Fixing air pollution and soot would be faster and 20X cheaper than CO2 fix

The IPCC published their latest climate change report. They tried to justify spending $48 trillion over the next 20 years to transform world energy by claiming 180 million lives could be saved from reduced air pollution. Yes, there have been many studies that air pollution is one of the leading contributors to illness and death worldwide. Nextbigfuture agrees that particulates need to be removed to reduce the 6 million deaths per year from air pollution.

Direct programs that reduce the amount of particulate air pollution is 20 times cheaper than programs that also address carbon dioxide. Prioritizing the fastest and most cost-effective anti-soot and anti-particulate pollution would be decades faster and about 5% of the cost.

Nextbigfuture has shown that reducing soot and particulatesis the most cost effective and fastest way to improve the environment and reduce global warming.

A package of 16 measures could, if fully implemented across the globe, save close to 2.5 million lives a year; avoid crop losses amounting to 32 million tonnes annually and deliver near-term climate protection of about half a degree C by 2040.

China is spending tens of billions every year to reduce air pollution. They are removing the most polluting cars and trucks and have been switching from coal power to natural gas, nuclear and renewables.

The Beijing area was required to reduce pollution by 25 percent, and the city set aside an astounding $120 billion for that purpose.

China has been able to reduce air pollution particulates by 32% in its majors cities.

The 2013 plan set strict limits for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at an estimated cost of US$38 billion. China’s new 2018-2020 anti-air pollution plan sets even stricter targets, requiring cities to achieve a decrease of a minimum of 18% in PM2.5 levels compared with a 2015 baseline in cities of prefectural or higher level, and where these targets have not yet been achieved. The new plan also goes much further in its scope than the 2013 action plan, which applied solely to the city clusters of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and the Pearl and Yangtze Deltas. The 2020 plan covers 82 cities throughout China (including Linfen in Shanxi) that will also need to initiate anti-smog measures.

According to the World Bank, the economic burden of pollution associated with premature mortality and morbidity—is immense for the world and for individual countries. Ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution alone cost the global economy US$5.7 trillion, or 4.4 percent, of global GDP in 2016. Individual country studies, for Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, China, India, Lao PDR, Morocco, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru and Zambia, at national and subnational levels, suggest that the costs of pollution related disease are mainly due to outdoor and household air pollution; lead exposure; noise pollution; and inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene.

110 thoughts on “Fixing air pollution and soot would be faster and 20X cheaper than CO2 fix”

  1. ‘…zero ( used as a verb ) emissions..’. Nobody is talking about getting atmospheric CO2 to 0 parts per million, just about not doubling, and more, the level that was in place for the entire period when we developed a civilization. A Pew survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 87% of members surveyed, and 90% of active research scientists, agreed with the statement that ‘ Climate change is mostly due to human activity’. You can believe that they’re all just riding the gravy train, or that you know more about the subject than they do, if you choose.

    Reply
  2. ‘…zero ( used as a verb ) emissions..’. Nobody is talking about getting atmospheric CO2 to 0 parts per million just about not doubling and more the level that was in place for the entire period when we developed a civilization. A Pew survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 87{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of members surveyed and 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of active research scientists agreed with the statement that ‘ Climate change is mostly due to human activity’. You can believe that they’re all just riding the gravy train or that you know more about the subject than they do if you choose.

    Reply
  3. Zero CO2? We need CO2 for life to thrive in the planet. Zero pollution would be great, zero CO2 is suicidal. Climate change is just that, change, it has nothing to do with human CO2.

    Reply
  4. Zero CO2? We need CO2 for life to thrive in the planet. Zero pollution would be great zero CO2 is suicidal. Climate change is just that change it has nothing to do with human CO2.

    Reply
  5. ‘The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. ‘ If you look at a pressure altitude wind map, you’ll see that even above the level where the proposed tethered kitewind generators are supposed to fly, winds are often below the cut-in level ( and likely too low to keep those gadgets up there in the first place.) Winds are seasonal, and demand is seasonal, but the two don’t match and never will. Why build a continent-wide, low density energy harvesting system, that will always need backup for when the whole thing runs out of enough energy to harvest simultaneously ? You can put a two or three reactor power plant right next to where it’s needed, fuel them for a year and a half each with a few tons of uranium, and they can back each other up. Mark Jacobson’s 100% wind, solar, water fantasies typically call for five or more times the capacity currently in place, but are still unable to match demand.

    Reply
  6. ‘The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. ‘If you look at a pressure altitude wind map you’ll see that even above the level where the proposed tethered kitewind generators are supposed to fly winds are often below the cut-in level ( and likely too low to keep those gadgets up there in the first place.) Winds are seasonal and demand is seasonal but the two don’t match and never will. Why build a continent-wide low density energy harvesting system that will always need backup for when the whole thing runs out of enough energy to harvest simultaneously ? You can put a two or three reactor power plant right next to where it’s needed fuel them for a year and a half each with a few tons of uranium and they can back each other up. Mark Jacobson’s 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} wind solar water fantasies typically call for five or more times the capacity currently in place but are still unable to match demand.

    Reply
  7. ‘..it does allow recovering up to another one-third of petroleum products trapped in the pores of a geologic formation.’ A carbon sequestration method that lets you produce more oil and gas ? I rest my case.

    Reply
  8. ‘..it does allow recovering up to another one-third of petroleum products trapped in the pores of a geologic formation.’A carbon sequestration method that lets you produce more oil and gas ? I rest my case.

    Reply
  9. ‘This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. ‘ Check out David Keith from Harvard debating this on Democracy Now, 14/9/2018, on Youtube. He doesn’t strike me as a numbskull ( though the guy he’s debating does.) Even if we manage to zero carbon emissions by 2100, with temperatures then at 2C above the long term mean, the climate is not going to magically stop in place there. Warmer oceans will keep melting glaciers and ice caps, and generating more extreme weather. It’s hard to imagine the world as a whole will be richer if it has to relocate not just most of the world’s megacities, but whole countries. If climate change is such an emergency, there’s no point ruling out entire classes of techniques to counter it. That would include nuclear, to replace carbon fuels, olivine and iron sulfate to manage ocean acidification and lower C O2 levels in the biosphere, and solar albedo management to keep temperatures under control until the other methods had time to take effect.

