Hope

December 24, 2014

 

May this commemoration of the birth of Yeshua, Eashoa’, Iesous, Iesus, Isa, or Jesus, acknowledged round the world and considered by many synonymous with hope and justice, remind those who, while masquerading as anointed dispensers of free will, devote their lives, as if immortal, to the futile pursuit of the accumulation of wealth and its conjoined twin, the power to destroy.

As hatred continues to simmer unabated and flashes come forth from giant cauldrons of potentially species-ending wars, we should reflect on that glowing lesson from the annals of human history, now several thousand years old and amplified by the Internet: there has never been nonproliferation of weapons or wealth.

Let us all, then, be mindful that that most humble of elements –hydrogen, the maker of water- is destined to replace fossil fuels. The latter are at once the poison destroying our planet’s environment and biology and a principal accomplice in the accumulation of wealth and power, itself the cause of bone crushing poverty torturing and killing, in countless ways, the body and spirit of billions, at home and abroad.

Thankfully there is hope, but the choice is wholly within the purview and responsibility of our leaders. They and those who support them can either embrace an imperceptible, gradual transition to the fuel of the near future, and as President Kennedy bluntly put it, “abolish (nuclear weapons) before they abolish us” or continue to believe in victory where there is only death.

California Needs 42 Cubic Km of Water

December 16, 2014
RELEASE 14-333
NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought Losses

It will take about 11 trillion gallons of water (42 cubic kilometers) — around 1.5 times the maximum volume of the largest U.S. reservoir — to recover from California’s continuing drought, according to a new analysis of NASA satellite data.

 

The finding was part of a sobering update on the state’s drought made possible by space and airborne measurements and presented by NASA scientists Dec. 16 at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Such data are giving scientists an unprecedented ability to identify key features of droughts, data that can be used to inform water management decisions.

A team of scientists led by Jay Famiglietti of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California used data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to develop the first-ever calculation of this kind — the volume of water required to end an episode of drought.

Earlier this year, at the peak of California’s current three-year drought, the team found that water storage in the state’s Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins was 11 trillion gallons below normal seasonal levels. Data collected since the launch of GRACE in 2002 shows this deficit has increased steadily.

“Spaceborne and airborne measurements of Earth’s changing shape, surface height and gravity field now allow us to measure and analyze key features of droughts better than ever before, including determining precisely when they begin and end and what their magnitude is at any moment in time,” Famiglietti said. “That’s an incredible advance and something that would be impossible using only ground-based observations.”

GRACE data reveal that, since 2011, the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins decreased in volume by four trillion gallons of water each year (15 cubic kilometers). That’s more water than California’s 38 million residents use each year for domestic and municipal purposes. About two-thirds of the loss is due to depletion of groundwater beneath California’s Central Valley.

In related results, early 2014 data from NASA’s Airborne Snow Observatory indicate that snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada range was only half of previous estimates.

The observatory is providing the first-ever high-resolution observations of snow water volume in the Tuolumne River, Merced, Kings and Lakes basins of the Sierra Nevada and Uncompahgre watershed in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

To develop these calculations, the observatory measures how much water is in the snowpack and how much sunlight the snow absorbs, which influences how fast the snow melts. These data enable accurate estimates of how much water will flow out of a basin when the snow melts, which helps guide decision about reservoir filling and water allocation.

“The 2014 snowpack was one of the three lowest on record and the worst since 1977, when California’s population was half what it is now,” said Airborne Snow Observatory principal investigator Tom Painter of JPL. “Besides resulting in less snow water, the dramatic reduction in snow extent contributes to warming our climate by allowing the ground to absorb more sunlight. This reduces soil moisture, which makes it harder to get water from the snow into reservoirs once it does start snowing again.”

New drought maps show groundwater levels across the U.S. Southwest are in the lowest two to 10 percent since 1949. The maps, developed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, combine GRACE data with other satellite observations.

