Joe Biden has $5 Trillion Climate Plan Which Includes Nuclear Energy Support

Joe Biden has a $5 trillion climate plan which includes nuclear energy support and restoring the electric car tax credit.

Biden’s climate and environmental justice proposal will make a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years, leveraging additional private sector and state and local investments to total to more than $5 trillion. The Biden plan will be paid for by reversing the excesses of the Trump tax cuts for corporations, reducing incentives for tax havens, evasion, and outsourcing, ensuring corporations pay their fair share, closing other loopholes in our tax code that reward work not wealth, and ending subsidies for fossil fuels.

The goal is to reach net-zero emissions no later than 2050 and will have some currently unspecified target no later than the end of President Biden’s first term in 2025.

$400 billion per year will be spent over ten years on clean energy research and innovation.

Biden will establish ARPA-C, a new, cross-agency Advanced Research Projects Agency focused on climate. This initiative will target affordable, game-changing technologies to help America achieve our 100% clean energy target, with a specific focus on the following, as recommended by the founding director of ARPA-E:

* grid-scale storage at one-tenth the cost of lithium-ion batteries;
* small modular nuclear reactors at half the construction cost of today’s reactors;
* refrigeration and air conditioning using refrigerants with no global warming potential;
* zero net energy buildings at zero net cost;
* using renewables to produce carbon-free hydrogen at the same cost as that from shale gas;
* decarbonizing industrial heat needed to make steel, concrete, and chemicals and reimagining carbon-neutral construction materials;
* decarbonizing the food and agriculture sector, and leveraging agriculture to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the ground; and
* capturing carbon dioxide from power plant exhausts followed by sequestering it deep underground or using it make alternative products.

* Identify the future of nuclear energy. To address the climate emergency threatening our communities, economy, and national security, we must look at all low- and zero-carbon technologies. That’s why Biden will support a research agenda through ARPA-C to look at issues, ranging from cost to safety to waste disposal systems, that remain an ongoing challenge with nuclear power today.

* There are now one million electric vehicles on the road in the United States. But a key barrier to further deployment of these greenhouse-gas reducing vehicles is the lack of charging stations and coordination across all levels of government. As President, Biden will work with our nation’s governors and mayors to support the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030. In addition, Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles.

* Biden will review regulatory roadblocks to new innovations and invest in climate-friendly farming such as conservation programs for cover crops and other practices aimed at restoring the soil and building soil carbon, and in the process, preventing run-off and helping family farmers deploy the latest technologies to maximize productivity. He will create new opportunities to support deployment of methane digesters to capture potent climate emissions and generate electricity.

SOURCES – Biden Climate website
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

67 thoughts on “Joe Biden has $5 Trillion Climate Plan Which Includes Nuclear Energy Support”

  1. Until we can figure out Hanford, WA, Chernobyl, Fukushima and too many others to mention, there is a reason that banks won’t finance and insurance companies will not insure nuclear projects. We have better, safer alternatives which banks WILL Finance and which insurance companies WILL insure. Let’s pursue them and leave Nuclear in the ground.

    Reply
  2. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive. The current estimates for small modular reactors, run around 20¢ and more, per kilowatt-hour of electricity, not counting non-generation costs, which average 6¢/kWhe. Robustly battery-backed solar is running around 5¢/kWhe plus the non-gen cost of 6¢. This is not a regulatory issue, which has pretty much been “solved” as many regulations have been erased. Face it, nuclear is too complex to come down in cost to that degree, if at all.

    Reply
  3. Hey why not start a nuclear war. That will shake up things and those who survive will deal with it. DEEP THINK going on there.

    Reply
  4. Google “Cigarette health effects history”

    In 1602 an anonymous English author published an essay titled Worke of Chimney Sweepers (sic) which stated that illnesses often seen in chimney sweepers were caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects. This was one of the earliest known instances of smoking being linked to ill health.
    In 1795 Sammuel Thomas von Soemmering of Maine (Germany) reported that he was becoming more aware of cancers of the lip in pipe smokers
    In 1798 the US physician Benjamin Rush wrote on the medical dangers of tobacco
    During the 1920s the first medical reports linking smoking to lung cancer began to appear. Many newspaper editors refused to report these findings as they did not want to offend tobacco companies who advertised heavily in the media
    A series of major medical reports in the 1950s and 1960s confirmed that tobacco caused a range of serious diseases.