    Reply
  10. ‘This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. ‘Check out David Keith from Harvard debating this on Democracy Now 14/9/2018 on Youtube. He doesn’t strike me as a numbskull ( though the guy he’s debating does.) Even if we manage to zero carbon emissions by 2100 with temperatures then at 2C above the long term mean the climate is not going to magically stop in place there. Warmer oceans will keep melting glaciers and ice caps and generating more extreme weather. It’s hard to imagine the world as a whole will be richer if it has to relocate not just most of the world’s megacities but whole countries. If climate change is such an emergency there’s no point ruling out entire classes of techniques to counter it. That would include nuclear to replace carbon fuels olivine and iron sulfate to manage ocean acidification and lower C O2 levels in the biosphere and solar albedo management to keep temperatures under control until the other methods had time to take effect.

    Reply
  11. Not correct. Wind towers are normally located in areas with a steady strong breeze. Yes, they do surveys. Then there are many towers and a large number of geographic disperse locations. The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. The electrical system is also designed to deal with changing demands and equipment failures. Yes, you can lose an 600 MW power plant and you are expected to quickly recover. Also at the beginning of each day a schedule of power demand and supply is prepared. This schedule takes into account the weather prediction including wind speed. So if slower than normal wind speed is predicted then additional fossil fuel power plants will power up. No, they won’t permanently shut down all of the coal power plants. They will keep a few as peakers to be used during high power demand periods.

    Reply
  12. Not correct. Wind towers are normally located in areas with a steady strong breeze. Yes they do surveys. Then there are many towers and a large number of geographic disperse locations. The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. The electrical system is also designed to deal with changing demands and equipment failures. Yes you can lose an 600 MW power plant and you are expected to quickly recover. Also at the beginning of each day a schedule of power demand and supply is prepared. This schedule takes into account the weather prediction including wind speed. So if slower than normal wind speed is predicted then additional fossil fuel power plants will power up. No they won’t permanently shut down all of the coal power plants. They will keep a few as peakers to be used during high power demand periods.

    Reply
  13. They have being building nuclear power reactors since the 60s. They haven’t made the slightest effort to fix any of the major problems: inherently unsafe, capital extensive, no storage for the radioactive waste. Wind and Solar are now cheaper than nuclear. Its getting late for nuclear power. Putting nuclear power plants right next to where the power is needed might not be that great an idea.

    Reply
  14. They have being building nuclear power reactors since the 60s. They haven’t made the slightest effort to fix any of the major problems: inherently unsafe capital extensive no storage for the radioactive waste. Wind and Solar are now cheaper than nuclear. Its getting late for nuclear power. Putting nuclear power plants right next to where the power is needed might not be that great an idea.

    Reply
  15. During the summer months in Germany when the demand for power is the Highest daylight is between 5AM and 9:30PM. The power generation does not stop abruptly. It does quickly diminish. But all of this is known behavior so the utilities lay out their transmission and generation schedule based on it. If they need to bridge the gap between 9 and Midnight they power up their Gas Turbine units. The point is they will produce less CO2 each and every day. Build the reactors that can burn radioactive waste instead of telling me how hookey dookey nukes are. This is the thing that gets me. For also 70 years we have known how to build inherently safe nuclear reactors that can burn radioactive waste but we haven’t. Everyone and their mother instead wants to build the if something goes wrong tough reactors that produces tons and tons of radioactive waste than you need to bury for 100,000 years. And then they refuse to allow the waste to be shipped to the repository. Nuclear power is for grownup people, not for us.

    Reply
  16. During the summer months in Germany when the demand for power is the Highest daylight is between 5AM and 9:30PM. The power generation does not stop abruptly. It does quickly diminish. But all of this is known behavior so the utilities lay out their transmission and generation schedule based on it. If they need to bridge the gap between 9 and Midnight they power up their Gas Turbine units. The point is they will produce less CO2 each and every day. Build the reactors that can burn radioactive waste instead of telling me how hookey dookey nukes are. This is the thing that gets me. For also 70 years we have known how to build inherently safe nuclear reactors that can burn radioactive waste but we haven’t. Everyone and their mother instead wants to build the if something goes wrong tough reactors that produces tons and tons of radioactive waste than you need to bury for 100000 years. And then they refuse to allow the waste to be shipped to the repository. Nuclear power is for grownup people not for us.

    Reply
  17. We are not grown up people. Running a nuclear power plant by a for profit organization means that managers will always have to decide between safety and profit. And safety will lose often. And because of that the possibility of losing the reactor is much higher that it should be. At one time my manager was someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant. He was a nuclear engineer that worked on a nuclear submarine. He was force out at the nuclear power plant because they thought he was overly concerned about safety. Solar electricity can also be produced by mirrors concentrating light on to heat exchanger filled with molten salt. The molten salt can store the energy so that the plant can produce power while the sun is down. The Peak period is usually when most businesses are opened 9 AM to 5 PM. After 5 PM demands starts to fall. So while the match between solar power and demand isn’t perfect it is good enough for solar to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  18. We are not grown up people. Running a nuclear power plant by a for profit organization means that managers will always have to decide between safety and profit. And safety will lose often. And because of that the possibility of losing the reactor is much higher that it should be. At one time my manager was someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant. He was a nuclear engineer that worked on a nuclear submarine. He was force out at the nuclear power plant because they thought he was overly concerned about safety. Solar electricity can also be produced by mirrors concentrating light on to heat exchanger filled with molten salt. The molten salt can store the energy so that the plant can produce power while the sun is down. The Peak period is usually when most businesses are opened 9 AM to 5 PM. After 5 PM demands starts to fall. So while the match between solar power and demand isn’t perfect it is good enough for solar to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  19. too bad this site can’t handle script effects so I could correct my spelling mistake. I seem to apply the random shift generator option on my keyboard.

    Reply
  20. too bad this site can’t handle script effects so I could correct my spelling mistake. I seem to apply the random shift generator option on my keyboard.

