Solar power is only available during the day, and people need power at night too. As a result, the people of a town will either need a lot of storage, or a back-up electric generator for use at night and on cloudy days. These are expensive, and use gasoline (generally) and they are hard to maintain for an individual. Central generated alternate power is cheaper, but the wires have to be maintained. As a result, solar power is duck curve, or canon curve power. It never frees you from hydrocarbons and power companies, and it usually saves no money or energy.
People need power at twilight and dawn too, and sunlight barely generates any power during these hours, and sometimes clouds appear and disappear suddenly while folks expect uniform power to their lights. The mismatch between supply and demand means that your backup generator, must run on and off suddenly. It’s difficult for small, home generators, but impossible for big central generators. In order to have full power by evening, the big generators need to run through the day. The result is that, for most situations, there is no value to solar power.
Installed solar power has not decreased the amount of generation needed, just changed when it is needed.
Power leveling through storage will address this problem, but it’s hardly done. Elon Musk has suggested that the city should pay people to use a home battery power leveler, a “power wall” or an unused electric car to provide electricity at night, twilight, and on cloudy days. It’s a legitimate idea, but no city has agreed, to date. In Europe, some locations have proposed having a central station that generates hydrogen from solar power during the day using electrolysis. This hydrogen can drive trucks or boats, especially if it is used to make hythane. One can also store massive power by water pumping or air compression.
Scottsbluff Neb. solar farm damaged by hail, 6/23.
In most locations, storage is not available, so solar power has virtually no value. I suspect that, at the very least, in these locations, the price per kWh should be significantly lower at noon on a sunny day (1/2 as expensive or less). The will cause people to charge their eVs at noon, and not at midnight. Adjusted prices will cause folks to do heavy manufacturing at noon and not at midnight. We have the technology for this, but not the political will, so far. Politicians find it easier to demand solar, overcharge people (and industry) and pretend to save the environment.
A lot of cities push rain barrels as a way to save water and reduce flooding. Our water comes from the Detroit and returns to it as sewage, so I’m not sure there is any water saving, but there is a small cash saving (very small) if you buy 30 to 55 gallon barrels from the city and connect them to the end of your drain spout. The rainwater you collect won’t be pure enough to drink, or safe for bathing, but you can use it to water your lawn and garden. This sounds OK, even patriotic, until you do the math, or the plumbing, or until you consider the wood-chip alternative.
The barrels are not cheap, even when subsidized they cost about $100 each. Add to this the cost and difficulty of setting up the collection system and the distribution hose. Water from your rain barrel will not flow through a normal nozzle as there is hardly any pressure. Expect watering to take a lot longer than you are used to.
40 gallon rain barrels. Two of these give about 70 usable gallons every heavy rain fall. That’s about 70¢ worth.
In Michigan you can not leave the water in your barrel over the winter, the water will freeze and the barrel will crack. You have to drain the tank completely every fall, an almost impossible task, and the tank is attached to a rainspout and the last bit of water is hard to get out. Still, you have to do it, or the barrel will crack. And the savings for all this is minimal. During a rainy month, you don’t need this water. During a dry month, there is no water to use. Even at the best, the The marginal cost of water in our town is less than 1¢ per gallon. For all the work and cost to set up, two complete 40 gallon tanks (like those shown) will give you at most about 70 usable gallons. That’s to say, almost 70¢ per full filling.
How much lawn can you water? Assume you like to water your lawn to the equivalent of 1″ of rain per week, your 70 gallons will water about 154 ft2 of lawn or garden, virtually nothing compared to the typical Michigan 2000 ft2 lawn. You’ll still have to get most of your water from the city’s main. All that work, for so little benefit.
Young trees with chip volcanos, 1 ft high x18″. Spread the chips to the diameter of the leaves.You don’t need more than 2″.
A far better option is wood chips. They don’t cover a lawn, but they’re great for shrubs, trees or a garden. Wood chips are easy to spread, and they stop weeds and hold water. The photo at left shows a wood chips around the shrubs, and a particularly poor use of wood chips around the trees. For shrubs, trees, or a garden, I suggest you put down 1 to 2 inches of wood chips. Surround a young tree at that depth to the diameter of the branches. Do not build a “chip volcano,” as this lazy landscaper has done.