    Read more at https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/31899/uncategorized/a-brief-history-of-smoking/#ascPkZo3Xryrovk4.99

    Reply
  5. NO they did not know it was bad for you. That happened later after they touted the health effects and put cigarettes in GI packages during WW@ to get more addicted. As a matter of fact the Cigarette companies published BS studies saying that cigarettes were healthy for you.

    Reply
  6. Yes the special interests are out there violating rights but I think the US founders came up with some logical rules that scale whether you have 3 people or 3 billion. The answer was strong property rights. We are made of matter on a world of finite matter and space. Strong property rights means you can fence off your section of the pitri dish to maintain whatever lifestyle you choose even if your neighbors population explodes to the point they have a collapse. That idea scales well from 3 people on an island to 3 billion on continents. I think the logic is beautiful. Put yourself on an island with someone you care about and 3 other randos. What kind of government are you ok with? What would you put up with? What would you fight for? The logic you come up with likely scales all the way up to billions. The logic being pushed today basically guarantees sweeping collapses and resets involving violating the rights and restricting the freedom of those around you. It almost becomes a numbers game where we are in a herd and will probably be OK and as long as the odds don’t get too bad we don’t care.

    For privacy I think that has been an accidental side effect of large cities. If you lived in a small village everyone knew everything about you. All gossip made it everywhere. The only time I see a problem with privacy is when someone is violating property rights to obtain information. Spying by .gov would be a violation of rights whereas just about anything else would just be gossip.

    Reply
  7. I tend to look at freedom as a combination of things with the largest components being how much of your own labor you are allowed to keep and also how many behavior modifying rules there are under the threat of violence. Given that definition I would hope you agree that there is quite the sliding scale. I believe history shows the freer you are the more successful you have an opportunity to be. Regarding the US we started the slide almost immediately after inception (the whiskey rebellion) but I think the 20th century will go down in the history books as the era of true enslavement (the entire country being generally enslaved on a level close to what was only seen with actual slaves the century before). I think the founders understood the human condition which is why they set the stage for periodic resets and reinforced the mindset of continually striving for freedom. There is quite a huge difference in having an all powerful federal government and a bunch of political laboratories where by the nature of it the people are much better represented by the government. They also seemed to recognize the more people you concentrate the less freedom would exist. Centralization is the enemy, which is basically the deterioration of property rights.

    Reply
  8. I am puzzled by those who express distress when the Bill of Rights is diluted or when the unwritten “rights of privacy” are violated by those who rule us. Never since the hunter gatherer days has anyone been “free”. The special interests in control of the USA engage other countries militarily through invasion or aerial bombardment and participate in proxy conflicts with declared “enemy” nations (Iran). This is inconsistent with the stated founding principles of the USA : “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Obviously, only God considers all men to have been created equally; the words are ancient liberal BS blathering, which we cannot apply to those outside US borders. For me, the puzzling thing is the super high value we place on the lives, health and “unalienable rights” of 1st world citizenry knowing how cheap lives are and how scarce the “justice” or “fairness” or even basic health and sanitation is out there in the 2nd and 3rd world. The 2nd and 3rd worlds are the natural states of humanity where you must take care of yourself and family and village and navigate dangers. The 1st world writes your rights on parchment and puts them in a museum. I am never offended or surprised when the constrictor tightens its grip on us. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s – unfortunately you and I belong to Caesar’s bureaucracy.

    Reply
  9. I was not familiar with the kristallnacht. I was curious how it lined up with other restrictions like being disarmed. Gun restrictions started in 1933 and got worse all the way up through 1938, with the actual law forbidding any weapons at all for Jews being instituted literally 2 days after that event. That kind of shocked me. You are probably right that we are a far far ways off from that, if at all, but I found that to be quite an interesting parallel. That is one of the issues I am concerned with and consider a litmus test for the future.

    I worry they figured out how to do basically the same thing on much longer timelines without serious events. Instead of attacking the people of our nation directly and stealing their wealth for example, my generation just happens to have half the purchasing power of the previous generation and that looks to be a continuing pattern. Things like the Patriot Act could just be part of the much smarter slow boil instead of trying to force the frog into the roiling pot.

