Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

Carbon Nanotubes Produced from Ambient Carbon Dioxide

Producing carbon nanofibers from ambient carbon dioxide seems like a potential breakthrough. You are removing the greenhouse gas from the air, and producing an incredibly useful product that can be used for everything from batteries to store renewable energy (discussed in this article) to (I am speculating) strong, light-weight carbon-negative materials that could replace a portion of the heavy-footprint steel and concrete we use today.

Carbon Nanotubes Produced from Ambient Carbon Dioxide for Environmentally Sustainable Lithium-Ion and Sodium-Ion Battery Anodes

The cost and practicality of greenhouse gas removal processes, which are critical for environmental sustainability, pivot on high-value secondary applications derived from carbon capture and conversion techniques. Using the solar thermal electrochemical process (STEP), ambient CO2 captured in molten lithiated carbonates leads to the production of carbon nanofibers (CNFs) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) at high yield through electrolysis using inexpensive steel electrodes. These low-cost CO2-derived CNTs and CNFs are demonstrated as high performance energy storage materials in both lithium-ion and sodium-ion batteries. Owing to synthetic control of sp3 content in the synthesized nanostructures, optimized storage capacities are measured over 370 mAh g–1 (lithium) and 130 mAh g–1 (sodium) with no capacity fade under durability tests up to 200 and 600 cycles, respectively. This work demonstrates that ambient CO2, considered as an environmental pollutant, can be attributed economic value in grid-scale and portable energy storage systems with STEP scale-up practicality in the context of combined cycle natural gas electric power generation.

Combined with renewable energy sources, maybe this is the breakthrough technology that gets us over the current hump where we are pushing against the ecological limits, and sets us on a path of continuing growth with a lower footprint until we eventually push against the limits again. Or, put the right incentives and policies in place to control the unsustainable portion of the growth, and with this technology in place maybe we can make it all the way until the asteroid hits. And by then, we can try to have people spread across a few planets. And then we are good until the sun burns out, or the aliens come for us, or the universe collapses. None of which will be my problem.

subsidizing Uber as an alternative to transit

A suburb of Orlando plans to subsidize 20% of all Uber rides, and 25% of ones that begin or end at a train station. It kind of makes sense that a small city with no previous investment in transit would choose to do this. There is no capital investment required, so they could just set a budget and stop the program for the year if they exceed it. They seem to think it will also help with road building and maintenance costs. I don’t quite get that – you assume people take trips because they need to get from point A to point B, and changing the economics of what vehicles they choose may not affect overall demand or reduce wear and tear. It might even increase demand if people take trips they would not have previously. It could drastically reduce the amount of space needed for parking, and that space and expense could be repurposed for something else. It could definitely cut down on drunk driving. They mention that it could hurt the poor, but I think all you need there is a hotline with operators who can book calls and arrange payment for people who don’t have an internet connection. It could provide jobs for laid-off taxi dispatchers.

how freight moves

Here are some statistics on how freight moves in the U.S. Compared to my preconceived notions, trucking is even more dominant compared to rail than I thought. Even pipelines move more than twice the weight of rail. Air is vanishingly small in terms of weight, but used to move higher-value items. It’s not too surprising that the monetary value of everything shipped is projected to grow along with the economy, but it is a little surprising to me that the weight of everything shipped is projected to grow by 40% over the next 30 years. It argues against the idea that we are “dematerializing”, or achieving economic growth without physical growth. Sure, people like Alan Greenspan can make an argument that the weight per dollar is not increasing, but what does that mean exactly when a dollar is a fairly arbitrary human measure of value? Ultimately the tonnage of everything we move, from raw materials and fossil fuels to manufactured goods to waste, is one proxy for ecological footprint, and it doesn’t look like we are going to turn the corner soon. The only way that would change is if we had a closed loop, “circular economy” where the waste becomes raw materials again. Then we could theoretically keep shipping it around the loop faster and faster without increasing our footprint. That is, given enough clean, cheap energy.

Greyhound in the 21st Century

Here’s an interesting article in The Dallas Morning News on Greyhound’s technology strategy.

The 101-year-old company stands at a nexus these days. Uber, car-sharing services and autonomous vehicles will likely thoroughly rearrange ground transportation over the next decade. And young millennials continue their migration to downtown areas — sometimes without cars…

Now Greyhound sells at least 60 percent of its tickets through mobile digital devices like cellphones and tablets, Leach said. And over the next few years, the company wants to become part of a loose urban-mobility network built around ride-sharing and autonomous vehicles…

Despite their Old World aura, buses are a solid part of the modern transportation industry, and Greyhound is still the largest player, with an estimated 31.2 percent share of the market.

Well, if by “Old World” you mean Europe, they have had an efficient inter-city train system for about 50 years. We don’t have that in the U.S. for at least two reasons. First, because we have an enormous investment in a highway system that benefits the auto, oil and finance industries. That system is not optimal by any stretch of the imagination, but now that we’ve built it, we are stuck maintaining it and it would be extremely difficult to abandon it in favor of a better system like an efficient inter-city train network. There isn’t enough money to do both at the same tie. Second, the current approach is further entrenched by our federal political system which gives disproportionate votes and funds to the empty spaces between cities.