Consider that, covering 500 ft2 of area to a depth of 1.5 inches will take about 60 cubic feet of wood chips. That will cost about $35 dollars at the local Home Depot. This is enough to hold about 1.25″ or rainwater, That’s about 100 ft3 or water or 800 gallons. The chips prevent excess evaporation while preventing weeds and slowly releasing the water to your garden. You do no work. The chips take almost no work to spread, and will keep on working for years, with no fear of frost-damage. A as the chips stop working, they biocompost slowly into fertilizer. That’s a win.
There is a worst option too, called a rain garden. This is often pushed by environmental-gooders. You dig a hole near your downspout, perhaps ten feet in diameter, by two feet deep, and plant native grasses (weeds). When it rains, the hole fills with water creating a mini wetland that will soon smell like the swamp that it is. If you are not lucky, the water will find a way to leak into your basement. If that’s your problem look here. If you are luckier, your mini-swamp will become the home of mosquitos, frogs, and snakes. The plants will grow, then die, and rot, and look awful. It is very hard to maintain native grasses. That’s why people drain swamps and grow trees or turf or vegetables. If you want to see a well-maintained rain garden, they have two on the campus of Lawrence Tech. A wetland isn’t bad, but you want drainage, Make a bioswale or muir.
Robert Buxbaum, May 31, 2023. I ran for water commissioner some years back.
The Dead Sea in Israel is a popular tourist attraction and health resort-area. It is also the lowest point on the planet, with a surface about 430m below sea level. Its water is saturated with an alkaline salt, and quite devoid of life, and it’s shrinking fast, loosing about 1 m in height every year. The Jordan river water that feeds the sea is increasingly drawn off for agriculture, and is now about 10% of what it was in the 1800s. The Dead Sea is disappearing fast, a story that is repeated with other inland seas: the Aral Sea, the Great Salt Lake, etc. In theory, one could reverse the loss using sea water. In theory, you could generate power dong this too: 430m is seven times the drop-height of Niagara Falls. The problem is the route and the price.
Five (or six) semi-attractive routes have been mapped out to bring water to the Dead Sea, as shown on the map at right. The shortest, and least expensive is route “A”. Here, water from the Mediterranean enters a 12 km channel near Haifa; it is pumped up 50m and travels in a pipe for about 52 km over the Galilean foothills, exiting to a power station as shown on the elevation map below. In the original plan the sea water feeds into the Jordan river, a drop of about 300m. The project had been estimated to cost $3 B. Unfortunately, it would make much of the Jordan river salty. It was thus deemed unacceptable. A variation of this would run the seawater along the Jordan in a pipe or an open channel. This would add to the cost, and would likely diminish the power that could be extracted, but you would not contaminate the Jordan.
A more expensive route, “B”, is shorter but it requires extensive tunneling under Jerusalem. Assuming 20 mies of tunnel at $500 MM/mile, this would cost $10B. It also requires the sea water to flow through the Palestinian West Bank on its way to the sea. This is politically sensitive and is unlikely to be acceptable to the West Bank Palestinians.
Vertical demand of the northern route
Two other routes, labeled “C” and “D” are likely even more expensive than route B. They require the water to be pumped over the Judaean hills near Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem. That’s perhaps 600m up. The seawater would flow from Ashkalon or Gaza and would enter the Dead Sea at Sodom, near Masada. Version C is the most politically acceptable, since it’s short and does not go through Palestinian land. Also, water enters the dead sea at its saltiest point so there is no disruption of the environment. Route D is similar to C, somewhat cheaper, but a lot more political. It goes through Gaza.
The longest route, “E” would go through Jordan taking water from the Red Sea. Its price tag is said to be $10 B. It’s a relatively flat route, but still arduous, rising 210m. As a result it’s not clear that any power would be generated. A version of this route could send the water entirely through Israel. It’s not clear that this would be better than Route C. Looking things over, it was decided that only routes that made sense are those that avoided Palestinian land. An agreement was struck with Jordan to go ahead with route D, with construction to begin in 2021. The project has been on hold though because of cost, COVID, and governmental inertia.