    Reply
  21. Minor nitpick, since you don’t seem to be shy of the shift button – CO2 is carbon dioxide; Co2 is dicobalt (no such molecule AFAIK).

    Reply
  22. Minor nitpick since you don’t seem to be shy of the shift button – CO2 is carbon dioxide; Co2 is dicobalt (no such molecule AFAIK).

    Reply
  23. No, false accounting. Pollution aerosols (soot) REDUCE temperatures because they block (reflect) solar radiation. If you get rid of air pollution (which we all need to happen), temperatures will RISE. An excellent paper from real scientists explains all this – doi /10.1002/2017GL076079. The effect? “we’ve been polluting ourselves towards a slightly cooler climate”. This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. Seriously. That is the level of insanity. Eliminating soot (which is great) will not reduce Co2 on its own. A coal-fired plant operates at about 10,500 btu/KWh and a gas-fired at about 8,200 btu/KWh, and a gas-fired plant emits about 50% less Co2 but costs more to build and operate. The cost differential to implement scrubbers on the coal-fired plants sometimes makes sense, sometimes doesn’t. Obviously you could replace all hydrocarbon power plants with nuclear and then you really have a material impact on Co2 reduction, and soot. But at a cost.

    Reply
  24. No false accounting. Pollution aerosols (soot) REDUCE temperatures because they block (reflect) solar radiation. If you get rid of air pollution (which we all need to happen) temperatures will RISE. An excellent paper from real scientists explains all this – doi /10.1002/2017GL076079. The effect? we’ve been polluting ourselves towards a slightly cooler climate””.This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. Seriously. That is the level of insanity.Eliminating soot (which is great) will not reduce Co2 on its own. A coal-fired plant operates at about 10″”500 btu/KWh and a gas-fired at about 8200 btu/KWh and a gas-fired plant emits about 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} less Co2 but costs more to build and operate. The cost differential to implement scrubbers on the coal-fired plants sometimes makes sense sometimes doesn’t. Obviously you could replace all hydrocarbon power plants with nuclear and then you really have a material impact on Co2 reduction”” and soot. But at a cost.”””

    Reply
  25. We are not grown up people. Running a nuclear power plant by a for profit organization means that managers will always have to decide between safety and profit. And safety will lose often. And because of that the possibility of losing the reactor is much higher that it should be. At one time my manager was someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant. He was a nuclear engineer that worked on a nuclear submarine. He was force out at the nuclear power plant because they thought he was overly concerned about safety. Solar electricity can also be produced by mirrors concentrating light on to heat exchanger filled with molten salt. The molten salt can store the energy so that the plant can produce power while the sun is down. The Peak period is usually when most businesses are opened 9 AM to 5 PM. After 5 PM demands starts to fall. So while the match between solar power and demand isn’t perfect it is good enough for solar to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  26. We are not grown up people. Running a nuclear power plant by a for profit organization means that managers will always have to decide between safety and profit. And safety will lose often. And because of that the possibility of losing the reactor is much higher that it should be. At one time my manager was someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant. He was a nuclear engineer that worked on a nuclear submarine. He was force out at the nuclear power plant because they thought he was overly concerned about safety. Solar electricity can also be produced by mirrors concentrating light on to heat exchanger filled with molten salt. The molten salt can store the energy so that the plant can produce power while the sun is down. The Peak period is usually when most businesses are opened 9 AM to 5 PM. After 5 PM demands starts to fall. So while the match between solar power and demand isn’t perfect it is good enough for solar to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  27. We are not grown up people. Running a nuclear power plant by a for profit organization means that managers will always have to decide between safety and profit. And safety will lose often. And because of that the possibility of losing the reactor is much higher that it should be. At one time my manager was someone who used to work in a nuclear power plant. He was a nuclear engineer that worked on a nuclear submarine. He was force out at the nuclear power plant because they thought he was overly concerned about safety.

    Solar electricity can also be produced by mirrors concentrating light on to heat exchanger filled with molten salt. The molten salt can store the energy so that the plant can produce power while the sun is down.

    The Peak period is usually when most businesses are opened 9 AM to 5 PM. After 5 PM demands starts to fall. So while the match between solar power and demand isn’t perfect it is good enough for solar to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

    Reply
  28. During the summer months in Germany when the demand for power is the Highest daylight is between 5AM and 9:30PM. The power generation does not stop abruptly. It does quickly diminish. But all of this is known behavior so the utilities lay out their transmission and generation schedule based on it. If they need to bridge the gap between 9 and Midnight they power up their Gas Turbine units. The point is they will produce less CO2 each and every day. Build the reactors that can burn radioactive waste instead of telling me how hookey dookey nukes are. This is the thing that gets me. For also 70 years we have known how to build inherently safe nuclear reactors that can burn radioactive waste but we haven’t. Everyone and their mother instead wants to build the if something goes wrong tough reactors that produces tons and tons of radioactive waste than you need to bury for 100,000 years. And then they refuse to allow the waste to be shipped to the repository. Nuclear power is for grownup people, not for us.

    Reply
  29. During the summer months in Germany when the demand for power is the Highest daylight is between 5AM and 9:30PM. The power generation does not stop abruptly. It does quickly diminish. But all of this is known behavior so the utilities lay out their transmission and generation schedule based on it. If they need to bridge the gap between 9 and Midnight they power up their Gas Turbine units. The point is they will produce less CO2 each and every day. Build the reactors that can burn radioactive waste instead of telling me how hookey dookey nukes are. This is the thing that gets me. For also 70 years we have known how to build inherently safe nuclear reactors that can burn radioactive waste but we haven’t. Everyone and their mother instead wants to build the if something goes wrong tough reactors that produces tons and tons of radioactive waste than you need to bury for 100000 years. And then they refuse to allow the waste to be shipped to the repository. Nuclear power is for grownup people not for us.

    Reply
  30. During the summer months in Germany when the demand for power is the Highest daylight is between 5AM and 9:30PM. The power generation does not stop abruptly. It does quickly diminish. But all of this is known behavior so the utilities lay out their transmission and generation schedule based on it. If they need to bridge the gap between 9 and Midnight they power up their Gas Turbine units. The point is they will produce less CO2 each and every day.

