for mankind to abandon until more BTUs [or Joules] can be obtained for less money from carbon-neutral fossil fuel replacements.
Common sense tells you this is the only force that will ever stop Climate Change. Lower cost carbon-neutral drop-in fossil fuel replacement is this site's goal.

If this website is to have any lasting value at all, it will be necessary to identify specific fuel production technologies and determine order-of-magnitude cost estimates for:
                                                                               Production from Nuclear Reactor Heat:
(1), one megaWatt-Hour of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) nuclear electricity,
(2), one cubic metre of SMR flash desalinated water,
(3), one kilogram of SMR thermochemical hydrogen gas,
                                                                               Production from Carbon-neutral (Cn) Captured CO2 Carbon:
(4), one gallon of Cn corn-equivalent synthetic carbon-neutral ethanol  
https://www.betalabservices.com/biofuels/synthetic-ethanol.html   
      Corn Ethanol Energy Balance:                                                              https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf    

(5), one standard cubic foot of Carbon-neutral (Cn) synthetic 'natural' gas, 
(6), one gallon of Cn 87 octane (regular) gasoline,
(7), one gallon of Cn M70 methanol (E85 replacement), and
(8), one gallon of
Cn dimethyl ether [DME] (diesel replacement),  https://www.aboutdme.org/index.asp?sid=48 
 - all liquid combustion fuels to be made from Cn cellulosic feedstocks.

In addition, Metropolitan Solid Waste tipping fees, plasma slag recovery fees, and other sundry economic components need to be factored in.
For more background see:  
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/360/6396/1396.full

To see where the idea for the above list came from, see Table 1 of: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/eaas9793  
While not the inspiration for this website, which is the realization of some of the concepts mentioned in the Science Magazine paper, the author can't think of a better single paper covering the issues that led to the idea of using unneeded coal power plant sites to manufacture the energies suggested in the paper. Please check it out - well written with good graphics.

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

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Environmentalism's Nuclear Disaster
There are a few important lessons on this page you may not want to know about.

 

Environmentalists prefer Climate Change to nuclear electricity.
 
Ignoring the miracles of modern nuclear medicine, the world's environmentalists advocated coal electricity instead of nuclear electricity to modernize second and third world countries after World War II.
 
 
In 1953, President Eisenhower suggested worldwide construction of nuclear power plants instead of coal power plants - ("Atoms for Peace" pdf).

Recently, several U.S. nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and other shutdowns have been announced.

In every instance, nuclear plant closures have led to higher emissions and electricity prices, pointing out a difficult truth. Experts say it is virtually impossible for a major economy to have a reliable, low-carbon grid without nuclear energy. The Germans are learning this lesson the hard way.

In the chart below, your author graphically sketched in - in light green - the CO2 that was - and continues to be - NEEDLESSLY added to the atmosphere.

Hey, Sierra Club ! Is nuclear really that much worse than coal?

Is it really, really, worth it? Just look at how much worse Climate Change is than it had to be

The U.S. has worn out most of it's post-World War 2 coal power plants making Climate Change. The same generation of coal power plants in the rest of the world are also approaching worn out.

As of Jul 1, 2017, over all, 1,600 new coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald's tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.

Just think how much worse Climate Change is going to become because of 1,600 additional new large coal power plants.    Is "No Nukes" really, really, worth it?

                                          

Are professional environmentalists who do not advocate maxing out on nuclear energy now to minimize Climate Change committing MALPRACTICE?

"No Nukes" is the major reason we failed to keep Climate Change from becoming as bad as it is.
Not using nukes to fight Climate Change probably means we will eventually be using nukes to fight each other for food when Climate Change causes our primary food crops (wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats, sorghum, and millet) to fail.

[Aside] This event will certainly be remembered forever by all mankind as the most regrettable thing environmentalists ever did. [End of aside.]

Fearing nuclear electricity, environmentalists bungled fighting Climate Change by advocating coal electricity.
Planet Earth's CO2 had been stable at about 270 ppm (parts of CO2 per million parts of air) since the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago. 
This environmental stability produced an "optimal" environment that enabled humans to develop agriculture and civilizations for the first time.
Now, we've lost it and can't get it back.
 
(Click on image, right, to see temperatures of Planet Earth for last 550 million years to see how precious our current climate is compared to the "Ice Ages".) 

Starting with the beginning of the industrial age, the "Age of Coal", about 1700, the CO2 level began to slowly rise.


In 1953, President Eisenhower advocated that poor countries switch from coal electricity to potentially far cheaper nuclear electricity to power up their economies.
 He used the United Nations as a platform for his speech - ("Atoms for Peace" pdf).
 By then, the CO2 level had risen to 312 ppm  (42 ppm over 253 years or +0.166 ppm per year). 

 We didn't realize it then, but "Atoms for Peace" was the world's last chance to easily avoid the worst of Global Warming.

(Sometimes nuclear heat can be 2,000 times cheaper than coal. With more cheap energy per person, more people will always find a pathway to more prosperity. At the time, Eisenhower was thinking nuclear electricity would be cheaper than coal electricity for humanity's impoverished third-world masses.  Also, at the time, most environmentalists thought global cooling, not warming, was going to happen.)


Incredibly, in 1974, even after CO2 had rapidly climbed to 330 ppm, (18 ppm over 21 years or +0.86 ppm per year - an INCREASE of over 5 times as fast), environmentalists - specifically, The Sierra Club, - were still preferring coal instead of nuclear to make electricity.
(CO2-induced global warming Climate Change was beginning to be understood by the environmentalists by 1974 but they still wanted emerging nations to grow on coal instead of nuclear.)

Today, environmentalists are still putting their anti-nuclear agendas ahead of stopping Climate Change. 

It is now 2018 and we are living in a rapidly Climate Changing World with CO2 at 407 ppm, (77 ppm over 44 years or +1.75  ppm per year - an almost doubling of the already 5 times faster 1974 rate).

And, with Climate Change's CO2, there's no going back.  Thanks, environmentalists. Building windmills to end Climate Change is like taking aspirin for cancer.

It's difficult to understand how, in light of the ppm evidence above, environmentalists are continuing to oppose the advice of Dr. Hansen and many others to switch from coal to nuclear.
It's just plain unrealistic to expect windmills and solar cells to be able to power a highly industrialized world that is consuming the energy equivalent of over 200 million barrels of oil per day. The world will do what it has to do.
How could so many brilliant men and women possess so little intelligence?
Nuclear energy - both electricity and thermal - is any country's quickest, cheapest, and environmentally cleanest pathway to energy prosperity.
With more cheap energy per person, more people will always find a pathway to more prosperity.
The United States is a 10,000 Watt-hour per day per person society; Mexico, 2,000 W-hpd; Haiti, 500 W-hpd.
 


This website is an effort to moderate the long-term impact of Climate Change.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How Much Harm Have We Already Done?

The deed is done.  The anti-nuclear environmentalists have irrevocably pushed us over the cliff and we have begun bouncing off outcropping rocks on the way down - i.e., having frequent billion dollar storms.

Even if we totally stopped burning all fossil fuels now, the additional heat caused by the CO2 already in the air will keep increasing for several hundred years before it levels off. Like a very large tea kettle, Planet Earth warms up very slowly when measured in people-years.

All that you can do from now on is to evolve your building codes to rebuild more resiliently - as Florida did after Hurricane_Andrew - and, in the United States, get used to living in the climate the folks 500 miles to your south have lived in all their lives. This spreads out the time needed for resiliency rebuilding to better match a country's actual economic resources and the public's adaptation to living in a  Climate Changed world by identifying structures, objects, and human pursuits that need to be adapted to the new realities that Climate Change imposes.  https://toolkit.climate.gov/ 

Your author has already experienced climate resiliency personally rebuilding his storm-damaged home and it was not what he - or his insurance company - thought it would be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -