StoppingClimateChange
.com A
reassessment of the pathways toward a low-carbon
future.
Whichever energy you want, whenever you want, in whatever volumes you want.
A combination of clean energy producing technologies for stopping Climate Change's growth.
Nuclear-Hydrogen-Biomass System - Slides - Dr Charles W. Forsberg .pdf
Quick slide show explanation.
1. STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE means building thousands of Nuclear-Hydrogen-Biomass
Clean Energy Parks for mass producing
synthetic CO2-Neutral fossil fuel equivalent fuels from natural ingredients.
2.
SYNTHETIC BIOFUELS are made by gasifying
plant carbon into CO-rich syngas then adding hydrogen gas in the presence of catalysts to synthesize liquid hydrocarbon fuel
molecules
like gasoline, diesel, etc.
3. Old coal power plant sites, renamed CLEAN ENERGY PARKS,
would be platforms for industries offering clean energy solutions
that need the abundant electricity and very hot heat available
from nuclear reactors.
4. Early investigations into nuclear repowering of existing coal power plant
sites produced several 1960s-era nuclear "Hook-ons" (pdf).
See also: Colorado's
Fort-St-Vrain-In-Pictures
The abstract idea above is presented below
in a practical commercial form using proven industrial equipment.
Click for individual equipment pages. >
Foreword
Introductory Tour
The Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(Plasma torches break matter down into it's
basic atoms. 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.)
Rebuilt coal power plants are
PLAN B
for stopping Climate Change.
It's HEAT, not electricity, that counts in the long
run. Heat from the sun and combustion fire.
PLAN B is heat-centric, not electricity-centric.
Would it be worth living
with nuclear's problems if that's what it took to end Climate Change's problems?
It is for this engineer.
While Climate Change is a well-documented fact, not employing clean nuclear
energy to fight it is clear evidence that, in the West, Climate Change
mitigation resources are controlled by a Green Renewable Energy Cult.
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.”
*
We can afford to spend as much money as necessary to use as much nuclear energy
as needed to minimize Climate
Change.
Check out how well wind, solar, electric cars, your
grandfather's nuclear technology, and everything else anyone is doing in the
struggle to stop Climate Change:
http://www.iea.org/tcep/power/nuclear/
Only massive amounts of very cheap
heat energy from nuclear reactors can power a comfortable future.
Having thousands of readily available
unneeded coal power plant sites on hand is fortunate.
In the author's opinion, the long-term possibility of danger from thousands of
small nuclear power reactors is far less than the long term certainty of wars
precipitated by food-stressed populations due to Climate Change.
________________________________________________________________
(Below) U.S. Coal Power Plant Shutdown Schedule.
Red - 2000 to 2014, Yellow - 2014 to 2050.
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.
The world's coal power plant sites could be producing several times the clean fuel
energy as the energy they are producing now burning coal.
There are about 50,000 more or less identical coal power plant sites worldwide
that are ideal energy manufacturing locations. DON'T BE STUPID AND GIVE THEM
AWAY!
No magic to tripling a coal power plant site's power output. Just install a
three or more times as powerful and much smaller modular molten salt reactor
(SMR) adjacent to the old coal power plant.
These old plant sites could be 50 years old and local population growth could easily have
doubled their original electrical load. Use 2/3 of the new reactor's power to make electricity, use
1/3 to make biosynfuels.
Who and where are the world's coal plants and what is their current retirement status.?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_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 "Windmill Greenies" are being replaced by better-educated
people who understand the physics of energy and Climate Change.
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 to identify specific fuel production
technologies and determine order-of-magnitude cost estimates for:
Production from Nuclear:
(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:
(4), one standard cubic foot of Carbon-neutral (Cn) synthetic 'natural' gas,
(5),
one gallon of Cn 87 octane
(regular) gasoline,
(6),
one gallon of Cn M70 methanol (E85 replacement),
and
(7), 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 )
________________________________________________________________