    Build the reactors that can burn radioactive waste instead of telling me how hookey dookey nukes are. This is the thing that gets me. For also 70 years we have known how to build inherently safe nuclear reactors that can burn radioactive waste but we haven’t. Everyone and their mother instead wants to build the if something goes wrong tough reactors that produces tons and tons of radioactive waste than you need to bury for 100,000 years. And then they refuse to allow the waste to be shipped to the repository. Nuclear power is for grownup people, not for us.

    Reply
  31. They have being building nuclear power reactors since the 60s. They haven’t made the slightest effort to fix any of the major problems: inherently unsafe, capital extensive, no storage for the radioactive waste. Wind and Solar are now cheaper than nuclear. Its getting late for nuclear power. Putting nuclear power plants right next to where the power is needed might not be that great an idea.

    Reply
  32. They have being building nuclear power reactors since the 60s. They haven’t made the slightest effort to fix any of the major problems: inherently unsafe capital extensive no storage for the radioactive waste. Wind and Solar are now cheaper than nuclear. Its getting late for nuclear power. Putting nuclear power plants right next to where the power is needed might not be that great an idea.

    Reply
  33. ‘…zero ( used as a verb ) emissions..’. Nobody is talking about getting atmospheric CO2 to 0 parts per million, just about not doubling, and more, the level that was in place for the entire period when we developed a civilization. A Pew survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 87% of members surveyed, and 90% of active research scientists, agreed with the statement that ‘ Climate change is mostly due to human activity’. You can believe that they’re all just riding the gravy train, or that you know more about the subject than they do, if you choose.

    Reply
  34. ‘…zero ( used as a verb ) emissions..’. Nobody is talking about getting atmospheric CO2 to 0 parts per million just about not doubling and more the level that was in place for the entire period when we developed a civilization. A Pew survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 87{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of members surveyed and 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of active research scientists agreed with the statement that ‘ Climate change is mostly due to human activity’. You can believe that they’re all just riding the gravy train or that you know more about the subject than they do if you choose.

    Reply
  35. They have being building nuclear power reactors since the 60s. They haven’t made the slightest effort to fix any of the major problems: inherently unsafe, capital extensive, no storage for the radioactive waste.

    Wind and Solar are now cheaper than nuclear. Its getting late for nuclear power.

    Putting nuclear power plants right next to where the power is needed might not be that great an idea.

    Reply
  36. Zero CO2? We need CO2 for life to thrive in the planet. Zero pollution would be great, zero CO2 is suicidal. Climate change is just that, change, it has nothing to do with human CO2.

    Reply
  37. Zero CO2? We need CO2 for life to thrive in the planet. Zero pollution would be great zero CO2 is suicidal. Climate change is just that change it has nothing to do with human CO2.

    Reply
  38. ‘The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. ‘ If you look at a pressure altitude wind map, you’ll see that even above the level where the proposed tethered kitewind generators are supposed to fly, winds are often below the cut-in level ( and likely too low to keep those gadgets up there in the first place.) Winds are seasonal, and demand is seasonal, but the two don’t match and never will. Why build a continent-wide, low density energy harvesting system, that will always need backup for when the whole thing runs out of enough energy to harvest simultaneously ? You can put a two or three reactor power plant right next to where it’s needed, fuel them for a year and a half each with a few tons of uranium, and they can back each other up. Mark Jacobson’s 100% wind, solar, water fantasies typically call for five or more times the capacity currently in place, but are still unable to match demand.

    Reply
  39. ‘The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. ‘If you look at a pressure altitude wind map you’ll see that even above the level where the proposed tethered kitewind generators are supposed to fly winds are often below the cut-in level ( and likely too low to keep those gadgets up there in the first place.) Winds are seasonal and demand is seasonal but the two don’t match and never will. Why build a continent-wide low density energy harvesting system that will always need backup for when the whole thing runs out of enough energy to harvest simultaneously ? You can put a two or three reactor power plant right next to where it’s needed fuel them for a year and a half each with a few tons of uranium and they can back each other up. Mark Jacobson’s 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} wind solar water fantasies typically call for five or more times the capacity currently in place but are still unable to match demand.

    Reply
  40. ‘..it does allow recovering up to another one-third of petroleum products trapped in the pores of a geologic formation.’ A carbon sequestration method that lets you produce more oil and gas ? I rest my case.

    Reply
  41. ‘..it does allow recovering up to another one-third of petroleum products trapped in the pores of a geologic formation.’A carbon sequestration method that lets you produce more oil and gas ? I rest my case.

    Reply
  42. ‘This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. ‘ Check out David Keith from Harvard debating this on Democracy Now, 14/9/2018, on Youtube. He doesn’t strike me as a numbskull ( though the guy he’s debating does.) Even if we manage to zero carbon emissions by 2100, with temperatures then at 2C above the long term mean, the climate is not going to magically stop in place there. Warmer oceans will keep melting glaciers and ice caps, and generating more extreme weather. It’s hard to imagine the world as a whole will be richer if it has to relocate not just most of the world’s megacities, but whole countries. If climate change is such an emergency, there’s no point ruling out entire classes of techniques to counter it. That would include nuclear, to replace carbon fuels, olivine and iron sulfate to manage ocean acidification and lower C O2 levels in the biosphere, and solar albedo management to keep temperatures under control until the other methods had time to take effect.

    Reply
  43. ‘This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. ‘Check out David Keith from Harvard debating this on Democracy Now 14/9/2018 on Youtube. He doesn’t strike me as a numbskull ( though the guy he’s debating does.) Even if we manage to zero carbon emissions by 2100 with temperatures then at 2C above the long term mean the climate is not going to magically stop in place there. Warmer oceans will keep melting glaciers and ice caps and generating more extreme weather. It’s hard to imagine the world as a whole will be richer if it has to relocate not just most of the world’s megacities but whole countries. If climate change is such an emergency there’s no point ruling out entire classes of techniques to counter it. That would include nuclear to replace carbon fuels olivine and iron sulfate to manage ocean acidification and lower C O2 levels in the biosphere and solar albedo management to keep temperatures under control until the other methods had time to take effect.