In order to make a $5-10B project worthwhile, you’ll have to generate $500MM to $1B/year. Some of this will come from tourism, but the rest must come from electrical power generation. As an estimate of power generation, let’s assume that that the flow is 65 m3/s, just enough to balance the evaporation rate. Assuming a 400 m power drop and an 80% efficient turbine, we should generate 80% of 255 MWe = about 204 MWe on average. Assuming a value of electricity of 10¢/kWh, that translates to $20,000/ hour, or $179 million per year. This is something, but not enough to justify the cost. We might increase the value of the power by including an inland pond for water storage. This would allow power production to be regulated to times of peak load, or it could be used for recreation, fish-farming, or cooling a thermal power station up to 1000 MWe. These options almost make sense, but with the tunnel prices quoted, the project is still too expensive to make sense. It is “on hold” for now.
It’s not like the sea will disappear if nothing is done. With 10% of the original in-flow of water to the Dead Sea, it will shrink to 10% its original size, and then stop shrinking. At that point evaporation will match in-flow. One could add more fresh water by increasing the flow from the sea of Galilee, but that water is needed. When more water is available, more is taken out for farming. This is what’s happened to the Arial Sea — it’s now about 10% the original size, and quite salty.
Elon Musk besides the prototype 12 foot diameter tunnel.
There’s a now a new tunnel option though and perhaps these routes deserve a second look: Elon Musk claims his “Boring company” can bore long tunnels of 12 foot diameter, for $10-20 MM/mile. This should be an OK size for this project. Assuming he’s right about the price, or close to right, the Dead Sea could be raised for $1B or so. At that price-point, it makes financial sense. It would even make sense if one built multiple seapools, perhaps one for swimming and one for energy storage, to be located before the energy-generating drop, and another for fish after. There might even be a pool that would serve as coolant for a thermal power plant. Water in the desert is welcome, even if it’s salt water.
At the 1999 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Al Gore announced an inconvenient truth: “There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” It was a bold prediction, part of a campaign that got Mr Gore a Nobel Prize and motivated the US to devote billions to stopping global warming. Supposedly 98% of scientists agreed with Mr. Gore and his remedies. Prince Charles and Bill Gates too. Twenty three years later there is still arctic ice, 98.5% as much as in 1999. Two questions arise: 1. Is the ice loss bad? and 2. Why were those 98% of scientists so wrong?
Arctic sea ice extent when Al Gore spoke (1999) and since. Not much change, nor clearly for the worse
The second question is far easier than the first: the 98% number was bogus, a lie, like many other climate lies that followed. it was effective at stopping argument, and could not be checked immediately. It bullied scientists who argued that global warming wasn’t bad, or wasn’t man-made, and it gave do-gooders the ability to label their opponents “liars” and “science deniers”. The claim of 98% was used to silence scientists with long, prominent careers. Deniers lost their funding and were no longer published. Other scientists learned to keep quiet. Twenty years later, when the arctic ice wasn’t gone and antarctic ice hit a record extent, the deniers’ careers largely were gone.
Scientists are not stupid, nor independently rich, for the most part. They are dependent on government funding and their employers, the universities are too. As a group they (we) are incapable of stemming the tide of public opinion. This week Biden signed a nearly 1 trillion dollar bill to stop climate change. Every scientist with a chance to get the money will go for it. Whether or not they think a colder earth is good, they will claim it is in their proposals, and imply that their work can stop the natural chaos that is climate. They will ask for their share of the $1T to study the appropriate things: solar cells, corn-based power, and wind turbines. The proposals will not mention the huge costs in mining or land use. Scientists already know they can not get funded for nuclear power, though it works and produces no CO2, nor should can scientists benefit by criticizing China, as the largest source of CO2. That is seen as undermine the green effort at home. When we stop manufacturing at home, BTW, we end up buying the same materials manufactured in China, where they really generate lots of pollution. When asked about this, Biden’s climate chief said not to worry about it, we had to do our part, and Biden would speak to the Chinese. The result is the biggest buildup in coal-fired power plants in the world, with more coming on line.
