To Mars, or not to Mars, that is the question.

“Starship is now more than twice as powerful as the Saturn V Moon rocket and, in a year or so, it will be three times as powerful at 10,000 metric tons of thrust. More importantly, it is designed to be fully reusable, burning ~80% liquid oxygen and ~20% liquid methane (very low cost propellant). This enables cost per ton to orbital space to be ~10,000% lower than Saturn V. Starship is the difference between being a multiplanet or single planet civilization. Building a new world on Mars is now possible.” ~@elonmusk

A nuclear engine would be very beneficial when available.  Presumably, it would add the capability of continuous power output for many years enabling continuous acceleration when in space and thereby shortening the trip time and trip cost compared to CH4+O2, and then power for deceleration to enter Mars orbit.  In contrast, CH4 and O2 fuel would need to be used more conservatively to achieve an optimal Mars orbital velocity but no more than that.  Once that velocity was achieved, then the main CH4+O2 engines would need to shut down and the Starship would essentially coast with only internal power for life support and guidance correction power operating during the much longer trip between the Earth launch window and the Mars orbit to conserve precious CH4+O2.  Taking the nuclear power plant to Mars surface, the powerplant’s energy could be used to produce oxygen, methane and other needed chemicals from the abundant CO2 in Martian atmosphere, soil, as well as the crew’s waste, especially waste and recycled water.   Given Elon’s time frame, it would appear that he must be planning already for small fission reactors, not on yet to be proven small fusion reactors.   

Elon Musk, many other people and I would answer the question “why go there?” by saying that the human race must become multiplanetary.  It’s one of those destiny questions like, “To be, or not to be?”  “Not to be” is fatalistic, deterministic. Not acceptable or even realistic to me. Freedom is our God-given destiny.  “To be” means free and self-determined.  Some are free and will want to be free while residing on Earth, some will want to be free and explore.  Secondly, it assuages the intrinsically human need to explore to know more, like Magellan, Columbus, etc.  

SpaceX is exploring the use of nuclear power for future Mars missions. In 2019, NASA awarded SpaceX a contract to develop a nuclear power source for the Artemis program, which aimed to return humans to the Moon by 2024 and establish a sustainable presence on the lunar surface.

Nuclear Power Options: 

SpaceX is reportedly considering several nuclear power options, including:

  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Compact, lightweight reactors that can provide a reliable and efficient source of power.  Seems to me to be a good area to explore for Earth bound transportation, EV’s etc too; better than lithium. 
  • Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs): Similar to those used in NASA’s Curiosity Rover, these convert the heat generated by radioactive decay into electricity.

Benefits:

  • Long-term power: Nuclear power can provide a reliable and long-lasting source of energy for Mars missions.in space
  • Reduced reliance on solar panels: Nuclear power can operate during periods of low sunlight or dust storms on Mars.

SpaceX is exploring the use of solar sails, also known as solar photon sails or light sails, for its Mars missions. Solar sails use the pressure of solar photons to propel a spacecraft, providing a lightweight and efficient means of propulsion.  Like a nuclear powered engine, solar sails could also provide continuous power for continuous acceleration and shorter trip times. 

Solar Sail Concepts:

SpaceX is investigating several solar sail concepts, including:

  • Starship’s Solar Sails: The Starship spacecraft, designed for lunar and Mars missions, may incorporate solar sails to provide additional propulsion.

Benefits:

  • Increased efficiency: Solar sails can provide a significant increase in propulsion efficiency, especially for long-duration missions.
  • Reduced mass: Solar sails are lightweight, reducing the mass of the spacecraft and enabling more efficient transportation, compared to carrying fuel for similar acceleration.

Challenges:

  • Solar sail size and deployment: Large solar sails require complex deployment mechanisms and may be vulnerable to damage during launch and operation.  A difficult to sense swarm of tiny meteorites could destroy it.  Back propulsion needed.
  • Solar sail material: The material used for the solar sail must be lightweight, durable, and resistant to radiation, extreme temperatures, and high speed particles.