    Reply
  44. ‘…zero ( used as a verb ) emissions..’. Nobody is talking about getting atmospheric CO2 to 0 parts per million, just about not doubling, and more, the level that was in place for the entire period when we developed a civilization. A Pew survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that 87% of members surveyed, and 90% of active research scientists, agreed with the statement that ‘ Climate change is mostly due to human activity’. You can believe that they’re all just riding the gravy train, or that you know more about the subject than they do, if you choose.

    Reply
  45. Not correct. Wind towers are normally located in areas with a steady strong breeze. Yes, they do surveys. Then there are many towers and a large number of geographic disperse locations. The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. The electrical system is also designed to deal with changing demands and equipment failures. Yes, you can lose an 600 MW power plant and you are expected to quickly recover. Also at the beginning of each day a schedule of power demand and supply is prepared. This schedule takes into account the weather prediction including wind speed. So if slower than normal wind speed is predicted then additional fossil fuel power plants will power up. No, they won’t permanently shut down all of the coal power plants. They will keep a few as peakers to be used during high power demand periods.

    Reply
  46. Not correct. Wind towers are normally located in areas with a steady strong breeze. Yes they do surveys. Then there are many towers and a large number of geographic disperse locations. The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. The electrical system is also designed to deal with changing demands and equipment failures. Yes you can lose an 600 MW power plant and you are expected to quickly recover. Also at the beginning of each day a schedule of power demand and supply is prepared. This schedule takes into account the weather prediction including wind speed. So if slower than normal wind speed is predicted then additional fossil fuel power plants will power up. No they won’t permanently shut down all of the coal power plants. They will keep a few as peakers to be used during high power demand periods.

    Reply
  47. Zero CO2? We need CO2 for life to thrive in the planet. Zero pollution would be great, zero CO2 is suicidal. Climate change is just that, change, it has nothing to do with human CO2.

    Reply
  48. ‘The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build. ‘
    If you look at a pressure altitude wind map, you’ll see that even above the level where the proposed tethered kitewind generators are supposed to fly, winds are often below the cut-in level ( and likely too low to keep those gadgets up there in the first place.)
    Winds are seasonal, and demand is seasonal, but the two don’t match and never will. Why build a continent-wide, low density energy harvesting system, that will always need backup for when the whole thing runs out of enough energy to harvest simultaneously ? You can put a two or three reactor power plant right next to where it’s needed, fuel them for a year and a half each with a few tons of uranium, and they can back each other up. Mark Jacobson’s 100% wind, solar, water fantasies typically call for five or more times the capacity currently in place, but are still unable to match demand.

    Reply
  49. ‘..it does allow recovering up to another one-third of petroleum products trapped in the pores of a geologic formation.’
    A carbon sequestration method that lets you produce more oil and gas ? I rest my case.

    Reply
  50. ‘This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. ‘
    Check out David Keith from Harvard debating this on Democracy Now, 14/9/2018, on Youtube. He doesn’t strike me as a numbskull ( though the guy he’s debating does.) Even if we manage to zero carbon emissions by 2100, with temperatures then at 2C above the long term mean, the climate is not going to magically stop in place there. Warmer oceans will keep melting glaciers and ice caps, and generating more extreme weather.
    It’s hard to imagine the world as a whole will be richer if it has to relocate not just most of the world’s megacities, but whole countries.
    If climate change is such an emergency, there’s no point ruling out entire classes of techniques to counter it. That would include nuclear, to replace carbon fuels, olivine and iron sulfate to manage ocean acidification and lower C O2 levels in the biosphere, and solar albedo management to keep temperatures under control until the other methods had time to take effect.

    Reply
  51. Not correct. Wind towers are normally located in areas with a steady strong breeze. Yes, they do surveys. Then there are many towers and a large number of geographic disperse locations. The taller towers now reach higher in the atmosphere where the wind is steadier. And then you can always over build.

    The electrical system is also designed to deal with changing demands and equipment failures. Yes, you can lose an 600 MW power plant and you are expected to quickly recover.

    Also at the beginning of each day a schedule of power demand and supply is prepared. This schedule takes into account the weather prediction including wind speed. So if slower than normal wind speed is predicted then additional fossil fuel power plants will power up. No, they won’t permanently shut down all of the coal power plants. They will keep a few as peakers to be used during high power demand periods.

    Reply
  52. too bad this site can’t handle script effects so I could correct my spelling mistake. I seem to apply the random shift generator option on my keyboard.

    Reply
  53. too bad this site can’t handle script effects so I could correct my spelling mistake. I seem to apply the random shift generator option on my keyboard.

    Reply
  54. Minor nitpick, since you don’t seem to be shy of the shift button – CO2 is carbon dioxide; Co2 is dicobalt (no such molecule AFAIK).

    Reply
  55. Minor nitpick since you don’t seem to be shy of the shift button – CO2 is carbon dioxide; Co2 is dicobalt (no such molecule AFAIK).

    Reply
  56. No, false accounting. Pollution aerosols (soot) REDUCE temperatures because they block (reflect) solar radiation. If you get rid of air pollution (which we all need to happen), temperatures will RISE. An excellent paper from real scientists explains all this – doi /10.1002/2017GL076079. The effect? “we’ve been polluting ourselves towards a slightly cooler climate”. This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. Seriously. That is the level of insanity. Eliminating soot (which is great) will not reduce Co2 on its own. A coal-fired plant operates at about 10,500 btu/KWh and a gas-fired at about 8,200 btu/KWh, and a gas-fired plant emits about 50% less Co2 but costs more to build and operate. The cost differential to implement scrubbers on the coal-fired plants sometimes makes sense, sometimes doesn’t. Obviously you could replace all hydrocarbon power plants with nuclear and then you really have a material impact on Co2 reduction, and soot. But at a cost.