This second question is at least as important as the first one: is less arctic ice bad? Or, asking more generally, is a warm earth bad? It’s an opinion question; it’s in no way science, impossible to answer definitively. Cold weather is bad for food production, and that’s bad for people, in general. Most people prefer to live where it’s warm, I find. Supposedly polar bears prefer it cold, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not keen to go back to the climate of the ice ages, 10,000- 100,000 years ago when ice covered Canada and you could walk from France to England. I’m not convinced that life was better when the world was 1°C colder. The sea was lower in 1900, but had been higher in the year zero. Less arctic ice means easier shipping. For all I know we may want to make a Northwest Passage. More food and a easier shipping are the convenient truths about global warming.
Robert Buxbaum, August 19, 2022. If you believe any of what I said about Gore/Biden’s green energy, you may like a movie by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, see it here. The political greens are not saving energy or cooling the planet, and they know it. It’s a money maker.
The Pope goes to long lengths to show how much he supports the poor, oppressed people of the world; he washes the feet of Muslim prisoners, he campaigns against Israeli occupation of Palestine, and scolds America, but not China they must reduce carbon output. Usually he picks the wrong villains, in my opinion. His latest effort is against the producers and distributors of food, the agribusinessmen. If only they would charge less, everyone would have more, or so he says.
On World Food Day, Pope Francis placed the blame on capitalism in the food market. Some examples of his speech and tweets follow: “The fight against hunger demands we overcome the cold logic of the market, which is greedily focused on mere economic profit and the reduction of food to a commodity, and strengthening the logic of solidarity.”
In the Pope’s view the cold logic of the market is the source of hunger. I think it is the source of his food and mine, and for the most part everyone’s.
“Thinking about these situations, in God’s name I want to ask The big food corporations to stop imposing monopolistic production and distribution structures that inflate prices and end up withholding bread from the hungry.”
The Pope blames high food prices on producers and distributors who are, in his words, “withholding bread from the hungry.” Of course, all the bread the Pope eats comes from these producers and distributors. It is the same for the bread of all the Archbishops and virtually all the priests; it all comes from these agribusinessmen, who charge more than he would like. They are also the source of the church’s wine, and meat, and vegetables. Folks who do not grow food themselves, and who do not transport it, or process charge those who do these things as greedy, withholding monsters. That any of them have food is only because of these monsters; without them, the poor of the world would starve to death. If he thinks he can do better, he should try, perhaps giving up his time washing feet.
The Pope believes that big food corporations are causing starvation and withholding food from the hungry.
Free market pricing is how farmers know what to produce, where, and who to sell too. It’s also how customers know what to buy and keep, and what to throw away, or save for a special occasion. Without these clues, farmers would grow things people don’t want, and much of the good stuff would go to waste.
High prices for some foods is the indicator that causes agribusiness individuals (the so-called greedy) to see an unmet need. They then employ people in the manufacture and distribution of these foods reducing the employment in the production of other foods where the margins are smaller. These food-price signals are also the fuel for technological innovation — the innovation that has made food abundant and relatively affordable, especially in the capitalist west.
The west has lead in food innovation precisely because of the motivation of food profit. Monsanto invents and distributes seeds for fast-growing grains precisely because there is profit in it, and it is these seeds that reduces the price to the consumer. Colonel Sanders invented the high-pressure fryer because it allowed him to fry more chicken faster. The result is profits for KFC and lower prices for the consumers. It is only because of the so-called corporate greed that western consumers have so many options at such low prices that obesity is a big problem, and starvation is virtually unknown. In the US you can buy $1 hamburgers when the minimum wage is about $10/hour. That is, you can buy a hamburger with the income from 6 minutes of work. You can not do that in any country ruled by enlightened leaders where profit is banned.