With the addition of nuclear power at the Martian surface, there is already sufficient material, gravity and incoming solar energy on Mars for terraforming, which is not the case on Earth’s moon so far as we know today.  Mars atmosphere is much more concentrated in CO2 that Earth’s.  The CO2 atmospheric concentration on Mars is approximately 95% by volume; this is very useful for many things as a chemical precursor but of course is not breathable even with the addition of sufficient oxygen.  CO2 + hydrogen + nitrogen and abundant energy gives you ammonia for fertilizer and all sorts of plastics.  Already H2O has been discovered on Mars. The NASA Perseverance rover found evidence of past water on Mars, including signs of ancient rivers, lakes, and even an ocean.  If those oceans resembled Earths, there could be relative abundant uranium dust.  The rover has also detected water ice at the Martian poles and mid-latitudes.  Nitrogen gas has been detected, making up about 2.7% of the Martian atmosphere by volume.  The essential elements of life are there, but in very different abundances than earth.

Surface gravity on Mars is approximately 38% of the surface gravity on Earth, with an average gravitational acceleration of 3.72076 m/s^2. This means that if you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, you would weigh only about 38 pounds on Mars; this becomes a critical factor.  Weight has advantages and disadvantages for life on Mars with regard to terraforming and humans and animals living on the surface.  Most likely a dome or a sealed cave would be needed to create atmospheric conditions for humans, as well as space suits for sufficient air pressure, breathable air, radiation protection and temperature control.  Mars’ atmosphere is thinner (I.e., shorter distance between surface and space) than Earth’s because it has a weaker magnetic field, which allows solar winds to strip away Mars’ atmospheric gases.  Somewhat counterintuitively, Mars has higher atmospheric concentrations of Ar, He, H2 than Earth because Mars’ atmosphere is thinner and less of these gases have been stripped away by the constant cosmic ray flux at the outer edges of Mars’ atmosphere.  He could be useful for nuclear applications and transportation, Argon as an thermal insulator, and H2 as a reactant gas.

According to an Insolation – Energy Education article, the average solar insolation on Earth is around 4-5 kWh/m^2 per day.  But, comparing solar insolation of Earth versus Mars is a more complex calculation than it may seem at first look.  The average solar insolation on Earth’s surface is approximately 343 W/m², which is equivalent to the solar constant (1370 W/m² or 1 AU) spread out over the entire planet semi-sphere due to the Earth’s rotation and reduced by the angle of incidence; but this averaged calculation is not very useful for a man or growing a plant at a specific point on Mars’s smaller surface area.  The comparison is not as simple as reducing insolation at Earth’s surface by the inverse square law and the Mars’ increased distance from the sun and reducing the area and angle of incidence.  Near the equators of both planets, insolation is more concentrated and less concentrated at the poles.  Earth’s atmosphere is much thicker and contains much more clouds than Mars’ atmosphere, and those high Earth clouds especially reflect more solar radiation.  The thinner Mars atmosphere allows relatively more radiation at all wavelengths to reach the surface, including the more dangerous ionizing radiation; Earth’s atmosphere absorbs and scatters more before it reaches the surface.  This could be a life-saving difference in the case of solar flares and non-solar cosmic rays.  I would rather find and rely on measurement from the Mars Rover. 

Cosmic rays are high-energy particles that originate from outside the Earth’s atmosphere, primarily from solar flares, supernovae, and other astrophysical sources. They can include a variety of particles, such as protons, electrons, and heavy ions, as well as gamma rays and neutrinos.  Cosmic rays are a significant concern for astronauts on the International Space Station and presumably will be during deep space missions or planetary surfaces. The radiation levels can be high and cancer-causing levels especially during flares and coronal mass ejections, supernovae, etc.  (Presumably, flights from Earth to Mars would always be designed to travel farther away from the sun, and never be a secant curve route inside Earth’s orbit around the sun.)  Is there a way to capture cosmic rays and convert them into an energy source in space or on the surface of a planet with thin or no atmosphere?   

Assuming fission energy will eventually be available on Mars, and trace uranium is recoverable there as it is from soil and ocean here, then the more practical problem for living on Mars may well be due to its lower gravity.  Since humans would weigh much less on Mars, lengthy stays with no artificial gravity on the surface will drastically and eventually permanently change human, animal and plant body structures, especially muscle and bone density and strength.  Humans and animals who stay long may not be able to return.  Oops!  There may be reproduction issues.  Oops. 

