Eastern Front 1941
Russian Western Federal Districts
A California Template
January 22, 2017
Quotation
‘We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal.’
President Donald Trump
The Situation
California, long the nation’s trendsetter, is a land of extremes. It has the highest summit and the lowest natural depression in the contiguous United States: Mount Whitney and Death Valley. It if were an independent country, by some measures it would be the world’s fifth largest economy. As it stands, it is at once America’s richest state –with more billionaires than any other country besides China and the United States itself- and the poorest: fully 20% of California’s residents live in poverty, and in 2015 it accounted for about 27.9% of all homeless people in the United States. The northwest is a spectacular temperate rain forest, with lakes, rivers and streams; the southeast a flaming desert, beautiful in its own way. There are vast, virtually empty rural areas –yet its megacities perennially suffer from an acute housing shortage that is causing prices and rents to rise faster than incomes of the working classes.
It has reached the point that California is in fact rapidly becoming a state where homeless and renters, not homebuyers, are in the majority. Politically, it is one of 26 states –exactly half the union- that allows voters to bypass the state government and enact laws directly. This truly democratic mechanism has two important elements. Firstly it can be influenced -but not controlled- by big money; and secondly, it provides cover for politicians who are unwilling or unable, or both, to make decisions that might jeopardize their careers.
Chronically scarce water south of San Francisco and east of the Sierra Nevada has forced some cities to impose a building moratorium. Worse, California’s primitive public transportation system forces urban commuters to buy cars, gasoline and insurance in perpetuity so they can spend 4 or more hours a day on clogged freeways polluting the atmosphere. This saps everyone’s health and productivity, discourages much needed investment in green industries that support well paying jobs for the working classes, and precludes large-scale construction of modest residential tracts specifically for them. In addition, In addition, California is a high-tax state.
The widening gap in the distribution of income and wealth severely depresses discretionary spending –the economy’s mainstay- and forces the state to provide services for the poor on an unsustainable scale. In desperation the state enacted a law raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2022 that is going to cost taxpayers –mostly the wealthy- $3.6 billion more a year in increased government work pay. It’s also going to drive up state welfare costs by wiping out many jobs, as many as 700,000 by some estimates. The good news of course is that it will be a problem for future administrations.
A Way Out
Evidently the state government needs to reverse these unsustainable trends. Firstly, it must make the south self-sufficient in water. Specifically, Southern California must locally produce, not import or desalinize, all its water. Secondly, the high speed rail system should be postponed. Instead, the project should be broken down into stages. The first would consist of building state-of-the art commuter rail systems for the Bay Area and Los Angeles specifically to relieve the housing shortage in these areas. In Southern California at least two tunnels, one high-speed rail and the other an 8-lane freeway, ought to be dug through the mountains between Glendale/Pasadena and the high desert north of Los Angeles. The shortened commuting time would encourage mass construction of low-priced housing (the required water would have been addressed in step 1). Thirdly, the state must completely restructure its electric system to phase out fossil fuels. Fourthly, it must gradually and imperceptibly redress the widening gap in the distribution of future income and wealth. All this is physically, technically and financially feasible, and it can be organized into a cohesive, synchronized sequence of events. However it will require courageous and open minded leadership within California as well as coordination with and cooperation from the world’s largest consumers of coal, oil and gas, above all China and India, to establish a vibrant hydrogen market. After all, they too need clean air and water.
Desalination vs. Electrolysis of Brine
Desalination filters salt and other impurities out of brine (seawater). It doesn’t generate electricity. It consumes about 15,000 kilowatt-hours of power for every million gallons (3.78 million liters) of fresh water. Furthermore, since most electricity in the world is generated by burning fossil fuels, the carbon footprint of desalination is immense. There are two main types of desalination technologies: membrane (reverse osmosis, RO) and thermal. RO uses the principle of osmosis to remove salt and other impurities by transferring water through a series of semi-permeable membranes. Thermal desalination often uses waste heat from power plants or refineries, heavy polluters, to evaporate and condense water. Both methods leave a residue that is normally discarded right back to the ocean. Typically the plants are near a shore and the fresh water produced is earmarked for local use.