Charity proliferates in a free market because many of the people have excess give it willingly targeted to help. They give to the Church, or to the poor directly, or in ways that help the poor indirectly. Such giving makes a bond between giver and recipient and cheers both. Almost immediately, the recipient of the charity enters the capitalist market to trade excess and unneeded items for items that are needed. Perhaps the recipient got too many cans of food, but no shoes, or no can-opener. The market allows a rectification at a fair exchange.
And as for the mandate to lecture world leaders on the evils of capitalism, there is none. Moses, in the desert offers to buy food and water at the market prices. On a similar note Jesus pointed out that financial authority rested with the Emperor, not with the religious leaders. In this vein, Pope Galasius I wrote to Emperor Anastasius in AD 494 that there were two systems: the sacred authority of the priests, and the royal power. In the west, the royal power over food is the marketplace, and it has shown itself to be smarter and more giving than the smartest, most charitable religious leaders.
Robert Buxbaum, November 29, 2021. Having complained about the pope I would like to say that Cardinal Tim Dolan, Archbishop of New York does a wonderful job. His main efforts are education and helping immigrants: needed work. And, as best I know, he has never criticized any productive business for charging too much.
Branson’s Virgin Space Ship (VSS) Unity was cheered as a revolutionary milestone today (July 10) after taking Branson, three friends and two pilots on a three minute ride to the edge of space, an altitude of 53.5 miles or 283,000 feet. I’d like to put that achievement into contest, both with previous space planes, like the Concorde and X-15 (the 1960s space plane), and also in context with the offerings of Elon Musk’s Space-X and Bezos’s, Blue Horizon.
To start with, the VSS Unity launched from a sub-sonic mother ship, as the X-15 had before it. This saves a lot in fuel weight and safety equipment, but it makes scale up problematic. In this case, the mother-ship was named Eve. Unity launched from Eve at 46,000 feet, about 9 miles up, and at Mach 0.5; it took Eve nearly 90 minutes to get to altitude and position. It was only after separation, that Unity began a one minute, 3 G rocket burn that brought it to its top speed, Mach 3, at about 16 miles up. What followed was a 3 minute, unpowered glide to 53.5 miles and down. Everyone seems to have enjoyed the three minutes of weightlessness, and it should be remembered that there is a lot of difference between Mach 3 and orbital speed, Mach 31. Also there is a lot of difference between a sub-orbital and orbital.
Concorde SST landing in Farnborough.
By comparison, consider the Concorde SSTs that first flew in 1976. It reached about 2/3 the speed of Unity, Mach 2.1, but carried 120 commercial passengers. It took off from the ground and maintained this speed for 4500 miles, going from London to Houston in 4.5 hours. While the Concorde only reached an altitude of 60,000 feet, it is far more impressive going at Mach 2.1 for 4.5 hours than going at Mach 3 for three minutes. And there is a lot of difference between 120 passengers and 4. There is also the advantage of taking off from the ground. A three minute ride in a space plane should not require a 90 minute ascent on a mother ship.
X-15 landing, 1962.
Next consider the X-15 rocket plane of the 1960s. This was a test platform devoted to engine and maneuverability tests; it turns out that maneuverability is very difficult. The X-15 hit a maximum altitude of 354,200 ft, 67 miles, and a maximum speed of Mach 6.72, or 4520 mph. That’s significantly higher than Branson’s VSS, and double the maximum speed. As an aside, the X-15 project involved the development of a new nickel alloy that I use today, Inconel X-750. I use this as a support for my hydrogen membranes. If any new materials were developed for VSS, none were mentioned.
The Air Force’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle at Kennedy Space Center, May 7, 2017.
Continuing with the history of NASA’s X-program, we move to the X-41, a air-breathing scramjet of the 1980s and 90s. It reached 95,000 feet, and a maximum speed of Mach 9.64. That’s about three times as fast as Virgin’s VSS. The current X-plane is called X-37B, it is a rocket-plane like the X-15 and VSS, but faster and maneuverable at high speed and altitude. It’s the heart of Trump’s new, US Space force. In several tests over the past 5 years, it has hit orbital speed, 17,426 mph, Mach 31, and orbital altitudes, about 100 miles, after being launched by a Atlas V or a Falcon 9 booster. The details are classified. Apparently it has maneuverability. While the X-37B is unmanned, a larger, manned version, is being built, the X-37C. It is supposed to carry as many as six.