That’s enough Martian dreaming for today.  Perhaps you enjoyed the ride as much as I did.

Bud

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

This graph reveals the enormous scale of the 2020 vote steal. 

The biggest risk now is Trump’s well-being.  The thieves and assassins are still out there.

As you have probably read by now, on January 6, 2025 the never Trumpers like Jamie Raskin, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, etc, and of course VP Kommie Harris who will be leading the joint session of Congress on that day, most likely will attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College votes submitted by the states.  Probably they will claim that Congress as their duty should not certify a convicted felon to be President of the U.S.  The Constitution is silent on eligibility of a felon.  While there are legal provisions and precedents guiding Electoral College dispute resolution, the process is not explicitly outlined in a single statute or regulation. Instead, it is governed by a combination of constitutional provisions, statutory language, and judicial precedent. If certification is contested by Congress, as it was in 2020 by Ted Cruz et al but without sufficient supporting votes, then:

According to the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887, if Congress refuses to certify the Electoral College vote for President and Vice President, the following procedures would unfold:

  1. Joint Session of Congress: The Electoral College vote count would be suspended, and Congress would meet in a joint session to consider objections to the electoral votes.
  2. Objections to electors.  Members or Senators can object to one or more state’s electors or processes.  Courts generally will not intercede.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore following the 2000 “hanging chaff” election established a precedent for limited judicial intervention in Electoral College disputes. The Court emphasized that federal courts should not interfere with state election processes, except in cases where there is a clear violation of federal law or the Constitution. This has led to a more cautious approach by federal courts in intervening in Electoral College disputes.
  3. Objections in Writing: At least one Senator and one Representative must submit written objections to the electoral votes in question. This can occur due to disputes over the validity of electoral votes, such as concerns about “irregularly given” or “unlawfully certified” votes.
  4. There could be an objection to VP Vance.  1837 Presidential Election: Martin Van Buren (D) won the Electoral College vote, but Virginia’s 23 electors refused to support his vice-presidential candidate, Richard Johnson. This led to a contingent election in the Senate, which Johnson won easily.
  5. Separate Chamber Debates: The Senate and House of Representatives would meet separately for a maximum of two hours to debate the objections.  In January 2005: Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) objected to Ohio’s electoral votes for George W. Bush, alleging they were not “regularly given.” The House and Senate met separately and rejected the objections via roll-call votes.
  6. Vote on Objections: After the debates, each chamber would vote on the objections. A simple majority vote in both chambers is required to reject the electoral votes and prevent the certification of the President and Vice President.
  7. Legislative Session: The objection could result in calls for the two houses of Congress to go into legislative session to pass a bill to resolve the issues, so example election of a convicted felon.  Similar happened in 1887, with the 1887 Electoral Count Act passed in response to the disputed 1876 election which established deadlines for states to select electors, resolve disputes, and cast their electoral votes.
  8. No Certification: If the objections are successful and the electoral votes are rejected, Congress would not certify the President and Vice President-elect. This would create a constitutional crisis, as the President and Vice President would not have been officially elected.
  9. House of Representatives’ Role: According to the 12th Amendment, if no President and Vice President have been certified, the House of Representatives would then vote to elect a President. Each state delegation would have one vote, with a simple majority required to elect the President.  This apparently simple procedure is fraught with potential problems, not the least of which is the process for the various states to select their single representative (an “elector”) is bound to vote for one candidate.   
  10. Continued Crisis: Without a certified President and Vice President, the government would be in a state of limbo, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis and uncertainty about the leadership of the country.  This number 7 may be the designed result of the deep state and global oligarchs, i.e., uncertainty, fear and mayhem requiring intervention by a supposedly independent UN or the military.

As you probably know, the purpose of all these 3rd world anti-Trump lawfare cases has always been to make him a convicted felon, deplete him of funds and supporters, if possible lock him up, and legislatively prevent him from taking office again.  The 2024 election does not change that purpose.  These nefarious lawyers, prosecutors and judges expect these lawfare cases to be overturned on appeal, likely taking years, but by then their purpose will have been achieved…an excuse to prevent inauguration of a duly elected President.

