Carbon Life Forms

“CO2 is our friend.” — John B.

- Life on earth is carbon-based. This means that all life is comprised of vital molecules that rely on carbon atoms.

- Despite always being a very tiny portion of our Earth’s atmosphere (currently 0.04%), carbon dioxide has been the ONLY source of all this carbon in living things ... for hundreds of million years.

- The way that living things capture carbon dioxide is through plant photosynthesis ... which, on the side, produces oxygen ... which then animals use ... and they (we) also consume the plants (and each other). Animals then, through respiration, put CO2 back into the air to feed the plants. This is called a symbiotic relationship.

- However, over the eons, plants were voracious ... thought to have reduced CO2 levels ten-fold to levels close to where they are today. It was only when man invented fire and burned wood that plants didn’t starve to death. More lately, internal combustion engines and central heating helped feed plants even more carbon oxide.

- Most carbon-based deposits — oil, natural gas, coal, etc. — derive from the demise of previous carbon-containing living things (mostly plants).

- Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” and does, among other variables, contribute to the warming of our planet. As plants drove down CO2 levels to near zero, they could have contributed to our periodic ice ages ... the more dangerous temperature extreme ... as plants and animals have survived much, much higher CO2 levels during the Earth’s Carbonaceous Period.

- When one sees smoke coming out of chimneys and industrial smokestacks, it is NOT carbon dioxide (which is invisible.) It is, in fact, water vapor and soot (tiny carbon particles.)  Don’t confuse them. Getting rid of the soot is OK.

- During the Obama administration, our EPA designated carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. And the current environmental activists have declared a war on “carbon” (suggesting soot to most, but implying carbon dioxide to the woke.)  These are both clear indications of a virulent and suicidal mass hysteria.

Fever-Ridden?

We’re not warming folks ... we’re actually slightly cooling. When the effects of urban “heat islands” has been removed from NOAA’s measurements, the new data show that, since 2005, the United States-has actually gotten slightly cooler ... see: Commentary Magazine Comments.

If one accepts the fact that CO2 is the bogeyman, then this may be because of our continuing conversion from coal-powered electricity production to natural gas instead ... or maybe even due to some of the wind and solar stuff. But, for whatever reason, do not believe all those banner headlines ... they’re just scare-mongering.

The best data available now says that, at least here in America, we do not “have a fever.”

Batteries

Batteries store energy.  Hydrocarbons (natural gas, oil, coal) also store energy ... much more energy and much more efficiently than batteries. Why can’t we just call hydrocarbons “batteries?” That small semantic tweak would solve all our economic and technological problems in short order ... but not, according to the greenies, our environmental problems. But two out of three ain’t bad.

Headlines

It’s open season on Joe Biden

Trump says US has ‘indefinitely suspended’ planned tariffs against Mexico after reaching a deal

Tariffs already wiped out tax savings for average Americans ...

Trump deal with Mexico likely ends catch-and-release, defund cartels

White House tried to block Kris Kobach from testifying about census

‘We’re at an impass’ with China, says Canadian Finance Minister Morneau

Space Station open for tourists!  $50 million trip

Blue state blues: Trump has improved relations with every U.S. ally

Administration officials pushing to strip convicted terrorists of citizenship

Xi calls Trump his friend and says US won’t disconnect with China

Big tech unfazed by antitrust threat ...

Bloomberg has pledged $50 million to get rid of coal, slow natural gas production

Headlines

Chicago mayor elect: Biden still has to answer for Anita Hill

North Korea launched ‘several unidentified short-range projectiles,’ South Korean military says

Envy of the world, Unemployment 49-year low, Wages hit $27.77/hour

Donald Trump: Spying on my campaign ‘bigger than Watergate’

Harris urges DOJ watchdog to probe whether Trump urged Barr to investigate ‘enemies’

Boeing 737 slides off runway into Florida river, 21 hurt

Historic floods hit Iowa ...

Afghan pilot training program ends after nearly half went AWOL inside U.S.

Graham to Mueller: Give testimony if you dispute Barr

Trump and Putin talked about Mueller report, Venezuela and North Korea during phone call

China putting Muslims in c’oncentration camps, U.S. says ...