    Reply
  57. No false accounting. Pollution aerosols (soot) REDUCE temperatures because they block (reflect) solar radiation. If you get rid of air pollution (which we all need to happen) temperatures will RISE. An excellent paper from real scientists explains all this – doi /10.1002/2017GL076079. The effect? we’ve been polluting ourselves towards a slightly cooler climate””.This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. Seriously. That is the level of insanity.Eliminating soot (which is great) will not reduce Co2 on its own. A coal-fired plant operates at about 10″”500 btu/KWh and a gas-fired at about 8200 btu/KWh and a gas-fired plant emits about 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} less Co2 but costs more to build and operate. The cost differential to implement scrubbers on the coal-fired plants sometimes makes sense sometimes doesn’t. Obviously you could replace all hydrocarbon power plants with nuclear and then you really have a material impact on Co2 reduction”” and soot. But at a cost.”””

    Reply
  58. No, false accounting. Pollution aerosols (soot) REDUCE temperatures because they block (reflect) solar radiation. If you get rid of air pollution (which we all need to happen), temperatures will RISE. An excellent paper from real scientists explains all this – doi /10.1002/2017GL076079. The effect? “we’ve been polluting ourselves towards a slightly cooler climate”.

    This Aerosol effect has led some numbskulls to advocate spraying the planet (essentially with pollution) to reduce air temperatures. Seriously. That is the level of insanity.

    Eliminating soot (which is great) will not reduce Co2 on its own. A coal-fired plant operates at about 10,500 btu/KWh and a gas-fired at about 8,200 btu/KWh, and a gas-fired plant emits about 50% less Co2 but costs more to build and operate. The cost differential to implement scrubbers on the coal-fired plants sometimes makes sense, sometimes doesn’t. Obviously you could replace all hydrocarbon power plants with nuclear and then you really have a material impact on Co2 reduction, and soot. But at a cost.

    Reply
  59. …yes, and as long as they think they can get enough Useful 1diøt voters in the US to be guiltripped by this fraud, they will continue with the bätsh!t, outlandish BS.

    Reply
  60. …yes and as long as they think they can get enough Useful 1diøt voters in the US to be guiltripped by this fraud they will continue with the bätsh!t outlandish BS.”

    Reply
  61. …yes, and as long as they think they can get enough Useful 1diøt voters in the US to be guiltripped by this fraud, they will continue with the bätsh!t, outlandish BS.

    Reply
  62. …yes and as long as they think they can get enough Useful 1diøt voters in the US to be guiltripped by this fraud they will continue with the bätsh!t outlandish BS.”

    Reply
  63. Of course. It is all a communist wealth redistribution fraud. Period. They don’t call the folks behind this ‘watermelons’ for nothing, kiddies. Thin green environmentalist veneer on the outside the covers a huge mass of commie red on the inside.

    Reply
  64. Of course. It is all a communist wealth redistribution fraud. Period.They don’t call the folks behind this ‘watermelons’ for nothing kiddies.Thin green environmentalist veneer on the outside the covers a huge mass of commie red on the inside.

    Reply
  65. Of course. It is all a communist wealth redistribution fraud. Period. They don’t call the folks behind this ‘watermelons’ for nothing, kiddies. Thin green environmentalist veneer on the outside the covers a huge mass of commie red on the inside.

    Reply
  66. Of course. It is all a communist wealth redistribution fraud. Period.They don’t call the folks behind this ‘watermelons’ for nothing kiddies.Thin green environmentalist veneer on the outside the covers a huge mass of commie red on the inside.

    Reply
  67. Not so fast Brian. reducing air pollution and reducing Co2 not the same thing, not comparable. But kudos for raising the point that air pollution is far less expensive to tackle than Co2 emissions. According to the MEE (China’s ministry of energy and environment), diesel trucks alone account for about 50-57% of air pollution in places like Beijing (Beijing of course surrounded by mountains and is a smog cauldron), cars about 20% and the rest power production (largely coal). As anyone should know, proper filters/combustion on diesel engines will have a material impact on reducing PM2.5, but hardly any impact on Co2. China’s shift to more natgas powered electricity is having an impact on pollution as replacing old coal-fired with NG is cheaper than retrofitting scrubbers on the coal plants, so it’s a gradual fuel source replacement effort. The China Co2 emissions, however, are still growing albeit at a slower rate of increase than in the past. So while China’s PM2.5 is REDUCING, China’s Co2 is INCREASING. The same story can’t be said for the no.2 air polluter, India. Both PM2.5 and Co2 are increasing. And Indonesia. Crop burning. The IPCC tries once again to equate air pollution with global warming, or even worse that Co2 = pollution. Statist agenda when air pollution is a completely separate – and localized – issue. That is, if vile brown smog stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan can be called “local”.

    Reply
  68. Not so fast Brian. reducing air pollution and reducing Co2 not the same thing not comparable. But kudos for raising the point that air pollution is far less expensive to tackle than Co2 emissions.According to the MEE (China’s ministry of energy and environment) diesel trucks alone account for about 50-57{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of air pollution in places like Beijing (Beijing of course surrounded by mountains and is a smog cauldron) cars about 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and the rest power production (largely coal). As anyone should know proper filters/combustion on diesel engines will have a material impact on reducing PM2.5 but hardly any impact on Co2. China’s shift to more natgas powered electricity is having an impact on pollution as replacing old coal-fired with NG is cheaper than retrofitting scrubbers on the coal plants so it’s a gradual fuel source replacement effort. The China Co2 emissions however are still growing albeit at a slower rate of increase than in the past. So while China’s PM2.5 is REDUCING China’s Co2 is INCREASING.The same story can’t be said for the no.2 air polluter India. Both PM2.5 and Co2 are increasing. And Indonesia. Crop burning. The IPCC tries once again to equate air pollution with global warming or even worse that Co2 = pollution. Statist agenda when air pollution is a completely separate – and localized – issue. That is if vile brown smog stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan can be called local””.”””