“Integrating GRACE data with other satellite measurements provides a more holistic view of the impact of drought on water availability, including on groundwater resources, which are typically ignored in standard drought indices,” said Matt Rodell, chief of the Hydrological Sciences Laboratory at Goddard.

The scientists cautioned that while the recent California storms have been helpful in replenishing water resources, they aren’t nearly enough to end the multi-year drought.

“It takes years to get into a drought of this severity, and it will likely take many more big storms, and years, to crawl out of it,” said Famiglietti.

NASA monitors Earth’s vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites and ambitious airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. The agency develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

Climate Change, Differentiation and Money

December 14, 2014

The United Nations climate change conference in Lima ended with a less than comprehensive accord.

There’s an anecdote from the age before radar that illustrates where the world stands today with respect to climate change:
A brand new dreadnought-class battleship is steaming at 15 knots in thick fog. The lookout spots a barely visible light straight ahead, at an indeterminate distance, and reports it to the captain. Based on the growing intensity of the light, the captain assumes a fast-approaching small vessel, as of yet invisible to the lookout, is unaware of the impending collision. Hastily he blows the horn and sends a wireless ordering it to move. A swift response comes in, short and blunt, “You move.” Incensed, the captain responds, “No, you move. I’m a dreadnought; it takes us much longer to turn and there’s no time. If you don’t we’ll crush you.” To which the light replies, “No, you move. I’m a lighthouse on dry land and you only have a few minutes before you hit the jagged rocks and boulders around me.”

It’s no secret that a handful of nations own, or control by proxy, most of the fossil fuel reserves in the world. Collectively they also produce and consume the lion’s share of the fuels, therefore their wealth and power are linked to them. That of course poses a dilemma as it conflicts with the urgent need to fight climate change. For that reason their goal seems to be a finely tweaked reduction, but not outright elimination, of fossil fuels as a principal component of the world’s energy supply. For example, if they were to assist poor nations that lack domestic sources of hydrocarbons (captive clients) make the transition to solar to generate all their electricity, three things would likely decline: the demand for fossil fuels, their price, and the need for dollars to pay for them. Conversely, poor nations would benefit greatly. They would pay nothing for fuel to generate electricity and they would save their hard-earned dollars for other priorities. This would amount to nothing less than a tectonic shift in the world order.

While better than nothing, it’s simply not enough to limit the average atmospheric temperature increase to an “acceptable” level. Already we’re experiencing catastrophic storms and devastating droughts; many if not most of the world’s great aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate and entire rivers no longer reach the sea. Worse, there’s no global forum, not even a discussion to create one, to address a crisis that may well ignite wars and famine in the not too distant future.

Collectively, individually or in groups, countries should very seriously consider the possibility of creating an alternate binding mechanism within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to:

  • use solar energy to eventually generate all our electricity;
  • use excess electricity to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater;
  • use the hydrogen expressly to manufacture pure water wherever it’s needed or desired, domestically or for export;
  • generate additional electricity using hydrogen and gravity as described in Plan A above.

The technology exists, and it should improve. As for money, there’s plenty of idle private capital worldwide which could be tapped under the right terms and conditions.
Several variants of Plan A, designed for a variety of regions, are available. The question is, will the dreadnought change its course?

Compromise at the Convention on Climate Change, Lima 2014

December 7, 2014

As at previous similar conventions, there is agreement on the overall goal, not on who should do what, when, and pay how much. Rather than repeating the entire list of disagreements, the following might become the basis for a possible compromise.

The overall goal is to reduce global greenhouse emissions. The current mindset is that each country is responsible for curbing a percentage of its emissions, and that rich nations must help poor nations with $100 billion annually by 2020. So far pledges to the Green Climate Fund amount to $10 billion, understandable since no one likes or wants to pay.