    Reply
  10. ‘My guess is that we’ve reached peak global warming’. Not even close. Even if we went into full braking mode, it will keep rising for all our lifetimes.Whether people want to think about it, or not, is immaterial.

    Reply
  11. The study that claimed Antarctica was gaining mass was from 2015, and based on radar altimetry. It assumed that areas where the altitude went up had gained ice – if it was snow, the mass increase would be less. Several other studies since have refuted the 2015 one, including direct measurement of mass change by the GRACE satellites, and also the second study you cite. I quote -‘ However, Antarctica’s additional ice mass gained from snowfall makes up for just about a third of its current ice loss.’

    Reply
  12. Andrew Yang is a serious contender with his $1000 per month for all Americans aged 18-64 and free medicare. I would like to see him as president.

    Reply
  13. Look, I am a consultant, living in the GCC. I can tell you that governments here see the writing on the wall, and are increasingly working to transform their economies before the windfall runs out. UAE is probably at the forefront in the region, with utility-scale solar projects and their tinkering at sustainable development at the Masdar Institute, in Abu Dhabi. And, it is hard to look at the recent Saudi “Vision 2030” without seeing it as a “last hurrah” or last chance attempt to build something that will carry them forward.

    Reply
  14. North Sea oil is in decline, and there is no denying it. Conventional oil is in decline. That leaves more expensive, harder to find and extract oil: arctic, deep sea, and “fracking” old fields and tight oil.

    Oman’s oil production history can be seen in the link below. As is has relatively small reserves, its history can be clearly defined. Production reached a plateau in the 1990’s. In the late 1990’s, 3rd stage recovery was introduced, resulting in a surprise upside breakout in production, but it was short lived, and decline set in. “Fracking” has brought production back, almost to the former level, but a) this “4th Stage” recovery of old fields and tight oil. And b) production is again beginning to plateau.
    https://agsiw.org/cutting-edge-technology-boosts-omans-oil-and-gas-production/

    Reply
  15. Dr. Pat,

    I didn’t say Climate Change was “fake”. Statistically, (assuming one is not completely paranoid and can trust 100+ years of data) there has been an increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures. I implied that it was a distraction. Firstly, in 2005-2009 timeframe, when it began to get pushed very hard, there was a real question as to whether the decline in oil production would supercede climate change (though burning more coal as a solution could continue the warming trend). With 2-3 decades of extension, and significantly increased production, I don’t know which way that scale now tips. Secondly, in this timeframe, this narrative was pushed by The Economist and other publications, while there was a conspicuous virtual blackout of interviews and discussions referencing Matthew Simmonds (Energy technology investor with 5 decades of experience), Colin Campbell (BP Senior Geologist), Ken Deffeyes (Shell Oil Geologist and Princeton professor of sedimentology), etc.

    As an investor, reading the reports of many of the “fracking” companies operating in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian Basin, it seems that the majority of these companies are experiencing steep decline rates of 6-7% or more at new wells, and losing money at current prices. They are keeping the game going by selling bonds at the current very low interest rates. Basically, we are burning money to provide uneconomic oil. The low EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) would support these statistics.

    Reply
  16. Wrong. The Antarctic is losing mass – the glaciers are speeding up, and melting from underneath. The grounding lines are retreating past the shallow shelf where they used to stop, and from there the glacier beds slope down, so there’s nothing to stop the retreat. The 2015 study that claimed East Antarctica was gaining more ice than West Antarctica was losing, has been contradicted by every other study since.Now some of the the East Antarctica glaciers are speeding up as well.https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2832/more-glaciers-in-east-antarctica-are-waking-up/
    You don’t have to melt the whole icecap to make all our port cities uninhabitable, and if melting continues at pace, instead of stabilising, it will be very hard to reestablish new cities further back. During ‘Meltwater Pulse 1a’, when the Laurentian Ice Sheet melted, the sea rose about a metre every twenty years – for 400 years. As the name implies, there were a number of other meltwater pulses.
    https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/521/2018/tc-12-521-2018.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.epdf?referrer_access_token=TYg8T92FGOT9G_K

    Reply
  17. Seems pretty obvious what is meant – the savings on your electric bill and/or heating bill are enough to pay for whatever you did to the house, over the life of whatever you installed.