    Reply
  69. Not so fast Brian. reducing air pollution and reducing Co2 not the same thing, not comparable. But kudos for raising the point that air pollution is far less expensive to tackle than Co2 emissions. According to the MEE (China’s ministry of energy and environment), diesel trucks alone account for about 50-57% of air pollution in places like Beijing (Beijing of course surrounded by mountains and is a smog cauldron), cars about 20% and the rest power production (largely coal). As anyone should know, proper filters/combustion on diesel engines will have a material impact on reducing PM2.5, but hardly any impact on Co2. China’s shift to more natgas powered electricity is having an impact on pollution as replacing old coal-fired with NG is cheaper than retrofitting scrubbers on the coal plants, so it’s a gradual fuel source replacement effort. The China Co2 emissions, however, are still growing albeit at a slower rate of increase than in the past. So while China’s PM2.5 is REDUCING, China’s Co2 is INCREASING. The same story can’t be said for the no.2 air polluter, India. Both PM2.5 and Co2 are increasing. And Indonesia. Crop burning. The IPCC tries once again to equate air pollution with global warming, or even worse that Co2 = pollution. Statist agenda when air pollution is a completely separate – and localized – issue. That is, if vile brown smog stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan can be called “local”.

    Reply
  70. Not so fast Brian. reducing air pollution and reducing Co2 not the same thing not comparable. But kudos for raising the point that air pollution is far less expensive to tackle than Co2 emissions.According to the MEE (China’s ministry of energy and environment) diesel trucks alone account for about 50-57{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of air pollution in places like Beijing (Beijing of course surrounded by mountains and is a smog cauldron) cars about 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and the rest power production (largely coal). As anyone should know proper filters/combustion on diesel engines will have a material impact on reducing PM2.5 but hardly any impact on Co2. China’s shift to more natgas powered electricity is having an impact on pollution as replacing old coal-fired with NG is cheaper than retrofitting scrubbers on the coal plants so it’s a gradual fuel source replacement effort. The China Co2 emissions however are still growing albeit at a slower rate of increase than in the past. So while China’s PM2.5 is REDUCING China’s Co2 is INCREASING.The same story can’t be said for the no.2 air polluter India. Both PM2.5 and Co2 are increasing. And Indonesia. Crop burning. The IPCC tries once again to equate air pollution with global warming or even worse that Co2 = pollution. Statist agenda when air pollution is a completely separate – and localized – issue. That is if vile brown smog stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan can be called local””.”””

    Reply
  71. Even if the Allam cycle can work at the same efficency as combined cycle gas turbines, while producing pipe-ready compressed CO2, there would be so many millions of tons of this that it would be a logistical nightmare to use or dispose of. China is already planning to use low-pressure pool type reactors for district heating in the northern cities, instead of coal. As well as being smog free, uranium is much cheaper than coal. Likewise, it may be possible to retrofit new supercritical coal power plants with high temperature nuclear heat reactors. China has nearly finished building a pilot high temperature helium cooled reactor, with more and larger ones already being planned. Those, or possibly salt-cooled ones, could stand in for coal in existing power stations, saving both the health of the locals, and the considerable cost of importing natural gas. Since no western countries are putting serious effort into researching these kinds of technology, the prospect of the Chinese perfecting them, and exporting them to both the west and the developing world, is currently the best hope for really cutting CO2 output. The Beijing/Tianjin/Tangshan area has 130 million people, and gets very cold winters with little wind, ideal for smog to build up. The idea that wind, solar and storage could somehow keep those people reliably warm and powered up for those three months is laughable.

    Reply
  72. Even if the Allam cycle can work at the same efficency as combined cycle gas turbines while producing pipe-ready compressed CO2 there would be so many millions of tons of this that it would be a logistical nightmare to use or dispose of. China is already planning to use low-pressure pool type reactors for district heating in the northern cities instead of coal. As well as being smog free uranium is much cheaper than coal. Likewise it may be possible to retrofit new supercritical coal power plants with high temperature nuclear heat reactors. China has nearly finished building a pilot high temperature helium cooled reactor with more and larger ones already being planned. Those or possibly salt-cooled ones could stand in for coal in existing power stations saving both the health of the locals and the considerable cost of importing natural gas. Since no western countries are putting serious effort into researching these kinds of technology the prospect of the Chinese perfecting them and exporting them to both the west and the developing world is currently the best hope for really cutting CO2 output. The Beijing/Tianjin/Tangshan area has 130 million people and gets very cold winters with little wind ideal for smog to build up. The idea that wind solar and storage could somehow keep those people reliably warm and powered up for those three months is laughable.

    Reply
  73. Even if the Allam cycle can work at the same efficency as combined cycle gas turbines, while producing pipe-ready compressed CO2, there would be so many millions of tons of this that it would be a logistical nightmare to use or dispose of. China is already planning to use low-pressure pool type reactors for district heating in the northern cities, instead of coal. As well as being smog free, uranium is much cheaper than coal. Likewise, it may be possible to retrofit new supercritical coal power plants with high temperature nuclear heat reactors. China has nearly finished building a pilot high temperature helium cooled reactor, with more and larger ones already being planned. Those, or possibly salt-cooled ones, could stand in for coal in existing power stations, saving both the health of the locals, and the considerable cost of importing natural gas. Since no western countries are putting serious effort into researching these kinds of technology, the prospect of the Chinese perfecting them, and exporting them to both the west and the developing world, is currently the best hope for really cutting CO2 output. The Beijing/Tianjin/Tangshan area has 130 million people, and gets very cold winters with little wind, ideal for smog to build up. The idea that wind, solar and storage could somehow keep those people reliably warm and powered up for those three months is laughable.

    Reply
  74. Even if the Allam cycle can work at the same efficency as combined cycle gas turbines while producing pipe-ready compressed CO2 there would be so many millions of tons of this that it would be a logistical nightmare to use or dispose of. China is already planning to use low-pressure pool type reactors for district heating in the northern cities instead of coal. As well as being smog free uranium is much cheaper than coal. Likewise it may be possible to retrofit new supercritical coal power plants with high temperature nuclear heat reactors. China has nearly finished building a pilot high temperature helium cooled reactor with more and larger ones already being planned. Those or possibly salt-cooled ones could stand in for coal in existing power stations saving both the health of the locals and the considerable cost of importing natural gas. Since no western countries are putting serious effort into researching these kinds of technology the prospect of the Chinese perfecting them and exporting them to both the west and the developing world is currently the best hope for really cutting CO2 output. The Beijing/Tianjin/Tangshan area has 130 million people and gets very cold winters with little wind ideal for smog to build up. The idea that wind solar and storage could somehow keep those people reliably warm and powered up for those three months is laughable.

