Will The Earth Get Hotter or Colder?

It is hard to see why anyone denies the idea of climate change. We know about nature's Ice Ages in the past; they will probably return some century. Some may think that the Global Warming theory means that humans can effect the world the way nature can; but that is not so. At the height of the last Ice Age, sea levels were 360 feet below where they are now. A rise of 360 feet over 140 million square miles of ocean, means that nature melted about 10 million cubic miles of ice. The debate now, is about the last few scraps of ice in Greenland and Antarctic, maybe 5% more. These scraps however, could raise sea levels the last 20 feet; catastrophic, since so many people live near the oceans.
A History Channel show, titled,"Little Ice Age: Big Chill" gives some perspective. The Little Ice Age lasted 500 years from 1300 to 1800 AD; in a sense, just before our own time. The onset took only a few decades and dropped average temperatures by three to six-degrees F, for the period.
The History show concentrated on Northern Europe, and northeastern areas of America. Maybe the problem only hit this area. One leading theory is that the worldwide thermohaline flow (which includes the Gulf Stream) was interrupted in the North Atlantic by a flood of fresh water from the ice sheets. This may have been caused by the previous 300-year medieval, warm spell, which in turn, was caused by lower volcanic activity, worldwide. The 300-year warm spell was such a good food growing time in Europe that the population doubled. JUST AS WE DO NOW, the Europeans felt that this benign weather had always been the same, and would not ever change. They were completely unprepared. Between famine and plague, Europe was decimated.
Within the Little Ice Age, another drop of 3-degrees F, occurred worldwide for 70 years (1645-1715), due to lower Sun energy, in the so-called Maunder Minimum of sun spots. This came on in one decade, lasted 50 years, then eased in another decade. Sol is a slightly variable star.
If such events occur now, we will probably notice the onset, and have a decade or two to prepare a response. The situation could effect how we handle the need for clean energy.
ONE: Suppose a Sun Spot Minimum is detected. We would have time to plant hardier crops or stockpile food. It would offset Global Warming to some extent, allow all out use of coal for a while, and give us many more decades to set in place a complete clean energy solution.
TWO: A slowdown of the Gulf Stream, possibly caused by melting glaciers, might create a Little Ice Age; much more serious and lasting longer than a Sun Spot Minimum. Wouldn't it be better if we could also avoid this counter catastrophe, with clean energy in place, worldwide?

A China/India Scenario

Between them, China and India, have about one-third of the Earth�s population. Their economies are growing strongly, and they are, thankfully, both moving heavily into the generation of nuclear energy. The world can hope that this one-third of humanity will be living in sustainable economies during this century.
China plans to have 40 nuclear plants by 2030; and many people speculate that they will have 300 by the end of the century. ElBaradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEC), said in 2005, that India�s nuclear capacity will grow 10-fold by 2022, and 100-fold by mid-century.
If, between these two countries, 600 nuclear plants are built this century; it is reasonable to think that they will be built for about $1.7B each (current dollars). This is based on a Chinese government statement that they plan to build 30 plants for a total of $50B; a standardized design most likely.
Since there are moving targets involved, I speculate that by the halfway point, say 300 nukes total by 2060 or so, the average price of the plants will have increased to $4B, and the average price of oil will have grown to $200 per barrel (conservative estimate).
300 nukes times $4B = $1.2T ($1,200,000,000). 300 nukes = 12MBPD or 4.4BBPY of oil, worth $0.9T ($900,000,000) every year, at $200 per barrel. 600 nukes by century�s-end would be proportionally even more valuable, if this estimate is near correct. This is not to say that nuclear would be enough; wind, solar, biofuel, and conservation will all be needed. Fossil fuels will also still be burned for energy. Earth�s need for energy is enormous.
Clean energy from wind, equivalent to 600 nukes would require 1,200,000, 2000kw turbines. I also wish that these countries could find locations for, and build this number of wind turbines, but

"Clean Coal" and Global Warming

The name “Clean Coal” has been in the news over the last few decades, during discussions of air pollution at first, and more recently when talking about Global Warming. In fact, the name that should have been used is something like, “Merely Half-Dirty Coal.” Newer plants may come closer to “Clean Coal”, but they are probably decades away.
What is really meant by the term Clean Coal was shown clearly in an article in the New York Times, August 4, 2000. The article was titled, ”Subsidies for Clean Coal Technology Badly Misplaced”. It described Congressional moves to encourage better coal burning technology, and subsidies for plants to apply scrubbers to coal plant effluents.
A table of EMISSIONS versus COST of plants (www.eia.doe.gov) was introduced as follows:
ADDING IT UP TO CLEAN COAL? --New processes for burning coal have lowered emissions, but coal still produces much more pollution than natural gas.
EMISSIONS COST
Sulfur Nitrogen Carbon Plant Per Megawatt Fuel (2000) Per One
SO2 NO CO2 Capacity Million BTU
(pounds per megawatt-hour)
Traditional Coal 0.20 1.11 1,897 $90,000 $1.20
New Technology Coal 0.10 0.56 1,897 110,000 $1.20
Natural Gas 0 0.06 842 60,000 $4.30
* (Nuclear) 0 0 0 ** **
* Additional entry that I believe should have been included for comparison.
** Nuclear plant costs vary enormously, but a recent statement from China, that they will build 30 nuclear plants for $50 billion ($1.7 Billion per plant), shows what can be done. Although the cost of nuclear fuel has increased recently, it is still only a fraction of fossil fuel costs.
The main information to get from this table, is that scrubbers only cut sulfur and nitric oxides in half (merely half-dirty coal), but have no effect on Greenhouse Gas, CO2. Also, natural gas is better than coal for all emissions, particularly CO2; nuclear is far superior to all fossil fuels.

Four million barrel equivalence

Prudence requires that this century�s Global Warming & End of Cheap Oil (Nat. Geographic, June 2004) Crisis, must be taken seriously. Nuclear is the only clean energy with the massive potential needed to supplant a large portion of fossil fuel consumption.

Every 100 new, one-gig nuclear plants (anywhere) will provide the same benefits that America�s 100-plant fleet provides to our nation right now. (see www.eia.doe.gov).

Energy = to 8% of America�s total energy, or four million barrels of oil per day (4MBPD).

4MBPD is = to one-fifth of 20MBPD of oil, that we consume.

4MBPD is = to one-half of 8MBPD of oil that we get from our aging oil fields.

4MBPD is = to one third of 12MBPD of oil that we import.

4MBPD is = to 1.5 billion barrels of oil that we do not have to import each year (1.5BBPY)..

1.5BBPY would cost $90B each year for $60 oil.

1.5BBPY would cost $150B each year if oil increases to $100 (my guess, in less than 10 years).

1.5BBPY would cost about $0.3T per year if oil increases to $200 (20 years ?).

NOTE: Importing $100B of oil means exporting $100B of cold cash, out of our economy, and into foreign economies; not to oil companies.

Nuclear Energy Can Save Us

Billions of lives and civilization itself may be at risk from the Global Warming & End of Cheap Oil, Crisis. The problem is so huge that the most powerful answer, many nuclear plants, must be deployed. Currently, America's 100 nukes deliver the energy of four million barrels of oil per day.

Wind and solar cannot do the job, and may delay the real answer too long. Still, all forms of clean energy, plus conservation, plus control of deforestation, will be needed to help the poor half of the world, and for civilization to survive through this century.