Reaching orbital speed or Mach 31 implies roughly 100 times as much kinetic energy per mass as reaching the Mach 3.1 of Virgin’s VSS. In this sense, the space shuttle, and the current X-plane are 100 times more impressive than Virgin’s VSS. There is also a lot to be said for maneuverability and for a longer flight duration– more than a few minutes. Not that I require Branson to beat NASA’s current offerings, but I anyone claiming cutting edge genius and visionary status should at least beat NASA’s offerings of the 1960s, and the Concorde planes of 1976.
Bezos’s Blue Origin, and the New Shepard launcher.
And that bring’s us to the current batch of non-governmental, space cadets. Elon Musk stands out to me as a head above the rest, at least. Eight years ago, his Grasshopper rocket premiered the first practical, example of vertical take off and landing booster. Today, his Falcon 9 boosters send packages into earth orbit, and beyond, launching Israel’s moon project, as one example. That implies speeds of Mach 31 and higher, at least at the payload. It’s impressive, even compared to X-37, very impressive.
Bezos’ offering, the Blue Origin Shepherd, seems to me like a poor imitation of the SpaceX Falcon. Like Falcon, it’s a reusable, vertical takeoff and landing platform, that launches directly from earth, and like Falcon it carries a usable payload, but it only reaches speeds of Mach 3 and altitudes about 65 miles. Besides, the capsule lands by way of parachutes, not using wings like the space shuttle, or the X-37B, and there is no reusable booster like Falcon. Blue Origin started carrying payloads only in 2019, five yers after SpaceX. There is nothing here that’s cutting edge, IMHO, and I don’t imagine it will be cheaper either.
Branson has something that the other rocket men do not have, quite: a compelling look: personal marketing, a personal story, and a political slant that the press loves and I find hypocritical and hokey. The press, and our politicians, managed to present this flight as more than an energy wasting, joy ride for rich folks. Instead, this is accepted as Branson’s personal fight against climate change. Presented this way, it should qualify as a tax-dodge. I don’t see it getting folks to stop polluting and commit to small cars, but the press is impressed, or claims to be. The powers have committed themselves to this type of Tartuffe, and the press goes along. You’d think that, before giving Branson public adoration for his technology or environmentalism, he should have cutting technology and have been required to save energy, or pollute less. At least beat the specs of the X-15. Just my opinion.
We live in a throw-away society, and the majority of it, eventually makes its way to a landfill. Books, food, grass clippings, tree-products, consumer electronics; unless it gets burnt or buried at sea, it goes to a landfill and is left to rot underground. The product of this rot is a gas, landfill gas, and it has a fairly high energy content if it could be tapped. The composition of landfill gas changes, but after the first year or so, the composition settles down to a nearly 50-50 mix of CO2 and methane. There is a fair amount of water vapor too, plus some nitrogen and hydrogen, but the basic process is shown below for wood decomposition, and the products are CO2 and methane.
System for sewage gas upgrading, uses REB membranes.
C6 H12 O6 –> 3 CO2 + 3 CH4
This mix can not be put in the normal pipeline: there is too much CO2 and there are too many other smelly or condensible compounds (water, methanol, H2S…). This gas is sometimes used for heat on site, but there is a limited need for heat near a landfill. For the most part it is just vented or flared off. The waste of a potential energy source is an embarrassment. Besides, we are beginning to notice that methane causes global-warming with about 50 times the effect of CO2, so there is a strong incentive to capture and burn this gas, even if you have no use for the heat. I’d like to suggest a way to use the gas.
We sell small membrane modules too.