There’s nothing to prohibit one country from investing in another to reduce the 2nd country’s emissions. For example, China, the world’s largest emitter, could finance (as a loan, possibly even in Chinese currency) the installation of solar panels on each and every building in Lima, the host city. Gradually, following a well-designed plan, conventional power plants serving Lima would be taken offline. That would reduce Peru’s emissions. Simultaneously, also with Chinese funding, a plant to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater (and chlorine, a byproduct) would be built. Emulating the successful Hawaiian model, excess electricity generated by Lima’s new solar panels would be used to power the plant.

Benefits for China
China would have the right to buy the hydrogen at a discounted price for a specified period of time, enough to amortize the loan. At the end of the period the price would revert to market price. Back home, China would use the hydrogen to generate electricity and produce pure water (a priceless byproduct) whether at planned or existing coal-fired power plants. Thus, China would get credit for reducing emissions in both countries, 100% in China and 50% in Lima, which would help it meet its greenhouse gases reduction goal/pledge. The additional electricity and water would help China maintain or expand its economic growth, a boon for the global economy.

Benefits for Peru
It would become an important exporter of hydrogen and chlorine, and since hydrogen is renewable its reserves would never run dry. It could invest the income from the sale of hydrogen to build yet more plants for domestic use. The new water would eventually compensate for the shrinking Andean glaciers, and it would save all those dollars currently being spent to buy fossil fuels for conventional plants.

Of course, the system can accommodate similar arrangements between other rich and poor nations.

UCLA Fees 1949-1950

Source: Registrar Archive, University of California at Los Angeles
Inflation conversion factor 1950-2014 = 9.8520; 2014 dollars in parentheses.

Incidental fee: $39 ($384.23)
Covers certain expenses of students for library books, athletic and gymnasium facilities and equipment, lockers and washrooms, registration and graduation, consultation, medical advice, dispensary treatment as can furnished on the campus by the Student Health Services, and for all laboratory and course fees. It also includes the rights and privileges of membership in the Associated Students, valued at $4 ($39.41). No part of this fee is remitted to those students who may not desire to make use of any or all of these privileges. If a student withdraws from the University within the first five weeks from the date of his registration, a part of this fee will be refunded. The incidental fee for graduate students is $35 ($344.82) each semester; it does not include membership in the Associated Students. Students who are classified as nonresidents of the State are required to pay, each semester, in addition to the incidental fee, a tuition fee of $150 ($1,477.80).

Tuition. The University charges a tuition fee to every student who has not been a legal resident of the state of California for a period of one year immediately preceding the opening day of the semester during which he proposes to enroll. Tuition in the academic colleges is free to students who have been residents of the state of California for a period of one year immediately preceding the opening of the semester during which they propose to attend the University. Students who are classified as nonresidents are required to pay a tuition fee of $150 ($1,477.80) each semester. This fee is in addition to the incidental fee.

Other Fees
Application fee, $5 ($49.26). This is charged every applicant for admission to the University, and is payable at the time the first application is filed. Applicants for graduate status must pay this fee, even though it may have been paid once in undergraduate status.

Medical examination: Original appointment, or deferment arranged in advance, no fee. Fee for a second appointment, $2 ($19.70).
Late filing of registration book, $2 ($19.70).
Late examination in Subject A, $1 ($9.85).
For courses added or dropped after date set for fling registration book, $1 (9.85) for each petition.
For reinstatement of lapsed status, $5 ($49.26).
For late application for teaching assignment, $1 ($9.85).
For late notice of candidacy for the bachelor’s degree, $2 ($19.70.
For late return of athletic supplies, $1 ($9.85) for each 24 hours until full purchase price of article is reached.
For failure to empty locker within specified time, $2 ($19.70).
Returned check collection, $1 ($9.85).
Deposit required of applicants for teaching positions who register with the Office of Teacher Placement, a deposit of $5 (49.26) to cover the clerical cost of correspondence and copying of credentials.

