Friday, April 24, 2020

No rational relationship to a valid state interest: locking down driving

No rational relationship to a valid state interest: prohibiting driving around just for the sake of driving around.  In my case I come out of my gated garage to roam in my germ proof Toyota bubble.

I can walk in the park, I can bicycle, I can shop for groceries -- but I can't roll around in my private sealed bubble?

And getting out and around just for the sake of getting out and around IS essential.  Man and woman do not live by bread alone.

PS  Book stores are First Amendment protected -- period.  We can't close publishers -- we can't close retailers.  Suppose there were no Amazon; suppose this situation were going to go on for years.

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Indisputable proof of global warming -- in three sentences :-O

Earth’s atmospheric temperature is already high enough to melt the permafrost (part of year freezing, part melting, more melting than freezing). The permafrost (I’m not exactly sure what that is) reportedly contains twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere now (may not be all in gas form but believe will all end up in gas form eventually: one and a trillion tons to add to 750 billion tons now). The more it melts, the more carbon dioxide is released, the hotter it gets, the more it melts, etc.: more than enough to eventually turn the earth into a pole to pole swamp — the normal condition of the earth for the majority of the last 500 million years (see video).  Indisputable — without any additional human help.

At first (last year) I thought the only way out was for all electric output to go nuclear — that was the physics of course; not the politics, good luck. My reasoning was that in 100 years the human population would need 10X more electricity — and I couldn’t see doing all that with windmills and photovoltaic).

I’m figuring thermonuclear to come along in about 50 years — for however that feeds into all of this. The technological way is well charted but it will take tremendous R&D working out. (see The Future of Fusion Energy by Ian Kershaw — must be good; I could only read about half of it).

Then, I came upon carbon capture technology. 

Carbon capture technology: practicably end global warming – even reverse it — for 5% of GDP with a reasonably lo-tech process – once the price to gets down to $100 a ton?

According to a Businessweek article, worldwide we add 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. Said article says Squamish Engineering, in B.C., Canada expects to launch a plant that will remove a million tons a year, located somewhere in the Permian Basin in Texas. Squamish says it can do this for $200 a ton. 

My back-of-the-envelope calculates that, when the price reaches $100 a ton, then, worldwide we can keep cool for $3.4 trillion a year – less than 5% of world GDP. US kick-in about one trillion – out of $20 trillion GDP. That figure would grow as US economy grows – but: for every trillion of growth only additional $50 billion would go for removal, leaving us $950 billion ahead: set for the life of the planet.  (closest link I could find)

Snag: where to put all that carbon we capture — there is reportedly room for two trillion tons of captured carbon in some kind of rock formations. (can’t get back to link)

If we are putting 34 billion tons or carbon in the air now — could we be doing 340 billion tons a year 100 years from now — if we don’t replace carbon with thermonuclear? 100 years from now hopefully earth will be rich enough to go completely thermo. And here comes 1.5 trillion tons from the permafrost. 

Better get busy. Better get busy finding room to hide lots more carbon — if that is possible — or whatever. Did somebody say: The Green New Deal … is not remotely sufficient to stabilize global warming at a non-catastrophic level?

Where to find or create enough storage space for 15 trillion of tons of dry ice (captured CO2) while the world awaits totally nuclear, thermonuclear and renewable energy:

At 100 pounds per cubic foot of dry ice (frozen CO2), a 100 foot X 100 foot X 100 foot block would contain a 100 million pounds, or 50,000 tons. At a cost of $100 a ton to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, it would cost 5 million dollars to capture enough to fill one cube.

15 trillion tons of dry ice would take up the volume of 300,000,000 such cubes (15,000,000,000,000/50,000).  At 50 blocks per mile -- both width and length -- that would come to 120,000 square miles of frozen CO2 (300,000,000/2500).  That would fit into a space 3000 miles long and 40 miles wide.

5% of GDP to capture, 5% of GDP to contain = 10% of GDP to keep C02 from turning our world from turning into Venus -- while awaiting a completely non-carbon fueled civilization.  May have to contain the stuff forever, but shouldn't cost much.

Possible design feature: storing dry ice containers at the bottom of the oceans could utilize the massive pressures at that level to hold the containers intact. 

[Late note: carbon fixation in basalt formations may be a cheaper and more practicable alternative -- have not looked into it yet.]