Considering all possibilities, it is possible that the deep state and global oligarchs wanted Trump re-elected for unknown dystopian reasons and thus for 2024 they held off on their decades-old-and-well-tested vote switching.  In view of the graph above, IMHO, this possibility is very real and fearful.  About 20 million voters did not disappear in the 2024 election; there were about 20 million fake or switched ballots in 2020. It is not likely we will hear about any of this continuing globalist anti-American revolution from our government or mainstream media.     

Aloha,

Bud

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This morning’s ICSF lecture and the Ballot Backlash: Voters Crush Natural Gas Bans As Climate Takes A Backseat

Bud: The covid injection scam that killed the climate change scam.  I’d put a WEF sticker on that red dress.

In 2017, the newly elected Trump administration withdrew U.S. funding from the UN’s Paris Climate Accord.  The European Commission committed itself to replacing that U.S. funding.  The EU economy is crashing badly.  The Biden administration appointed John Kerry as its “climate envoy” and restored the U.S. funding for the Paris accord.  The U.S. economy is crashing.  Likely the new Trump administration will again exit the Paris accord and possibly exit the entire UN IPCC and perhaps even the EPA’s most draconian regulatory overstep, i.e., the EPA Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases.  The ideological nutcases of climate alarmism want $9 trillion per year until 2050 supposedly to achieve net zero carbon, according to a study by consultants McKinsey & Co.  If we extend that amount out to the 2050 date for 50% achievement of the net zero plan implies spending over $275 trillion.  The executive summary and full McKinsey presentation is available at this link: : https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring

Neither the U.S. public nor the European public wants the ideologically driven, non-scientific climate-change agenda with its consequent energy insecurity and reductions in quality of life.  Even hardcore left-wing places as Berkeley, California which voted heavily for Kamila Harris voted heavily against a referendum issue that would have prohibited natural gas. (See article down below.)

After the U.S. election, even Germany is turning to the right.  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/germany/germany-govt-first-shake-up-with-trump-victory/

In a lecture today to the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF), Dr. Samuel Furfari on the key topic of “European Energy Policy – An End to Competitiveness? stated (approximately), ‘Europe cannot survive without fossil fuels and chemicals.  A wind turbine cannot be built by solar panels.  Solar panels cannot be built by a wind turbine.  Hydrogen is the gas of the future, and it always will be.’ 

“His message was very clear: European energy policy needs to urgently refocus from green ideology to energy/economic realities. Otherwise Europe is unfortunately heading for economic decline, reduced quality of life, even possibly power blackouts. Recent political events in Germany illustrate the point and may now stimulate serious debate in the EU and its Member States.” Hat tip to Jim O’Brien, Chair ICSF, www.ICSF.ie

Dr. Furfari is a renowned expert in energy geopolitics and biodiversity. He is a Professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, where he teaches “Geopolitics of Energy”. With a PhD in Energy Studies from the same university (1982), Dr. Furfari has spent over three decades working in the European Commission, specializing in sustainable energy development and participating in the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Above slide from Samuel Furfari lecture to ICSF on November 7, 2024. The following link goes to a YouTube video of his lecture and slides. https://youtu.be/2jkfQLfH4-I

Dr. Furfari’s slides are here as a pdf file for download at this link.

Dr. Furfari’s most recent book below.

The results of [the 2024] election are nothing short of seismic. Polls and pundits uniformly predicted a too-close-to-call contest that would be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states.

Instead, Donald Trump whipped He won the popular contest by nearly 5 million votes and thumped her in the Electoral College… Read on blog or Reader Site logo image Climate Change Dispatch Read on blog or Reader Ballot Backlash: Voters Crush Natural Gas Bans As Climate Takes A Backseat By Thomas Richard on Nov 7, 2024 natural gas flame The results of [the 2024] election are nothing short of seismic. Polls and pundits uniformly predicted a too-close-to-call contest that would be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states. [emphasis, links added] Instead, Donald Trump whipped Kamala Harris. He won the popular contest by nearly 5 million votes and thumped her in the Electoral College. …   Continue reading Comment
  Climate Change Dispatch © 2024.
Manage your email settings or unsubscribe.  