Refunds
Refund of a part of the incidental fee is made to a student who withdraws from the University within five weeks from the date of his registration.
Refund on the nonresident fee is made in accordance with a schedule on file in the offices of the Registrar and Cashier; dates are computed from the first day of instruction of the semester.
No claim for refund of fees will be considered unless such claim is presented during the fiscal year to which the claim is applicable. No student will be entitled to a refund except upon surrender to the Cashier of his registration certificate and receipt. Students should preserve their receipts.

UCLA 2-Semester Costs 1949-1950

The Caribbean

G-20 Infrastructure Commitment

On November 16, 2014 leaders of G-20 nations in Brisbane, Australia presented a plan to boost global GDP by more than $2 trillion over five years by investing in infrastructure and increasing trade. Presumably the infrastructure they have in mind will include projects to reduce the use of fossil fuel, chronic poverty, and the abysmal gap in the distribution of wealth and income. If so, here are additional countries with abundant sunshine and water, prime candidates for the mass production of hydrogen by electrolysis.

Central AmericaAntillesThey, like so many others throughout the world, have little or no fossil fuel reserves. As a result, they are compelled to import most if not all the fuel to generate electricity, payable (so far) in U.S. dollars. If they switch to solar along the lines of the successful Hawaiian prototype, they’ll become energy exporters and save all that precious hard currency. Further, if the countries distribute the net profit to homeowners -as they should since the latter would generate the electricity to produce the hydrogen- this new and permanent income stream would stimulate construction, create jobs and reduce their poverty rate.

 

The Truth Marches On

The November 1, 2014 Synthesis Report for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leaves no doubt that climate change is real, caused by human action, and that time is running out for our illustrious leaders to take action commensurate with the scope and gravity of the monstrous catastrophe that, in one way or another, we’re all guilty of having unleashed. Legions of scientists in a multitude of disciplines have carefully dissected the problem, and the vast majority agree, backed by much irrefutable evidence, that the technology already exists to halt global warming.

To succeed, nothing less than drastic, fundamental and expensive changes will be required. There is no easy way out, only difficult choices. For that reason, we can only hope that the righteous among them will carry the day as they muster the willpower and courage to take the unenviable and unavoidable career-threatening risks should they choose to confront the determined opposition of a powerful few.

Better Than Grid Parity

HawaiiElectricity in Hawaii costs $0.38 per kilowatt hour, almost treble the national average of around $0.13, which incidentally does not factor in the damage to the environment caused by using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Solar power, which can cost $0.30 per KWH, is now actually cheaper than grid electricity. As a result, Oahu, the state’s most populous island, boasts 40,159 solar photovoltaic systems interconnected on the Hawaiian Electric Company’s grids for a total of 300 megawatts. This has exceeded 100% of daytime minimum load, triggering safety measures and/or upgrades before new PV on affected circuits can be interconnected to the grid. In simple terms, the utility business/engineering model is being tested by a new concept: distributed generation in reverse, where power is generated by homes and is then distributed to specific points of heavy industrial/commercial use.

The utility is trying to protect itself, and that’s understandable. The issue here is not that Hawaii’s solar experiment has failed to deliver enough power. Quite the contrary, it has proved that individual homes can and in fact do generate far more energy than they consume. In other words, the utility, the state and the state’s voters have not yet figured out what to do with so much FREE power. Instead, they have decided to curtail their very successful and innovative program so they can continue to pay for costly, imported oil and gas to run the utility’s generators.

Here’s an alternative. Instead of curbing installation of PV systems on rooftops, redouble the efforts to do so but don’t turn them on until every home in Honolulu has one. That will give the utility time to turn the fossil fuel power plants off and to morph into a maintenance provider only, end the monopoly and open the sector to competitors.

The evidence is conclusive and irrefutable: there will be excess daytime energy. Why not use electrolysis to extract hydrogen from the ocean, which is free, abundant and readily accessible, and export it to water-starved states and countries? Ask California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Mexico, China, and India, among others, if they could use the extra water and a non-polluting source of energy.  Hydrogen is unique in that it can be used to generate electricity and to manufacture pure water, two marketable commodities, therefore its price should reflect that fact. For ordinary Hawaiians, it would be a boom; not only would they not have to pay for costly fossil fuels –ever; they could create a cooperative to operate the hydrogen production business; the income would gradually pay for the infrastructure and in time give them a permanent free and clear income stream they do not presently have.