    Similar to a solar PV roof paying for itself after some number of years, except somehow getting to zero on-going energy inputs.

    Reply
  18. I’d say you need to do some study yourself. Particularly in written English.

    Because those explanations of yours were some of the most disjointed and difficult to follow things on this site, and that’s a low bar to limbo under.

    Reply
    1. It was a much better post than most peakoilers. Coherent, linked to a real news site, used terminology properly.
    2. He projects the crisis out 2 to 3 decades, which is much wiser than claiming it was 2 to 3 years away like the real nutcases.

    A couple of problems though

    1. The claim that Climate Change was a fake all along to distract us into addressing another issue is an interesting twist. Though it carries with it the unavoidable fact that this means the climate changers are liars who can’t be trusted to speak the truth, so why should we believe them on ANYTHING?
    2. Climate change is about CO2 which is largely about coal and electricity generation. Yes, moving cars away from oil is there but only as a side issue. So if the whole thing was a fake then it meant that 90% of the effort got distracted to not solving the real problem at all.
    Reply
  19. Even the cigarette thing is rubbish.

    Actually read stuff written in 1900, everyone knew cigarettes were bad for you. They were called “coffin nails” and “gaspers”, do think that was because they were thought healthy?

    This whole “we didn’t know! We were told they had vitamins and stuff! How were we to know? Won’t somebody think of the children!!!” was just fake ignorance ginned up to excuse their own bad habits (bad) and to get more money off the tobacco companies (fair, they were doing something they knew was killing people).

    Reply
  20. Biden kind of has to promise the moon to pass muster with the current political climate in the Democratic Party, but a lot of the research and energy goals make a lot of sense. What doesn’t is his promise and the insane green new deal’s promise of a zero net carbon economy in the near future but at least he ditches the stupid promises of free education, healthcare, the anti-nuclear rhetoric, insane belief renewables can do it all, and oh yeah we have to do it all by 2030 belief inherent in the green new deal. So while there are some goals that don’t make sense in the near future such as hydrogen cheaper than natural gas or zero net energy zero cost buildings his plan is 100 percent better OAC’s green new deal.

    Reply
  21. Amazing the article says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Do you know how to read or did you think no one would.

    Reply
  22. If earth had an aluminum folie 20 km above the surface, the 175 000 TW sun radiate to our planet would be reflected from that.

    But all oceans would boil away and the atmosphere would be 1000 C.

    40TW is enough for that if it not radiate out to space.

    Start with physics att maybe college level than go further.

    Reply
  23. Venus atmosphere has just the temperature it hav from the planets inner heat and nuclear energy plus that the reflecting layer radiate back 67% of out radiated energy from the surface.

    How hard can that be to understand?

    Why is not for example Saturnus 3 K when the planet has no solid surface?

    My suggest is that you stud hard all relevant disciplines so you fully understand.

    I wish you luck for study is to expand the brain if you allays are maximum skeptical and test all argument from all perspective not at least your own.

    I have don that my whole life and therefore changes opinion 180 degrees some time but not the last.

    Reply
  24. Venus surface is hot from rest heat and nuclear energy not greenhouse effect.

    Thru earth surface goes 40 TW 10 from rest heat and 30 from nuclear, without earth inner nuclear the sun will blow most of the atmosphere away as it has done from Mars who is a smaller planet and therefore get cool faster.

    Now just oxygen and helium blows away from the poles where the magnetic field is weakest.

    But the inner nuclear produce new helium that flow thru the crust and are alfa radiation that take up electrons on its way up.

    Haven´t you wonder what give earth it magnetic shield?

    Convection of liquid iron, but what give the energy?

    Thorium and Uranium.

    So with out earth inner nuclear power no life on earth.

    Reply
  25. Simple:

    “Above the dense CO
    2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfuric acid, which is formed by sulfur dioxide and water through a chemical reaction resulting in sulfuric acid hydrate. Additionally, the atmosphere consists of approximately 1% ferric chloride.[68][69] Other possible constituents of the cloud particles are ferric sulfate, aluminium chloride and phosphoric anhydride. Clouds at different levels have different compositions and particle size distributions.[68] These clouds reflect and scatter about 90% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space, and prevent visual observation of Venus’s surface. The permanent cloud cover means that although Venus is closer than Earth to the Sun, it receives less sunlight on the ground.”