You can find me and your comments are welcome on my blog, https://budbromley.blog   

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reblog: 10/2024 Update Recent Warming Spike Drives Rise in CO2

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Read the original here: https://rclutz.com/2024/11/06/10-2024-update-recent-warming-spike-drives-rise-in-co2/#like-38287

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The huge risk of today’s children’s vaccines

RFK Jr: “In 1989… all these autoimmune diseases suddenly appeared.” “The CDC thought it may be the vaccine schedule… so they looked at one vaccine, which is the hepatitis B vaccine. They looked at kids who had gotten it in the first 30 days, and then they looked at… kids who got it later or didn’t get it at all, and they compared these two groups.” “Among the kids who got it in the first 30 days, there was… a relative risk of 11.35 [for a subsequent autism diagnosis]. If you have a relative risk of two, causation is presumed… The link between smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and getting lung cancer is a relative risk of 10. This was 11.35.” “So they knew what it was, and then they had an emergency meeting that they called… and they had all of the big panjandrums from the vaccine industry, from the pharmaceutical industry… from NIH, CDC, FDA, the WHO, the European Medicines Agency, and they all got together for two days to talk about this study.” “Somebody made a transcript of it, and that transcript was given to me… The second day they spent talking about how to hide it from the American public, and I published these things… I took a lot of heat at that point.”

(Note: I have not verified these statistics above. Bud)

Pierre Kory, MD MPA @PierreKory,

“Vaccine safety research is banned and our government will not release its own data. Each time the unvaccinated are studied, they have a fraction of the chronic illnesses we now consider normal. The data in in @MidwesternDoc‘s article is profoundly disturbing. How Much Damage Have Vaccines Done to Society? The data that shows the less appreciated forgotten consequences of vaccination. https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-much-damage-have-vaccines-done

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Chasm: Collectivism vs Individualism

© 2003 – 2023 by G. Edward Griffin
Revised 2023 August 1

This document can be viewed and shared online from Red-Pill University Archives at
http://redpilluniversity.org/chasm-doc

It also may be downloaded, printed, and distributed freely so long as it is not sold, offered as a bonus, or combined with other informational materials without prior approval of the publisher. Anything may be quoted provided it is not out of context.

© 2023 August 1 by G. Edward Griffin

At the link above, download full document as pdf file. 49 pages.

Linked here: https://redpilluniversity.org/chasm-doc/.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Henry’s Law, briefly

Contrary to what you have probably read, heard or been taught, the addition of human-produced CO2 to the atmosphere by burning natural gas, oil and coal does not increase the global CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.  Nor will sequestration of CO2 reduce CO2 concentration in atmosphere.  The CO2 concentration in air today is the same as it would be if humans never existed.  Henry’s Law controls the concentration of all trace gases in air.  When humans add CO2 to air, it is a disturbance to a natural equilibrium ratio.  When humans remove CO2 from air, it is a disturbance to the natural equilibrium ratio and that CO2 will be replaced into air by emissions from the environment, dominantly from ocean surface. 

According to a study published by consultants McKinsey & Company and supported by the UN IPCC, world banks, WEF, WHO, EPA, U.S. Democrats and the governments of more than 100 nations including the current U.S. administration, $9.2 trillion would be needed annually between now and 2050 to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero CO2 emissions and thereby avoid their acclaimed existential catastrophe.  I and many others have been working for the last several years toward repeal of the U.S. EPA’s Final Endangerment Finding (EF) issued during the Obama administration. This EF claims without validated evidence that CO2 is an endangerment to the public. Scientific evidence and theory invalidates this EF. 