The cost to pump water over vast distances is enormous. For example, California’s State Water Project relies on a series of pump stations to carry water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the southern part of the state. The most powerful, Edmonston Plant, requires 14 gigantic pumps with a combined draw of over 7,460 megawatts to lift the water 587 meters uphill to a series of tunnels over the Tehachapi Mountains. The state’s other major source of water, the 389.5-kilometer-long Colorado River Aqueduct, also draws an enormous amount of electricity. Imported river water requires approximately 14,000 kilowatt-hours per million gallons, 1,000 less than a comparable volume of desalinized water.
The State is planning to build as many as 17 desalination plants. Claude Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant has been in operation in San Diego County since late 2015. It is the largest in the Western Hemisphere, producing 50 million gallons of water a day. Another in Huntington Beach of similar capacity is in late-stage development. Together these plants are going to draw an estimated 1,500,000 kilowatt-hours, or 1,500 megawatt-hours. Accordingly, if and when the State builds all the plants, their combined draw will be 12,750 megawatt-hours. Since the State’s current spare generating capacity is minimal, if any, the sheer magnitude of this new demand will force it to build new power plants, hopefully from renewable sources. If instead it chooses fossil fuels, the State’s carbon footprint will skyrocket precisely when it’s trying to reduce it.
Electrolysis
Electrolysis is a process that uses electricity to literally disassemble water into its two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, at a cost of about 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity for every kilogram of hydrogen. Brine rather than fresh water is favored, for two important reasons. It covers three fourths of the surface of the planet and it is one million times more conductive of electricity. In addition, electrolysis simultaneously disassembles the salt (sodium chloride) in the brine to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide, two valuable commodities. Historically the primary purpose of electrolysis has been to produce hydrogen, not fresh water. This article looks at the possibility of reversing those priorities and posits that electrolysis is in fact far more efficient and profitable than desalination.
The Obstacle
One common objection of using solar powered electrolysis to produce fuel hydrogen is that there is an inherent loss of energy in the process. Better to distribute the electricity directly to end users and avoid the hydrogen altogether. The quick answer to that is that electricity by itself does not produce fresh water, chlorine and sodium hydroxide, three valuable byproducts of the recombination of hydrogen that make the process efficient and profitable, particularly water. Demand for it, already at crisis level in some areas of the world, is projected to grow exponentially over time due to climate change and population growth. And that doesn’t consider the pressing need for vast amounts of water where there isn’t any and desalination is impractical or impossible. The world needs trees and crops to recycle excess carbon dioxide and prevent famines, mass-migrations, and devastating wars.
As of this writing there are no known practical and feasible alternatives of adequate scope and magnitude to mitigate, let alone defuse, this imminent and clear threat to the very survival of our species.
Circumventing the Obstacle
As mentioned, one drawback with all hydrogen production processes is that there is a net energy loss associated with hydrogen production, with the losses from electrolysis variants being among the largest. The laws of energy conservation dictate that the total amount of energy recovered from the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen must always be less than the amount of energy required to split the original water molecule. The calorific energy content of hydrogen is about 39 kilowatt-hour per kilogram, however taking into account the process inefficiencies it takes over 50 kWh of electricity to generate 1 Kg of hydrogen. All told, the system’s efficiency (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) is between 30% and 50%. Nevertheless, despite its cost, for decades the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has used the process in hydrogen fuel cells to produce both hydrogen and water for its astronauts in space.
Byproducts of Electrolysis
Chlorine, an element of the periodic table and a toxic gas, has a multitude of industrial uses. It is a disinfectant; it is used to treat drinking water and swimming pool water and to make hundreds of consumer products. These include paper, paints, textiles, insecticides, and PVC –a versatile plastic used in window frames, car interiors, electrical wiring insulation, water pipes, blood bags and vinyl flooring. Another major use is in organic chemistry as an oxidizing agent and in substitution reactions. In fact, 85% of pharmaceuticals use chlorine or its compounds at some stage in their manufacture.