    I use to correct Wikipedia but that media is overtaken by climate activists.

    90% of incoming energy reflect out in space above the planets CO2 and 67% reflect down from the planets surface.

    Just 40W/kvm is left for COP2 to act on as greenhouse gas.

    Don´t you wonder about why the gasplanet in this solar system is so hot when they cant have greenhouse effect according to today´s consensus?

    CO2 can just giv 18,4W/kvm in greenhouse effect from a black body with 15C.

    That is what CO2 do with 150 ppm.

    Why cant climate activists get educated and start be skeptical about all not least there own believes?

    I say:

    Reduce human population with 75%.

    Go for mass produced walk away safe nuclear.

    Or lay of.

    I have a better way.

    Reply
  26. Yeah, hard to tell. I’m thinking it MAY be someone who’s totally invested in the CAGW scam.

    Seriously, the Antarctic’s gaining mass – and in order to actually melt the icecap or Greenland’s ice cube in a human time frame (like say 200 years) the temperatures on the rest of the planet would need to rise to fatal levels.

    But I guess there’s ‘SCIENCE!’ where everything’s a catastrophe, and there’s ‘science’ which is nowhere near so dramatic…

    Reply
  27. I am thinking about the strong and rich behind climate activists.

    Do they realize that Donald Trump has an open goal when the carbon dioxide threat is scientifically rejected and tries to make it a religion in such a short time that counter-argument is punished as blasphemy?

    The phenomenon of Greta Thunberg with the power elite behind is a sign that they are starting to become desperate.

    The presumption recognizes that the fourth industrial revolution will give Marx right hundreds of years later and thus move the power to the people unless new global power systems can be built up before like the UN?

    Reply
  28. So you say I´m wrong but you cant argue against with fact?

    Hmmm stupid people with strong opinions that they defend att all intellectual cost…

    Reply
  29. Hi give me one scientific study that support the CO2-threat?

    The last one that try did the opposite https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html?fbclid=IwAR3oxe4s9w1KrFHfahDDsloYCu83cOnrGwYFxz4Tswb7yAo4nhGie2skYFc

    Read that one and find that no one can detect higher greenhouse effect as function of higher CO2.

    Cherry picking to take 2000-2010 for Alaska and Oklahoma, go find the global variation of water vapor as well as regional, you can find from 1940 and se that the global level went down 1940-1970 and are still the last 20 years.

    No oceans will be below 8 in ph and 7 is neutral.

    Many have tested with 4000 ppm CO2 over the surface in saltwater aquariums with the result that lime-fixing organisms feel better.

    Carbon dioxide becomes lime in the sea and is now crushed and burned to cement

    Study chemistry and you will learn that carbon dioxide transforms to limestone.

    When we create cement from limestone the same amount of CO2 release but when we build synthetic limestone (concrete) the same amount CO2 takes up from the atmosphere.

    I suggest that cement industri get industrial heat from modern mass produced nuclear and produce synthetic fuel from the CO2 and H2.

    So sad that climate activists have so low knowledge and do what the can to not take in objective information.

    Reply
  30. We currently have a 22 trillion debt and we want to add 5 trillion more for one subject? We’re looking to run out of funds for Medicare, Medicad, and Social Security in the near future. Yes, the debt does matter.

    Do we need the government to solve climate change? Do you think no one but the government can get the job done? I can’t think of a better way to wipe this country off the map than to cede the job to government. There is nothing that government has done that hasn’t raised cost many times over.

    All the plans ignore that we live on a planet and that the US is not the planet. There is India and China whose CO2 is carried by west winds over the US. If we wete to achieve zero emissions, would China and India also achieve the same? If not, our efforts would be erased. None of the Paris Accord participants have achieved their goals.

    We do need to reduce emissions. Industry and science can do it without massive spending by the government.

    Reply
  31. I was HONESTLY thinking the same thing last night. Funny how this AI doesn’t actually say anything with the largely incoherent comments. My first guess was a schizophrenic.

    Reply
  32. We don’t live 200,000 years ago we live now and it is the human caused virtually instantaneous climate change that is the issue. And please list just one recognized scientific organization in the world that denies that global warming is real and cause by mankind. You take facts out of context and made unsubstantiated conclusions. You don’t even consider the acidification of the oceans. This is because the disinformation sites you read want to keep you ignorant so you will oppose anything that will slow the sell of trillions in fossil fuels. Like a computer that has a program installed, malware, that then goes off to do the bidding of its hacker.