CO2 concentration in air is not controlled by human CO2 emissions, nor are global temperatures controlled by CO2 concentration.  Disturbances to natural equilibrium are restored in proportion to the amount and the time frame of the disturbance.  We demonstrated this in a data science experiment using NOAA Scripps-measured CO2 data  following the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippine Island (Bromley & Tamarkin, 2022), https://pinatubostudy.com/pinatuboreport.html

Henry’s Law applies to all gases and all liquids, not only CO2 and seawater.  There is a specific, known Henry’s Law constant (aka a partition ratio or coefficient) for each gas and liquid combination.  These constants are typically looked up in online tables, in reference books, and they can be measured in the laboratory.  There are very many references, for example: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/4399/2015/acp-15-4399-2015.pdf

Henry’s Law is the fundamental science underlying the multibillion dollar per year scientific instruments industry of gas chromatography mass spectrometry, aka GC or GC/MS.  This is the preferred method for separating chemical mixtures into individual chemicals so they can be identified, and quantified.  Today, it is the preferred method for process and quality control of most chemical mixtures, for example gasoline, wine, flavors, fragrances, and medicines, etc. 

Henry’s Law is an observational result based on thousands of experiments.  The initial experiments were done by Dr. William Henry in 1803 and published by the Royal Society of London.  As famous physicist Richard Feynman said, if a theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong; the theory of human-produced CO2 from burning natural gas, petroleum and coal is wrong, dangerously and nefariously wrong. Henry’s Law is neither theory nor hypothesis, it is a Law based on countless experiments and confirmed by multiple theories. 

Henry’s Law defines an equilibrium that is established naturally between a trace gas (like CO2) dissolved in a liquid phase (such as seawater or water in lung or plant tissue) and the same trace gas above the liquid surface.  Henry’s Law applies to all trace gases (such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone) within the mixed gas phase (such as air) above the liquid surface.  

Henry’s Law mathematically defines a ratio of the amount (or partial pressure or concentration) of a trace gas dissolved in a liquid surface versus the amount of the same gas within the mixed gas matrix above the surface of the liquid.  For example, the ratio of the molecules of non-ionized CO2 gas in seawater surface versus the molecules of CO2 gas in the air above that sea water surface. At a given temperature, the ratio is a constant for any specified trace gas and liquid combination, the Henry’s Law constant. 

All gases in air are continuously colliding with the surface of the ocean and being absorbed.  Simultaneously, all gases dissolved in ocean surface are being emitted (or evaporated) into air above the liquid.  The ratio of absorption versus emission is the Henry’s Law constant for that gas and liquid combination.  The ratio is Henry’s Law constant.  The ratio changes with temperature because the solubility of all gases in all liquids increases as temperature of the liquid decreases.

The trend in global CO2 concentration in air has been slowly increasing because recently the average surface area of earth above about 25 degrees C has been slowly increasing.  But solar radiation reaching and warming the surface of the earth changes due to various cloud, planetary, solar and cosmic factors. Ultimately, the amount of solar radiation reaching earth’s surface controls the temperature of earth’s surface. CO2 concentration does not control surface temperatures; surface temperatures control CO2 concentration. 

There are some exceptional situations to Henry’s Law, which are important in certain cases.

  • Henry’s Law does not apply to concentrated gases or gases under high pressure.  For example, nitrogen in air at ~78% is not easily quantified by Henry’s Law, but trace gases CO2, CO, N2O, O3, CH4, etc are easily quantifiable in local conditions.   
  • A corollary to that, gases at very low temperature or at very high temperature are also not easily quantified by Henry’s Law.  
  • In practice, the most important exception is that Henry’s Law only applies to the unreacted, non-ionized gas in the liquid phase. Henry’s Law does not apply to any of the reaction products of the gas with the liquid.  For example, when CO2 gas is absorbed into sea water about 99% of it readily ionizes/breaks apart into carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion and carbonate ion.  The Henry’s Law ratio only applies to ratio of unreacted ~1% of CO2 gas in the liquid and the CO2 gas above the liquid. The percentage varies with the local temperature of the surface area.
  • Although not an exception, but rather the frequently misunderstood rule, the rate of change of the Henry’s Law constant is determined by the surface area interface between the gas and the liquid at a given temperature. Net flux (absorption minus emission) of the gas is a function of the surface area, surface thickness and gradient across that thickness, at a given surface temperature, and the diffusion constant. Fick’s 1st Law provides the formula for net flux. Units are, for example, moles of CO2 emitted per square mile per hour. The diffusion constant is Graham’s Law: diffusion rate of all gases into all liquid is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight of the gas. Agitation of the surface by winds, waves, currents etc increases the surface area at a given temperature, slightly increases the temperature of the surface, and reduces the additional activation energy required by a gas molecule like CO2 or water vapor to evaporate and escape from the surface.  The rate of change (or slope) of net flux with respect to time is a function of the rate of change of surface area at a given temperature with respect to time.
  • pH and salinity also change the partition ratio.  In the natural environment, ocean pH and salinity in general have relatively low variability on average. But, local changes can be significant, for example ocean pH can become more alkaline as plankton blooms, and ocean at an estuary or river mouth can become highly mineralized and saline due to runoff after rain. These conditions alter the ratio of CO2 absorption versus CO2 emission at ocean surface, but when these localized conditions return to normal then the CO2 Henry’s Law constant is restored for the local surface temperature.  