Sodium hydroxide, a common base, is no less versatile and useful. It is used to unclog drains, to make lye soap –which can be used to wash practically anything; and in food processing –for peeling fruits and vegetables, processing cocoa and chocolate, thickening ice cream, poultry scalding, soda processing, to make olives black, and to give soft pretzels a chewy texture. Other uses include processes to make rayon and textiles, revitalizing acids in petroleum refining, paint removal, etching aluminum, and dehorning of cattle.
The value of the byproducts alone is reason enough to prefer it over desalination, and they’re just the entree. There’s portability; unlike desalination, which is limited to local markets, the recombination of hydrogen with oxygen –the reassembly of water- does not have to take place where it was originally disassembled. Since hydrogen gas is the lightest element in the periodic table, and despite its corrosive nature, it could be piped over vast distances or exported by ship at a fraction of what it costs to pipe water. For example, the electrolysis plants could be located in Los Angeles or Honolulu and the hydrogen they produce could be recombined in Las Vegas, Phoenix or Beijing.
Outline of the System
The following posits a two-step hydrogen system to circumvent the law –without fuel cells. Not only does it recover the inherent loss, it should actually generate a surplus of electricity by adding gravity to the recombination side of the equation. Better yet, fission or fossil fuels are not involved.
The first step is to use solar energy to produce hydrogen, chlorine and sodium hydroxide by electrolysis of brine. The hydrogen is then pumped to recombination plants atop suitable mountains, the higher the better. The plants would feature (already existing) specialized turbines that burn hydrogen directly and continuously without fuel cells. In addition to energy –in this case electricity and heat- the process yields one critical byproduct: steam. Instead of venting it into the atmosphere, it would be captured, condensed and stored in enclosed containers. Upon reaching a critical mass, the now liquid water would be optimally pressurized and piped by gravity to a series of cascading hydro turbines below the hydrogen plants. Thus, the same water would efficiently turn each and every turbine sequentially. At the bottom it would be piped by gravity to treatment plants, and eventually, to end users. Evaporation would be minimal and dams would not be unnecessary.
Crucially, the combined electric output from all the turbines should exceed the energy consumed by the electrolysis. In short, this solar-fueled system envisions the production hydrogen in an amount directly proportional to the solar energy committed to it and the unlimited, constant availability of seawater, both free. Two separate and distinct types of plants are required, one for the production of hydrogen and another for its recombination, including a series of gravity-powered auxiliary hydro turbines cascading down the mountain. Amortization and operating expenses would be paid from the sale of electricity, water, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. In turn, they would create the foundation of a new economy and recycle the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
Distribution of Future Income and Wealth
It makes no sense to reconfigure the $6 trillion global energy industry without considering enlisting it to provide meaningful relief for the poor and to reduce the abysmal (and growing) gap in the distribution of income and wealth. Though immense, this energy-related figure does not include water because many countries commonly consider the latter within the purview of local, not national governments. In reality water, energy and the economy are inextricably linked. Accordingly, this proposed water-energy nexus could be used to simultaneously spur economic growth and to reduce the gap over time without harming the environment. This is particularly germane to the United States because it has the widest inequality among its economic peers. To illustrate, according to OXFAM’s report released on January 15, 2017, just eight individuals now own the same wealth as 3.6 billion people, the bottom half of humanity.
Aside from scandalous moral objections, there are practical reasons why this is counterproductive and dangerous. One is that the poor lack the buying power to spur demand for the goods and services that make roughly 70% of the economy. Another is that their virtual inability to make ends meet forces the rest of society, in one way or another, to compensate for their predicament.
To paraphrase President Kennedy, this dangerous aberration must be abolished peacefully, gradually and imperceptibly –before it abolishes us. One way to do so is to introduce permanent, tax-exempt basic income for homeowners financed by the hydrogen/electricity loop rather than by taxpayer funds. In this scenario solar panels on residential roofs would generate the electricity for the electrolysis plants. Entire neighborhoods of homeowners could be organized into individual cooperatives that would supply and own the electricity as well as all the plants. Each cooperative would generate enough electricity to run an electrolysis plant (or plants) capable of producing enough hydrogen to keep the mountain recombination plants running continuously 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As an alternative, cooperatives could choose to export the hydrogen to higher bidders such as other counties, states or countries.