    Reply
  33. Yes and continuing the path the world is on won’t cost either? Lets see 1 billion dead, every coastal city in the world lost, 1/2 of the world species lost, wars, starvation disease, violent storms. Yep lets stay with the low cost alternative.

    Lets not forget the environmental trifecta the “Great Die Off”! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event Yep some historic event dumped massive amount of methane (perma frost) in the atmosphere causing the seas to die and release toxic gas. But real men are not concerned cause it has happened before and the earth recovered (millions of years later). God forbid I risk dying in a 737 but I will ignore what every recognized scientific organization says is happening. Yep I will ignore the 1970s studies by Exxon predicting what is happening to the climate now. Real men smoked cigarettes cause they knew it was also a lie even though internal cigarette companies showed the opposite. Real men knew it was a hoax even when the same entity that sowed disinformation on cigarettes and cancer/heart disease is on Global Warming.

    Given the truly wealthy have used tax loopholes to evade taxes and pay, in some cases nothing, while the middle class don’t get that option. Eliminate capital gains except in special circumstances with a 5 year window. Eliminate the limit on SS! There are at lest 10,000 pages of tax code and 95% of it is special loopholes bought and paid for by your lobbyist.

    Reply
  34. Biden is dumber than a rock. But he does know how to be a politician (though really creepy hair smelling young girls kind). Promise everything and deliver nothing.

    Voters are even dumber. Reminds me of the George Carlin set: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

    Basically, he figures the Green New Deal was a tad TOO stupid, so he made a “GND-Lite” version to show who is the responsible (still creepy) grown-up in the room. Vboring here is on target that nuclear is a regulatory issue, not technical. We could have had 4th gen nuclear 2 generations ago.

    My guess is that we’ve reached peak global warming and the 2020 election will not be about reconfiguring the U.S. into some windmill farm with lights on only every other day. It will be the economy, stupid, as they say.

    Reply
  35. 5 Trillion with a T? Why doesn’t he go with Gazillion while he’s at it? Is he trying to put his country in the poorhouse, just so he can be president of that poorhouse? So the more desperate politicians become, the crazier they make their promises? And the partisan “mainstream media” won’t care one wit to inject a dose of reality on this? Crazy – disgusting even.

    Reply
  36. My guess is that Donald Trump wait until next year to show that CO2 as threat to the global climate is scientific rejected.

    Then they who say CO2 is a threat have to show the facts and the fact is that no one have detect higher greenhouse effect as function of higher CO2.

    Most greens don´t even know that this ice age started for 2,6 million years ago and the interglacial before was 2,5 C warmer global and 8 C warmer for 6000 years on Greenland that reduced the ice with 25% with zero tipping points.

    https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

    Reply
  37. If CO2 could create a global heat catastrophe it would been able to detect higher greenhouse effect as function of higher level CO2 but no one have.

    First Nature publish a study 2001 that compered 1970 with 1997 zero less out radiated energy in the wave length that only CO2 act as greenhouse gas 15µm.

    Then 2015 Nature publish next that clam to be the first to detect higher greenhouse effect as funktion of higher CO2 but did the opposite.

    If level over 150 ppm give higher greenhouse effect it is simple to detect if the level CO2 compares to out radiated energy round 15 µm.

    To all that are we in an ice age and the interglacial before was mush warmer with only result a more life friendly global climate.

    All ice age theories have changed temperatures differences as force no one greenhouse effect.

    NASA showed that desert to forest in India and China the last 20 years has gown with the size of Amazonas, other wise the global average temperature had ben lower.

    When Sahara was green early in this interglacial the average temperature was 2C higher but still lower then the interglacial before.

    Sahara radiate 16% more energy as desert than it had done if the region was covered with thick forest.

    I cant understand how so many can be so dumb?

    Further more is mass produced nuclear the only technique we now know work for a global welfare, with out that no global environment protection.