The landfill gas can be upgraded by removing the CO2. This can be done via a membrane, and REB Research sells a membranes that can do this. Other companies have other membranes that can do this too, but ours are smaller, and more suitable to small operations in my opinion. Our membrane are silicone-based. They retain CH4 and CO and hydrogen, while extracting water, CO2 and H2S, see schematic. The remainder is suited for local use in power generation, or in methanol production. It can also be used to run trucks. Also the gas can be upgraded further and added to a pipeline for shipping elsewhere. The useless parts can be separated for burial. Find these membranes on the REB web-site under silicone membranes.
Garbage trucks in New York powered by natural gas. They could use landfill gas.
There is another gas source whose composition is nearly identical to that of landfill gas; it’s digester gas, the output of sewage digesters. I’ve written about sewage treatment mostly in terms of aerobic bio treatment, for example here, but sewage can be treated anaerobically too, and the product is virtually identical to landfill gas. I think it would be great to power garbage trucks and buses with this. Gas. In New York, currently, some garbage trucks are powered by natural gas.
As a bonus, here’s how to make methanol from partially upgraded landfill or digester gas. As a first step 2/3 of the the CO2 removed. The remained will convert to methanol. by the following overall chemistry:
3 CH4 + CO2 + 2 H2O –> 4 CH3OH.
When you removed the CO2., likely most of the water will leave with it. You add back the water as steam and heat to 800°C over Ni catalyst to make CO and H2. That’s done at about 800°C and 200 psi. Next, at lower temperature, with an appropriate catalyst you recombine the CO and H2 into methanol; with other catalysts you can make gasoline. These are not trivial processes, but they are doable on a smallish scale, and make economic sense where the methane is essentially free and there is no CNG customer. Methanol sells for $1.65/gal when sold by the tanker full, but $5 to $10/gal at the hardware store. That’s far higher than the price of methane, and methanol is far easier to ship and sell in truckload quantities.
Part of the push to help the oppressed and save the plant is push to decrease the birthrate both in the developed and undeveloped world. Putting of childbirth is supposed to lead to a more meaningful life, while academic excellence is considered meaningful. Child-raising is considered male oppression of women, while writing mediocre poetry is, we’re told elevating, it’s finding your voice. It’s the new mood, at least in the developed world.
In the undeveloped world, political activism and wealth accumulation are presented as more meaningful, and fewer children is presented as a responsible route to wealth and happiness (see Indian advertisement below). My sense is otherwise, that children bring happiness and long term wealth. My sense is that the best two ways to change the world for the better is to work on yourself and to raise good children. And these Idas are connected; children are little mirrors, sometimes showing hidden flaws, sometimes revealing enthusiasm and greatnesses.
This month’s cover article of National Geographic includes economic justifications for fewer children and ecological justifications. Apparently we’re making life difficult for the polar bears. The assumption is that the bears like it cold, and their opinion is more important than that of animals that like it warm, like most humans.
There is also an assumption that there will be more jobs and better food if we have fewer children, or that people will be happier. Who are the “we” who are better off. I personally would not trade a billion randomly selected lives to lower the earth’s temperature 1 degree, or for the supposed happiness benefit of 1 million empty-nest households.
In the last presidential election, the largest billionaires in the US were vocal Democrats, and two billionaires, Yang and Bloomberg were candidates. Bloomberg had been an anticrime Republican when he ran for mayor but in 2020 he spent $!B of his own money on anti Republican ads, and paid the debts of thousands of Florida felons who he thought would vote his way. It’s a strange new world.
Other vocal Democrats include: Jeff Bezios, majority owner of Amazon and The Washington Post, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Bill Gates, founder and largest owner of Microsoft (just today blasting the Republicans over global warming — Is that logical — is cold better?), and Warren Buffett who likes to note that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does (IMHO that’s because he games the tax system and pays no social security tax). Meanwhile union workers and white middle class folks were mostly Republicans in 2020.
Union leadership are still Democrats, but the last few elections saw union workers voting R. These were called “The basket of deplorables, unredeemables” by candidate Clinton. R support among black people is less than 50%, but growing too. it’s quite a lot higher than two decades ago. Many showed up at MAGA rallies, you’ll see plenty in videos at “the insurrection”. The only person shot and killed at the insurrection was a white woman, unarmed, shot in the face by Capital police — no charges filed, but the liberal press, who usually hate such things, was silent. Almost to the man, they sided with the police over the mob.