The cost of the equipment and structures of the cooperatives –solar panels and plants- would be financed by fully amortized and insured blanket loans from the capital markets, one for each unit. Proceeds from the sale of the hydrogen, water, chlorine and sodium hydroxide, not government obligations or income from individual homeowners, would be automatically used to amortize the loans. At maturity, the profits would be allocated to individual homeowners in proportion to the energy they contribute to the cooperative and applied automatically to any existing mortgages on the underlying real estate properties within each cooperative. Beyond that point the profits would be disbursed to individual homeowners or their heirs. Within two generations each home might become the equivalent of a perpetual annuity. Existing public utilities would be relieved of their responsibility to generate electricity.
Instead, for a fee and for a specific period of time, they would become grandfathered monopolies and allowed to continue to monitor and maintain the grid. After that they would have to compete with other potential qualified vendors.
To Summarize
As may be readily apparent, this system could potentially end using fission and fossil fuels to generate electricity. It could also create a new, virtually unlimited source of unpolluted drought-proof water, anywhere and everywhere, and while at it, help redress the gap in future distribution of income and wealth. This would reduce the state’s dependence on rich people and the enormous need for welfare-related services.
To be sure this will require sweeping, seismic political changes. Fortunately in California the people have at their disposal a truly democratic mechanism to support their elected leaders in making the required tough decisions. This is crucial because climate change, relentless and global, demands solutions commensurate with its awesome breadth and scope. So far the half-hearted administrative and procedural changes that have been proposed by others to deal with it –ranging from doing nothing at all to a virtually suicidal proposal to increase the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere- simply will not save us from extinction.
Seeking a Compromise on Taiwan
November 16, 2021
The lack of an acknowledged breakthrough on Taiwan in the wake of the summit between Presidents Biden and Xi is, to put it mildly, alarming. We’ve previously summarized some of the reasons for Taiwan’s importance to both China and the United States, hence the irreconcilable posture between the two regarding Taiwan’s independence. As a result, unsurprisingly, the meeting does not appear to have resolved the matter. The word “appear” is appropriate because secret agreements may have been arrived at that, for internal political reasons, both would rather not disclose. Failing that, it’s safe to infer that at a time of its choosing, China may well invade Taiwan. If it takes that step, it will be an indication that its decision makers will have reached the conclusion that they can defeat not just Taiwan but the United States as well. No need to dwell on the aftermath of such a war. Suffice it to say that it would be catastrophic, not just for the belligerents but for the entire world.
In view of the above, it is absolutely imperative to come up with a face-saving compromise that satisfies the core interests of China and the United States. On that vein, it is understood that while important, the collective will of the Taiwanese people on the core issue of independence from China depends entirely on U.S. political and military support. A compromise is possible, however it will require flexibility along the lines of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the only reason why we collectively escaped unscathed from the horrors of a thermonuclear war.
Looking at it impartially, the most important point to consider is that China does not actually need to occupy Taiwan in order to continue their astonishing growth. In fact, both have already done quite well without it. What China does need, at least until fossil fuels are no longer used, is an ironclad guarantee that it will always have equal unrestricted access to oil from the Middle East and semiconductors from Taiwan. Viewed in that context, the issue of how Taiwan is governed, by whom, and for how long becomes much less prominent and ought to be negotiable.
As a suggestion only, here are a few points that might be used as a basis for compromise:
1)
Taiwan agrees, in perpetuity, not to declare independence from China, to split its production of advanced semiconductors equally between the U.S. and China, and to allow China to build and perpetually operate a naval/air base on a peripheral island currently ruled by Taiwan such as Lanyu.
2)
The United States and Taiwan recognize Chinese ownership of the Spratley Islands.
3)
China agrees, in perpetuity, to respect the right to self-determination of the Taiwanese people and to not invade or blockade Taiwan in any way as long as the latter does not declare independence unilaterally.
It should be noted that such an agreement would mirror Cuba’s situation. In the wake of the 1962 agreement with the now defunct Soviet Union, the U.S. did not invade; however it still sanctions the island and retains the base at Guantánamo Bay.
Gridlock and COP26
November 3, 2021
For the first time, the 2020 census showed a shrinking non-Hispanic White population that identifies as a single race in 35 states. While 60% of White adults say the trend is neither good nor bad for society, 35% of Whites 65 and older believe it’s bad for society. In terms of partisan perception, White Republicans are three times as likely as White Democrats (35% vs. 12%) to say the change is bad. According to the Census Bureau, Hispanics, who now number 62.1 million (18.7 percent of the U.S. population) accounted for 51.1 percent of the country’s growth. The rate at which this change is taking place cannot be swept under the rug. Latinos are now the largest ethnic group in California. In Texas they currently comprise 39.3 percent of the state’s population and are expected to outnumber non-Hispanic Whites by the end of 2021 or early 2022. However, in terms of the distribution of wealth, there is no contest. Figures from the Census Bureau show that in 2019 the average Hispanic median household income was $55,658, and for non-Hispanic whites $71,644. In addition, 17.2 percent of Hispanics lived below the poverty level, compared to 9.0 percent of non-Hispanic whites. The disparity between Blacks, the third largest ethnic/racial group, and non-Hispanic Whites, is just as steep.
In terms of political allegiance and racial composition, Hispanics are not a monolithic group. Their culture, original language, and predominant physical appearance and religion differ from the northern European settlers that founded the United States. Unlike Blacks, who in terms of language, culture and religion, have been largely assimilated, Latinos continually renovate ties with the Hispanic world: if they so choose, they can literally walk past the Mexican border and watch and listen to Spanish TV and radio. More importantly, in the aggregate they tend to vote Democratic. The contrast between Democratic and Republican political rallies could hardly be more striking: Republicans are overwhelmingly white, richer and older, Democrats are largely multi-racial, poorer and younger; and the two groups, to put it mildly, are at odds.
The necrosis in Washington is directly attributable to the steep ideological divide afflicting the nation. Currently the Senate is split 50/50, and the Parties vehemently oppose each other’s ideology and agenda. As a result, to get any legislation through, the Vice President routinely casts tie-breaking votes. This razor thin majority can and does flip on a dime. When that happens, the first thing the new Administration does is attempt to reverse everything the previous Administration did. This bipolar behavior has severely impaired the nation’s credibility and leadership with friends and foes alike, a dangerous state of affairs pregnant with unpredictable consequences.
Individual nations cannot and should not be singled out for their dependence on coal to generate electricity, particularly China and India, the two most populous nations. After all, they’re following in our footsteps to industrialize and eradicate poverty. With respect to China, there are two fundamental reasons why it consumes so much coal: it is not self-sufficient in other types of energy, and it manufactures the products the rest of us consume. And the reason we do that is because our industrialists long ago elected to outsource factories to increase profits. Had they remained on American soil, we’d be emitting far more carbon in the atmosphere than we currently do, and China less. In other words, collectively we’re all equally responsible for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Climate change is a global malady, and the cost to mitigate its most egregious symptoms on a planetary scale is likely to be in the tens of trillions of dollars. The United States Treasury has huge perennial deficits. Even if it did not, the current political gridlock and the government’s many other commitments renders it virtually impotent to raise such stratospheric sums. In addition, most if not all G-7 governments are in a similar situation. Accordingly, the money to redress climate change will have to come from the private sector, possibly as loans or bonds. This begs the question, if individual governments are going to be responsible for amortizing these hard currency loans, what would happen if –for whatever reason- they default?
Whatever solution(s) our esteemed leaders agree on, if any, will need to address several key issues:
1) The correct way to finance climate change is with loans from the private sector. They are not part of the federal budget, and as such, they’re unaffected by the political gridlock. However, any new credit extended to foreign governments should feature a built-in mechanism that allows them to generate enough revenue to amortize the debt without risking economic collapse. Otherwise they might default and, in so doing, threaten the entire international banking system.