    Reply
  38. For about 15 years now, I have considered “Climate Change” to be the way that politicians talk about the measures required to deal with Peak Oil, without actually talking about it and causing a panic. It now appears that Matthew Simmonds was right about Middle East oil production and aging conventional oil fields, such as Ghawar, which the Saudis have now admitted is in decline. What Simmonds didn’t see completely was the scale of use of 3rd Stage oil recovery techniques (lateral “bottle brush” wells and fracking) on tight oil fields, such as the Bakken and Permian Basins. Thankfully, these have probably bought us two, maybe three decades, but at an environmental cost that has yet to be fully reckoned. During that time (Since 2005) the cost of PV solar and wind power have come down massively, and are continuing to ramp up; energy storage continues to improve in performance and cost; and electrical transportation technology has advanced considerably. But, we should be prepared for very steep decline rates, when this trend ends. An example would be what happened at Oman’s Yibal oilfield.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-02/saudi-aramco-reveals-sharp-output-drop-at-super-giant-oil-field

    Reply
  39. Maybe somebody confused zero net CO2 production with zero net energy… we can sure a heck make building more efficient than they are now. A lot of the modern buildings here in Silicon Valley have turned their parking lots into what amount to solar farms. I doubt their electricity bill are all that high after doing this.

    Reply
  40. Take an existing building. Rip out the heaters and airconditioners and wiring. Sell the removed parts and materials for scrap (copper is worth good money).

    Result: Buildings now use zero net energy and you spent zero net money doing the conversion.

    When the people in the buildings start to whine and complain, tell them to “Harden up princess, your revolutionary green fervour should keep you warm, or are you a backsliding wrecker?”

    Reply
  41. My big take away from this is that the ex-VP is running for president.
    Probably not news to people actually listening to the news in the USA, but it’s news to me.

    Reply
  42. Yeah I laughed out load at that one…it is a bad sign if a policy proposal doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    Reply
  43. I like the emphasis on nuclear and hydrogen.

    Nuclear in the US isn’t a technology problem. It is a regulatory problem.

    Hydrogen from RE cheaper than fracked gas can be achieved today with enough subsidies. It is utterly impossible without subsidies. Hydrogen at $1/kg is $7.5/MMbtu. It takes at least 45kWh to make a kg of hydrogen. The RE has to be under 2c/kWh and drive an electrolysis process with no CapEx or OpEx to get under $1/kg. Getting cheaper than fracking means hydrogen at about 25c/kg.

    Hydrogen from super simple thermal nuclear reactors for thermal hydrogen production could MAYBE get under $1/kg.

    Reply
  44. What,–
    does this man have a research basement in his home? Ethical dilemmas of AI: fairness, transparency, collaboration, trust, accountability & morality

    I don’t know – according to the Third Industrial Revolution, we must have new ideas, anew, (design is nothing other than perpetual renewal) et cetera. (good redundancies continue positions of increase, which is why the wea) Whose creating new ideas; shouldn’t the last paragraph be RIGHT AT THE TIPTOP? There are departments and organizations everywhere, where is it conclusive, what is the basis for the task? The article encompasses a labyr. of new responses for Trump’s base for the substance now implementing his rise to power, aside his Olympian modus operandi…does he have implementation plans for a consortium forum with all the world’s leaders about the ongoing research into cannabis?Oh

    Will he bah-be able to do what all he is saying, for example, like Trump, will he cut taxes for margin’s in self-sustenance? (There are a lot of poor people in the world [Trump’s vast tax cuts to the marginally self-sufficient/should have to materialize close to election] have his mind, good as gold, which is precisely the point about alt.resident.president Biden.) I think we should do a point by point assessment, how this would be written in CHINA, then, we’ll see how this research list of aggregate algorithms plays out as it’s worded with word laws from the me too affects on the U.S. Constitution. Why the Constitution? Why not?5:11p

    Reply
  45. 400B is half the defense budget to kickstart the nuclear industtry. This is a non starter. Better return the Obama er storagea Carbon regulations, have them straighten as conditions allow, continue research on all forms of clean energy, long way transmission, storage and geo engineering, at a reasonably accelerated pace and we will reach sufficient 70%+ at 2050 without having to run amok ASL style.

    Reply
  46. And I will believe none of it.

    Trump or Tulsi Gabard. I like Yang but don’t think he can make it.

    “zero net energy buildings at zero net cost;”

    Neither of those is possible.

    Reply

Leave a Comment