    Reply
  75. Of course. It is all a communist wealth redistribution fraud. Period.

    They don’t call the folks behind this ‘watermelons’ for nothing, kiddies.

    Thin green environmentalist veneer on the outside the covers a huge mass of commie red on the inside.

    Reply
  76. It is the same program. Shutting down the coal power plants will reduce particulates and reduce CO2. Historically you cannot depend of the coal power plant owners to actually use their pollution control equipment. And while $48 Trillion might sound like a lot of money that isn’t the actually difference between the cost of building and maintaining coal power plants, mining coal, health care cost of people sicken by coal pollution and the cost of renewable. That figure of $48 trillion is a propaganda devices meant to scare people. Also building a sea wall around China won’t be cheap either. In the long run renewable are much cheaper that continuing to burn coal.

    Reply
  77. It is the same program. Shutting down the coal power plants will reduce particulates and reduce CO2. Historically you cannot depend of the coal power plant owners to actually use their pollution control equipment. And while $48 Trillion might sound like a lot of money that isn’t the actually difference between the cost of building and maintaining coal power plants mining coal health care cost of people sicken by coal pollution and the cost of renewable. That figure of $48 trillion is a propaganda devices meant to scare people. Also building a sea wall around China won’t be cheap either. In the long run renewable are much cheaper that continuing to burn coal.

    Reply
  78. It is the same program. Shutting down the coal power plants will reduce particulates and reduce CO2. Historically you cannot depend of the coal power plant owners to actually use their pollution control equipment. And while $48 Trillion might sound like a lot of money that isn’t the actually difference between the cost of building and maintaining coal power plants, mining coal, health care cost of people sicken by coal pollution and the cost of renewable. That figure of $48 trillion is a propaganda devices meant to scare people. Also building a sea wall around China won’t be cheap either. In the long run renewable are much cheaper that continuing to burn coal.

    Reply
  79. It is the same program. Shutting down the coal power plants will reduce particulates and reduce CO2. Historically you cannot depend of the coal power plant owners to actually use their pollution control equipment. And while $48 Trillion might sound like a lot of money that isn’t the actually difference between the cost of building and maintaining coal power plants mining coal health care cost of people sicken by coal pollution and the cost of renewable. That figure of $48 trillion is a propaganda devices meant to scare people. Also building a sea wall around China won’t be cheap either. In the long run renewable are much cheaper that continuing to burn coal.

    Reply
  80. Even though this would only reduce warming by 0.5 degree C, it could be the stepping stone we need to collectively address the larger issue while also protecting future generations/the environment.

    Reply
  81. Even though this would only reduce warming by 0.5 degree C it could be the stepping stone we need to collectively address the larger issue while also protecting future generations/the environment.

    Reply
  82. Even though this would only reduce warming by 0.5 degree C, it could be the stepping stone we need to collectively address the larger issue while also protecting future generations/the environment.

    Reply
  83. Even though this would only reduce warming by 0.5 degree C it could be the stepping stone we need to collectively address the larger issue while also protecting future generations/the environment.

    Reply
  84. Not so fast Brian. reducing air pollution and reducing Co2 not the same thing, not comparable. But kudos for raising the point that air pollution is far less expensive to tackle than Co2 emissions.

    According to the MEE (China’s ministry of energy and environment), diesel trucks alone account for about 50-57% of air pollution in places like Beijing (Beijing of course surrounded by mountains and is a smog cauldron), cars about 20% and the rest power production (largely coal). As anyone should know, proper filters/combustion on diesel engines will have a material impact on reducing PM2.5, but hardly any impact on Co2. China’s shift to more natgas powered electricity is having an impact on pollution as replacing old coal-fired with NG is cheaper than retrofitting scrubbers on the coal plants, so it’s a gradual fuel source replacement effort. The China Co2 emissions, however, are still growing albeit at a slower rate of increase than in the past.

    So while China’s PM2.5 is REDUCING, China’s Co2 is INCREASING.

    The same story can’t be said for the no.2 air polluter, India. Both PM2.5 and Co2 are increasing. And Indonesia. Crop burning.

    The IPCC tries once again to equate air pollution with global warming, or even worse that Co2 = pollution. Statist agenda when air pollution is a completely separate – and localized – issue. That is, if vile brown smog stretching from Indonesia to Pakistan can be called “local”.

    Reply
  85. Even if the Allam cycle can work at the same efficency as combined cycle gas turbines, while producing pipe-ready compressed CO2, there would be so many millions of tons of this that it would be a logistical nightmare to use or dispose of.
    China is already planning to use low-pressure pool type reactors for district heating in the northern cities, instead of coal. As well as being smog free, uranium is much cheaper than coal.
    Likewise, it may be possible to retrofit new supercritical coal power plants with high temperature nuclear heat reactors. China has nearly finished building a pilot high temperature helium cooled reactor, with more and larger ones already being planned. Those, or possibly salt-cooled ones, could stand in for coal in existing power stations, saving both the health of the locals, and the considerable cost of importing natural gas.
    Since no western countries are putting serious effort into researching these kinds of technology, the prospect of the Chinese perfecting them, and exporting them to both the west and the developing world, is currently the best hope for really cutting CO2 output.
    The Beijing/Tianjin/Tangshan area has 130 million people, and gets very cold winters with little wind, ideal for smog to build up. The idea that wind, solar and storage could somehow keep those people reliably warm and powered up for those three months is laughable.

    Reply
  86. It is the same program. Shutting down the coal power plants will reduce particulates and reduce CO2. Historically you cannot depend of the coal power plant owners to actually use their pollution control equipment. And while $48 Trillion might sound like a lot of money that isn’t the actually difference between the cost of building and maintaining coal power plants, mining coal, health care cost of people sicken by coal pollution and the cost of renewable. That figure of $48 trillion is a propaganda devices meant to scare people.

    Also building a sea wall around China won’t be cheap either.

    In the long run renewable are much cheaper that continuing to burn coal.

    Reply

Leave a Comment