Bud Bromley

October 23, 2024

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Growing old

“One of the bittersweet things about growing old is realizing how mistaken you were when you were young. As a young political leftist, I saw the left as the voice of the common man. Nothing could be further from the truth.” ~ Thomas Sowell

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Hear ye! Hear ye!

This young and beautiful Aussie lady is spot on.

This POS terrorist was set up and funded by some Israeli’s and including Jews, the UN, the US government, Western European governments, the EU, and probably most if not all of the governments in Muslim countries. According to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) member list, there are 57 Muslim countries in the world, among which 49 countries have a Muslim-majority population. But, there is only one Israel which shelters and protects Jewish people. Reform of Islam must come to terms within its culture and practice of accepting, even loving, others as they claim and their holy books claim to be the “religion of peace.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is hydrogen green energy or efficient?

Allow me to let these two gentlemen speak for me,

https://youtu.be/RPvQZgafvzA?si=HsQqUY0hc-_Dlofn   This begins with a humorous skit by John Cleese but becomes technical.  This is by Welsh comedian Paul Burgess, a fellow you may also remember from the Monty Python series.

Then the articles at the following website by Dr. Lars Schernikau confirm the above information and my previous post on hydrogen.

Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy economist, entrepreneur, commodity trader, and author.

Educated at New York University in the US, INSEAD in France, and TU Berlin in Germany, he has worked with commodities for 2 decades in Asia, Europe, Africa, and North America.

Previously, he worked for the Boston Consulting Group in the US and Germany. Lars is also a shareholder in the Berlin based, German publicly listed commodity trading firm,
HMS Bergbau AG
(www.hms-ag.com)

After watching and reading these links, you may wonder why the Saudis would invest in hydrogen.  The answer is money of course.  As you have seen in the above links, H2 gas sells for high prices.  The Saudis have basically unlimited fuel and very low cost.  Their result would be very high profits for them to sell to unwitting and misinformed virtue signally end-users foolish enough to buy.  Hydrogen will sell for a while at least at very high prices, as seen the above links, much higher than the natural gas CH4 which Saudis have in abundance.  The Saudis can convert their natural gas (CH4) to H2 gas instead of flaring/burning it off it, or they can use the natural gas to power a turbine electric generation to produce electricity and then use that electricity to produce H2 gas by electrolysis of seawater.  In the first case, they could build a plant that would also produce ethylene (C2H4) as a byproduct of the H2 gas production…if they are very careful.  Ethylene is a highly valuable feedstock for petrochemical plants to make thousands of products from plastics.

As you can surmise from the links above and my comments, in summary, from a public investment point of view and from an environmental point of view, hydrogen energy systems regardless of color is stupid and foolish.  As an investment for the Saudis to build a plant to produce hydrogen, this could be highly profitable for them for a while…so long as people and their politicians believe in the carbon pollution fallacy or until the next Hindenburg-like disaster.   Presumably the Saudis will build their plant so that it can be conveniently converted to a different output product (e.g. ethylene, or ethylene oxide) since eventually the end user will figure out that they are wasting large amounts of money and significantly reducing safety with no benefit to the end users of the hydrogen.

Related posts on my blog:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment