StoppingClimateChange.com                                                                                                                                     Prologue
Home Page      Sitemap      Footnotes & Links
Prologue          Introduction          1  Unneeded Old Coal Power Plant          2  New Electricity Generator Building          3a  NuScale Underground Nuclear Reactor          3b  ThorCon Underground Nuclear Reactor         

4  Hydrogen and Steam Generators          5  Biomass Preparation          6  Plasma Torch Biomass Gasifier          7  Biosynfuel Refinery          8  Biosynfuel Product Processes          9  Beyond Energy Parks

Prologue: Insight from Hindsight
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 64 years of not having nuclear electricity worth making this much extra Climate Change? 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.

Climate Change's additional heat energy and ice melting tends to distort and supercharge normal weather.

 

The curve below shows how increasing Climate Change's "blanket" amount will cause Planet Earth to hold in more heat and get warmer.
Once the air gets saturated with CO2, adding more CO2 has little additional heating effect but the harm has already been done.

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) in the air is one of Planet Earth's major thermostat mechanisms.
By advocating coal instead of nuclear, environmentalists have pushed up Planet Earth's thermostat.

       

Globally, over the course of the year, the Earth system —land surfaces, oceans, and atmosphere— absorbs and then radiates back to space an average of about 240 watts of solar power per square meter.
Anything that increases or decreases the amount of incoming or outgoing energy will change global temperatures in response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget 

Planet Earth's "Normal" CO2 has been 270 ppm since the end of the last Ice Age, 13,000 years ago. Since the beginning of the age of coal, about 1700, CO2 has moved up from 270 ppm to 295 ppm (25 ppm) by 1900 - or 200 years. CO2 had moved up another 17 ppm to 312 ppm by 1953, when coal's replacement, nuclear reactor heat, became available. Having experienced their economic and industrial weakness at the hands of the warring first world countries, many second and third world countries decided to modernize. They faced the choice of building many coal or nuclear electricity power plants. Environmentalists persuaded them to build coal.

 

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

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) in the air now:

Planet Earth's "Normal" CO2 has been 270 ppm since the end of the last Ice Age, 13,000 years ago. Since the beginning of the age of coal, about 1700, CO2 has moved up from 270 ppm to 295 ppm (25 ppm) by 1900 - or 200 years. CO2 had moved up another 17 ppm to 312 ppm by 1953, when coal's replacement, nuclear reactor heat, became available. Having experienced their economic and industrial weakness at the hands of the warring first world countries, many second and third world countries had decided to modernize.

Consider the situation of China at the hands of a cruel Imperial Japan during the late 1930s. Japan was far smaller but possessed a modern economy, industry, and military.

Like a one-way blanket, adding CO2 to the air slows the transfer of the Sun's heat back out into the cold of space at night, REDUCING Planet Earth's ability to cool itself.  Due to Planet Earth's mass, this increase in heat will take hundreds of years to reach a new stable temperature.

StoppingClimateChange:  Planet Earth's air CO2 now has three distinctly different components:
 1. The natural CO2 in the air we have always needed to keep the world at a comfortable 59°F.
 2. The fossil fuel CO2 the world added to the air since about 1800 by powering the heat engines that built and maintain the modern world - Climate Change's CO2.
 3. The fossil fuel CO2 we are going to add soon to the air to extend the heat engine's benefits for the world's remaining 1/3 still living in poverty.
The other gases are beyond the scope of this article.

 

This brings us to the illusion of using carbon capture to remove Climate Change's CO2 from the air.

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

Climate Change's Likely Endgame
Both the carbon dioxide (CO2) and the extra global warming it brings irrevocably embed themselves into Planet Earth's environment the moment they appear, not to dissipate for thousands of years.

    A practical guide from the culture that survived the Nazi Blitz:  Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy - Australia.pdf             U.S. Climate Toolkit:  https://toolkit.climate.gov/ 

Is it ethical? - honorable? - to speak of global population overload, climate resiliency, and climate adaptation in the face of unstoppable Climate Change?  
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." — Daniel Patrick Moynihan


Population, Resiliency, and Adaption: Surviving in a Severely Climate Changed World.  
Obtaining sufficient disposable energy to assure that everyone everywhere can lead comfortable lives.

Roughly 40% of the CO2 that is released into the air is removed from the air by plant growth, water, and rocks that absorb CO2.
Almost 90% of the extra heat Planet Earth picks up from the Sun due to Global Warming ends up heating the cold depths of the oceans.
Planet Earth has gone through several "Snowball Earth" cycles where the CO2 in the air caused the planet to cool down to the point of freezing water at the equator.

 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________

Footnotes & Links

 

________________________________________________________________

This website is a draft. The candidate document's footnote numbers go with a private database. Copy the document's title and submit it to Google. The document may still be posted on the Internet.