StoppingClimateChange
.com Replacing Fossil Fuels With
Clean Fuels
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.
Carbon-neutralizing the entire world means building thousands of Nuclear-Hydrogen-Biomass
Clean Energy Parks for mass producing
synthetic CO2-Neutral fossil fuel equivalent fuels from natural ingredients.
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.
Called CLEAN ENERGY PARKS, these sites are intended to be platforms for industries offering clean energy solutions
that need the abundant electricity and very hot heat available
from nuclear reactors.
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.
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/
Click for individual equipment pages. >
Foreword
Insight From Hindsight Introductory
Articles 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(Reversing Climate Change)
Rebuilt coal power plants are
PLAN B
for stopping Climate Change.
Only massive amounts of very cheap energy from nuclear reactors can be expected to make
this approach technically possible. The re-usability of readily available
unneeded coal power plant sites 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 world's coal power plant sites could be producing several times the clean fuel
energy as the energy they are producing now burning coal.
Who are they and their retirement status.?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants
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
"Technological fixes are often far simpler, and therefore cheaper, than the doomsayers could have imagined."
________________________________________________________________