2) Coordinated cooperation among the great powers, particularly the U.S., China, and Russia, is absolutely indispensable and fundamental. In effect, the presidents of the latter two boycotted COP26 likely because they feel such lockstep cooperation is not possible due to the unresolved dangerous tensions and animosities in the South China Sea (particularly Taiwan), the Ukraine, the Black Sea, and the northern boundary between NATO and Russia. Accordingly, these issues will need to be resolved to satisfy not just U.S. (and its allies) but Russian and Chinese concerns. Currently the U.S. is attempting, without much apparent success, to compartmentalize these issues.
3) Today China consumes roughly 50.5% of the coal used in the entire world, followed by India (11.0%), the U.S. (8.5%), Germany (3.0 %), Russia (2.7%), and Japan (2.5%), 78.2% total. They do this because the supply of coal is plentiful, relatively cheap, and can be easily and safely exported by rail or ship. However, the technology to extract hydrogen from the ocean using solar, wind, or geothermal energy already exists. If a premium is added to the cost of coal to reflect the damage it causes to the environment, the price of green hydrogen, which could potentially be exported by pipeline or ship, should be able to compete with coal advantageously. As a result, the world could potentially produce enough hydrogen to satisfy current and future demand without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The reason it is not happening is because the world hasn’t decided to make it a reality.
4) Whatever plan is proposed, it will have to have a mechanism that publicly analyzes and mitigates the inevitable demise of the petrodollar. How is that going to affect the chronic federal deficits? Will the U.S. retain its ability to print dollars at will without triggering hyperinflation? Will the government still be able to afford a defense budget larger than the next seven nations combined and simultaneously meet is entitlement obligations? How would it affect the IRAs on which so many millions of Americans depend for retirement?
5) Within the U.S., who exactly would be responsible for payment of these climate change mitigation loans? Would they require Congressional approval?
Here’s a viable suggestion to stop global warming in its tracks. Figure 1 shows a viable way to produce green hydrogen expressly to replace coal for purposes of generating electricity. It collects and condenses the byproduct (steam) to generate additional electricity intended to recover the energy expended in producing the hydrogen. No greenhouse gases emitted. In addition, a new source of water is created wherever necessary, even in remote deserts far from any shore. In contrast, desalination, which consumes prodigious amounts of (usually) fossil energy, is practical and cost effective only within a limited distance from the shoreline. This proposed scheme encourages using per capita production, exporting and consumption of hydrogen as the dominant criteria for creating a new reserve currency of the world. Its purpose would be to reduce or even eliminate the growing rivalry between China and the U.S., introduce some measure of discipline regarding deficit spending, and limit the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. More crucially, these criteria would award purchasing power to all countries based on the same metric. In turn, that should promote trade and reduce poverty.
Figure 2 shows an alternate financing scheme that:
• Does not make foreign governments responsible for paying back the loans.
• Ensures loan recipients will have the revenue to pay back the loans.
• Creates a new mechanism to resolve the housing crisis, a widespread malady.
• Creates new revenue to help homeowners amortize their mortgages.
Exotic fuels such as a stable isotope of element one-fifteen and cold fusion may actually do more harm than good. The former would make war machines invulnerable, a pathway to world conquest; and the latter, which would convert hydrogen into helium, would gradually and irreversibly destroy water. In contrast, only hydrogen can make water.
First-Ever Scientific Paper on Climate Change – 1856
Make or Break
October 25, 2021
Background
The upcoming COP26 meeting in Scotland does not herald a breakthrough in the global cooperative, coordinated action that is absolutely essential to replace nuclear fission, coal, gas and oil with renewable energy, particularly hydrogen, to generate electricity. The probable absence of Presidents Putin and Xi speaks volumes about their apparent unwavering unwillingness to compartmentalize the ongoing confrontation in the South China Sea, the Ukraine, Georgia, and the Black Sea, to name a few, from climate change.
The Danger
Left unresolved, either issue could cause the extinction of humanity. The difference between them is the speed at which they are progressing. Climate change resembles relentless, slow-moving magma; the geopolitical confrontation is like a brewing category 30 hurricane –and our much esteemed world leaders are playing Chicken with it.