The Hawaiian success should be carefully studied by so many other islands and countries with abundant sun and ocean: the islands and coastlines of the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, the Andean region of South America, particularly those who are net energy importers. Almost overnight, they could become energy exporters.

Solar Power Economics

October 24, 2014

Here’s an example –albeit of limited scope- of how solar power could be used to reduce unemployment. An Arizona-based private company will build a 60-megawatt solar power plant on 600 acres of dry, vacant land near Mendota, California, a drought-stricken community with near 30% unemployment about 25 miles west of Fresno.  When fully operational, it will produce enough power for 20,000 homes in California and create about 400 temporary and 50 permanent jobs. The company will then sell the energy to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).

Without a doubt, the project will bring some much needed relief to an agricultural community that has been devastated by a pervasive drought. Without water, farmers have been forced to fallow 200,000 acres, one third of their land –and eliminate jobs. Long term, however, this should be considered an interim step to eliminate unemployment, not just reduce it, and to substantially increase the income of the owners of those 20,000 homes the project will serve. The ripple effect of an economic transfusion on that scale and magnitude would increase consumption, which accounts for about 70% of the U.S. economy, and spawn a true recovery with long term, sustained growth. Better yet, it could create a model which other communities and even whole nations might want to emulate.

A Better Alternative
If all the homes in the area were to be outfitted with solar panels capable of generating a surplus of electricity, that is, more energy than they consume, homeowners could then lease the grid lines from public utilities to sell and deliver the electricity directly to specific users. That would divert the profits from the utilities to the homeowners, a powerful incentive to produce as much as possible. This is not socialism; it is simple recognition that modern technology has made large generating plants powered by nuclear or fossil fuels obsolete and vulnerable to acts of terrorism. The sooner we accept that reality and begin the inevitable transition to a new model the better off we’ll be. With solar there’s no reason why homes must be interconnected with each other unless for a specific purpose such as conquering drought or ushering in the Age of Hydrogen.

The Conquest of Drought

Speaking at Brookings on the economics of climate change, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew remarked that “the cost of inaction or delay is far greater than the cost of action.” The fact of the matter is that there is no national or international consensus among leaders on what, if anything, to do, and paradoxically, consensus is necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding two degrees Celsius and to avoid greater catastrophes.

Even more pressing than agreeing on clean energy policies is addressing drought. No amount of energy, clean or otherwise, will materialize a drop of potable water where there is none to begin with. If the amount of nature-provided water is insufficient to meet demand in non-coastal areas, current or projected, there is presently no practical way to increase the supply. Inevitably, this will lead to unprecedented tensions and losses, and in some cases –war.

Given these ominous portents, perhaps we should refocus our attention on hydrogen’s other property, namely that it is one of two elements in a water molecule. Hydrogen, not oxygen, is the key, for the latter is in the atmosphere while the former does not exist in elemental form on our planet. It must be freed from a compound, and that costs time, energy and money.

For that reason, and in view of the existing political necrosis, it seems in right order to revisit some of the most controversial concepts ever proposed. Foremost among them is the case of Stanley Meyer and his Resonant Electrolysis Cell System. For the uninitiated, this short bio might help them understand who he was and what he alleged to have accomplished.

But his gadgets, expired patents, and the testimony of reputable persons on his behalf remain. Surely among the thousands, if not millions, of brilliant scientists everywhere and anywhere, one must be willing to accept the challenge to definitively prove or disprove Meyer’s work. The stakes cannot be higher; if in the affirmative the dis-assembly of seawater into its two elements will become routine and profitable, and so will the reassembly of pure water in inland areas far from any coastline. Essentially, we’re talking about the conquest of drought.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15
Translate »