I notice that the Black Lives Matter rallies are populated with the well off and the well educated. A Princeton lawyer was photographed driving around with a box of Molotov cocktails, and his co-worker, another lawyer tossed a lit fire bomb into a police car. It used to be that Princeton lawyers didn’t do that, at least not in person.
Portrait of a Democrat. From the New Yorker.
It’s not like the platforms have reversed. The Democratic party was always for high taxes, high regulation, and for soft money that they could give away. They still are. In 1900 the call was for “free silver“, now it’s “stimulus money.” It used to be that rich people didn’t like this. They would point of that printing money didn’t add to wealth, but just redistributed it from those who had savings to those who did not. Now they uniformly blast anyone who doubted the wisdom of printing 1.9 trillion in new money ($6000 per person, of which $1400 is given to you), and going on to blast anyone who doesn’t like additional oversight to prevent the systemic racism they see in the less-well-off.
One reason these richest billionaires are no longer Republicans is that they are no longer involved industrial manufacturing in the US. Thus the regulations they favor don’t apply to them. In the olden days, rich people made steel or cars. Regulations were annoying. Rich industrialists had money in US banks. For them inflation was theft. Now rich people own intangible industries that largely operate outside of the country. What money they earn is earned off-shore, tax free. As individuals, they live on US debt, and possess little or no hard cash. Inflation helps them pay off their debt, and high taxes don’t hurt them. Buffett can be down-home and pro environment. He flies private jet to meetings on global warming while investing in overseas petroleum.
Elon Musk seemed like a Republican during the Trump administration, but not so much now. He still makes stuff in America, but has moved to manufacture abroad. In January, he said he was fired up for Biden. He has put a significant chunk of his wealth into bitcoins. Its a protection from the inflation caused by printing money, and it’s a bet that’s paid off handsomely. I expect that we’ll have billionaire Democrats and union Republicans for the foreseeable future.
Robert Buxbaum, March 14, 2021. It’s pie day. Eat a pie at 1:59:27. (Edited Apr. 28, 2021)
For the last several years it has been claimed that some 98% of legitimate scientists believe it is a major need to reduce CO2 output so as to stop the world from getting warmer. When Trump visited the pope 4 yers ago, the pope would not speak to him expect to hand him his anti-global warming letter he’d written, “Laudato Si” and to tell Trump to get on board to stop global warming. Trump said he would read the letter.
Trump visits the pope, and the pope does not look happy
I’m not a fan of science established by Papal dictate based on an informal poll of experts, especially here where the minority includes some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and the poll is taken by Al Gore’s science expert, but that’s where we are when it comes to science and politics. I also find it that the pope blames the US for global warming but not China when the the majority of CO2 came from China, a country committed to increasing its use of coal. But be this as it may be — the pope doesn’t blame China for imprisoning Catholics either, most recently the editor of Hong Kong’s most widely read newspaper.
So I thought I take a step back to look at the desirability of making the world colder. Is a colder world a better world? Sad pictures of polar bears are presented in favor of the colder world, but for all I know, polar bears prefer it warm. Their numbers are increasing.
Paul McCarthy lyrics; Hey Jude.
If we had a global climate adjustment knob somewhere, a magic knob allowing you to make the world warmer or colder by turning it right, or left, I doubt the consensus would be to turn the knob left. There is no real logic to cold being good, but there is a line in “Hey Jude”: “…It’s a fool who plays it cool, by making his world a little colder.” And Svente Arrhenius, one of the great scientists of 100 years ago, said he preferred a warm earth to a cold one to avoid disease and starvation. When the climate turns colder, the result is disease and famine as crops fail and animals freeze. It’s not an option that I’d think most people would prefer. given my choice, I would prefer things a little warmer.
I should also note that our ability to fine tune the climate is not what we’d think. The world climate is chaotic, and there is no reliable knob. Historically, the most common setting is ice-age, and that’s a setting that most people really don’t like.