The Issues
The Ukraine and Georgia wish to join NATO, a red line for Russia. In effect, without firing a bullet, that would recreate World War II’s Eastern Front as it was just prior to the fall of Sebastopol. Should the Ukraine join NATO, nothing would prevent the U.S. from deploying short-range nuclear-tipped missiles within 300 miles from Moscow. In Georgia’s case, it would allow NATO to target Russia’s southern oilfields, Hitler’s strategic objective in the summer of 1942. For Russia, these events would be of seismic proportions. It’s not our place to predict if, when or how it might react, but chances are it will. In a nutshell, Russia, the immovable object, demands no change to the status quo; conversely, NATO the irresistible force, says it’s not Russia’s business to prevent two sovereign nations from joining NATO. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, the main bones of contention are the South China Sea and Taiwan. There the roles are reversed. The irresistible force is China, which is determined to gain unchallenged control of both; the immovable object is Taiwan backed by the U.S. and its allies: they demand no change to the status quo. There are of course other simmering flashpoints such as Iran and Israel, China and India, and Pakistan and India, but with the exception of Iran these do not directly involve the U.S.
The Irony
China, Japan, Europe, Russia, India and the U.S. depend on fossil fuels, mainly coal, to generate most of their electricity. Therefore, for all of them, unrestricted, guaranteed access to these fuels is a matter of national security. Accordingly, unless and until this happy state of affairs is achieved, the geopolitical confrontation, today’s sword of Damocles, will continue to swing over humanity’s heads. And energy is not the only crisis. Water is equally important, from worsening droughts, rapidly depleting aquifers already beyond the tipping point, and disappearing glaciers, to catastrophic floods and rising seas, all exacerbated by climate change.
Making a Difference
Hydrogen is our only hope to address the water/energy crises. The technology already exists, including adequate catalysts, to extract as much as needed from the ocean by electrolysis using renewable forms of energy. Accordingly, any polity with abundant sunlight, geothermal and/or wind and a suitable coastline, could potentially produce more hydrogen than it might consume. The technology also exists, including an advanced turbine capable of burning hydrogen 24/7 directly without fuel cells, to build a global network of hydrogen-powered plants to produce water and electricity. Of course, an effort of this scope and magnitude would require peaceful and coordinated political, technological and financial cooperation. It can be done, it should be done, and now is the time to take action, before it’s too late.
Hydrogen – Basic Concepts
September 14, 2021
This paper covers hydrogen technologies regarding the role of hydrogen as an energy carrier and the possibilities of its production and use. It presents the modalities and efficiencies of current technologies of obtaining hydrogen; it also details obtaining it by electrolysis of water, the electrochemical efficiency, the specific consumption of electricity, and the thermodynamics of the electrochemical processes.
Prospects and Obstacles for Green Hydrogen Production in Russia
January 30, 2021
This study is aimed at: (1) comparing key Russian trends of green hydrogen development with global trends, (2) presenting strategic alternatives for the Russian energy sector development, (3) presenting a case study of the Russian hydrogen energy project «Dyakov Ust-Srednekanskaya HPP» in Magadan region, using the example of a RusHydro company.
Renewable Hydrogen’s Future in Eastern Australia’s Energy Networks
July 1, 2021
The energy transition for a net-zero future will require deep decarbonization that hydrogen is uniquely positioned to facilitate. This techno-economic study considers renewable hydrogen production, transmission and storage for energy networks using the National Electricity Market (NEM) region of Eastern Australia as a case study. Australia is the global leader in the deployment of wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) on a per capita basis, and Australia’s energy networks are planning for energy futures including hydrogen. Therefore, green hydrogen is likely to be cheaper and more widely accessible than blue hydrogen by 2030, and this situation will only improve out to 2050. Australia’s trading partners, such as the European Union (EU), are prioritizing green hydrogen over the long term, which is an opportunity to utilize Australia’s world-class renewable energy resources. A joint study with Germany is building on other international collaborations to assess export opportunities.