U.S. record natural gas production spurs export talks with Europe

Apolitical Science

It would seem to this observer that there are a number of reasonable and apolitical steps that should be taken by real scientists when investigating the future energy needs of our world:

- For hundreds of million years hydrocarbons (coal, oil, tar and natural gas) were created as a result of plants capturing the energy of the sun and then, through natural forces, storing it underground for our future use. We need to know what might be the sum total of BTUs that were created during this period (a truly huge number) and how much of this energy might be realistically recoverable given probable scientific advances. And what are the possible error boundaries of these estimates?

- How much of this hydrocarbon energy has already been expended since we stopped depending on wood, wind and whale oil ... and how many years, decades or centuries might this energy reservoir sustain the entire world given realistic demographic and per-person usage projections. And what are the possible error boundaries to these estimates?

- Given these estimates and their error boundaries, at what point will the world likely need significant new energy sources and what might these energy sources be? Hydroelectric? Nuclear? Fusion? Tidal? Geothermal? Wind? Solar? or the possible requirement for some new energy technology? What are the possible risks and error boundaries associated with each of these options?

- What are the realistic apolitical economic and social implications of each of these paths to supplying our longer-term energy needs and what are the error boundaries therein?

- What are the chances that this will occur?

Headlines

Cranky judge, flawed witness threaten Mieller's Manafort case

Chinese leadership is suffering rare backlash for its handling of US trade dispute

First Muslim woman headed to Congress ...

Welfare ban for immigrants could save each US taxpayer $1.6K ...

Bernie and is army are losing 2018

Tesla likely to face SEC investigation after Musk tweets and debate of market manipulation

Kamala Harris becomes Dem's betting favorite for 2020 ...

Facebook, Apple purge InfoWars over 'hate speech'

GOP Rep. Chris Collins charged with securities fraud

Chinese tariffs create headaches for US natural gas export projects

Israel pounds Hamas after 19 injured in rocket barrage ..

Senate Intelligence Committee calls on Julian Assange to testify

Got Gas?

Our natural gas bill to heat our house normally runs in the mid-$200 range in January. Just got our latest heating bill yesterday -- $471 -- WOW! And I know, I know that weather is not climate ... but something is going on here. Can I ask Al Gore for a donation toward this "anomalous" gas bill?

A Stopped Clock Is Twice Right

President Obama occasionally gets things right. In his State of the Union address he called for more "safe, clean nuclear power plants." And yesterday he called for $54 billion of federal loan guarantees to those who would build this new generation of nuclear power. See: Loan Guarantees. IF we can take him at his word (the big "if" is on purpose), then this would be an important step forward in the U.S.'s attempt to achieve energy independence. In this speech he also mentioned more offshore drilling for gas and oil. This would be wonderful if it happened, but my cynicism takes over here and such a development (ANWR too?) I'm afraid, is even more suspect.

It would seem to this author that the real path to our nation's energy independence might require the following steps:
1) Build as many new nuclear power plants as can be economically financed and open up Yucca Mountain for long-term nuclear waste disposal (if required).
2) Aim to generate all our electrical needs from nuclear energy (east and west coast) and from coal-fired plants (middle America). No more natural gas and oil-fired electrical power plants should be given permits.
3) Encourage all Americans to heat their homes with natural gas and help build the infrastructure and offer the tax incentives to accomplish this. The objective should be no more oil-heated homes.
4) Specify that kerosene, diesel fuel, and gasoline are the most desirable fuels for transportation vehicles (air, rail, and ground). Offer the necessary incentives to achieve better mileage in these vehicles (including hybrid technology). Investigate liquefied coal as a long-term vehicular fuel option.
5) Set a national goal of ceasing all foreign oil imports within ten years (using the above methodologies and including oil recovery from our vast oil shale deposits.) I predict that the price of Mideast oil would plummet as a consequence of just such a goal setting.
6) Stop wasting federal funds on solar, tidal, geothermal, and wind-power projects and use these funds instead on the above items. Let the private sector fund any of these "green" projects that make any economic sense (likely very few).

I can dream can't I? Tick ... tick ... tick.