Now, if you’re a bus service, you benefit from that sunk investment in the highway system because you don’t have to pay anything near its true cost. Your customers are paying those costs in taxes and blood, but your prices appear cheap to them. Add in a few perks like wireless and clean comfortable seats, and your service becomes a near optimal way to navigate a very suboptimal transportation system.

collateral damage

Trump and Cruz are openly talking about indiscriminate killing of civilians abroad. Which is illegal. You’re not supposed to talk about it. There are really no perfect options when it comes to terrorism. Option 1 would be to only collect information abroad, then play defense at the border and within our own borders. You could argue that is sort of what the U.S. was doing before 9/11. It’s not hard for people to point to pictures of a smoking hole in Manhattan and make a case that is not good enough. Option 2 is scorched earth attacks against entire civilian populations anywhere we think a few enemies may be hiding. This is clearly illegal, although it has happened on a large scale in most wars. That is what Trump and Cruz are advocating. In the middle is pursuing “targeted” attacks abroad, destroying a few houses or groups of people that we think may contain our targets, usually with permission of the government of the host country. This (let’s call it Option 1.5) is the path Obama has chosen. How targeted is it really? Here’s a Guardian article from 2014 arguing that the United States has killed about 27 innocent people for every enemy killed. Most disturbingly, this includes many children. I personally like the idea of doing a really good job with #1. But I think Obama has made some tough choices and I respect that. Let’s not pretend that the more violent options are ever for the benefit of the people in the countries where they are carried out, though. They are about sacrificing the lives of a certain number of (mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-English speaking) civilians abroad, whose lives our government implicitly decides are worth less than the lives of civilians at home (although let’s remember that civilians at home are subject to mass death from gun violence, suicide, motor vehicle violence and lack of health care, which we don’t factor into this equation). I’ll give Trump and Cruz some small credit for saying what they mean and meaning what they say on this one. Listen carefully to what they say, and vote accordingly.

Ted Cruz

Thinking of Ted Cruz as an alternative to Donald Trump? Looking at Ted Cruz on ontheissues.org, here’s my assessment. He’s a traditional “god, gays, and guns” Christian fundamentalist. The government should have the right to tell us what to believe in (his particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, of course) and what it is okay for us to do in our own bedrooms and families. He would continue the failed “tough on crime” policies that have put so much of our poor and minority population behind bars at enormous taxpayer expense. He would “stand up” to nuclear-armed foreign governments like Russia, China and Iran through aggressive military means. On the other hand, in most matters not involving personal religious beliefs, sexual practices or armed violence against the already-born, he’s a “starve the beast” zealot who is ideologically opposed to the very idea of government. He would try to end government involvement in retirement, health care, education, environmental protection, financial stability and the ability to counteract recessions through fiscal and monetary policy.

Personally, I consider it completely non-partisan to look at the risks involved and just say no. This irrational, inconsistent set of ideas is not based on any sort of factual analysis or attempt to understand how the world works. It is likely to destabilize the economy and/or get us into wars. It’s just dangerous. Thinking people of any political stripe should just say no and back candidates who are interested in real solutions to real problems.

Romney vs. Trump

Here we have the last Republican nominee sagavely attacking the current front runner. It suggests to me that Republican leaders are worried the general election may be a lost cause. Maybe it is time for a rational pro-growth, pro-business party to emerge and leave the intolerant fringe behind. A rational pro-growth, pro-business party could embrace policies like clean elections, a universal health care system that takes the burden off employers, investment in education rather than prisons, a rational guest worker program, and a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Donald Trump is not a real Fascist, he just plays one on TV

I have been thinking that Trump is basically a psychopath, someone without normal human emotions or morals, who nonetheless has a very keen sense of how to manipulate other peoples’ emotions and morals for his own gain. This sounds bad, and it is. But the silver lining, if it is true, is that although he is appealing to some very ugly impulses in a certain segment of the public now, he would become more moderate if he were elected and had to appeal to the full range of the people. However, it turns out that people said the same thing about Hitler in 1922.

instrinsic vs. utilitarian value of nature

This thoughtful opinion piece in Trends in Ecology and Evolution talks about resolving conflicts between moral and economic arguments for conservation.

Biodiversity exists at multiple levels of organization, including at the levels of genes, populations, species, and ecosystems [11]. Although it might be argued that intrinsic value is associated with all levels of biological organization, this interpretation is of no practical use for planning and decision-making. If all levels of biological organization have equal intrinsic value, and if all species are regarded as having equal intrinsic value, then the implication is that no harm can be done in any way to any component of biodiversity [I don’t quite follow this last sentence…]. The concept of intrinsic value applied equally to all of nature therefore offers no way to prioritize and points only toward a halt to human progress because most human developments impact on nature to some degree. In practice, then, intrinsic value is commonly associated with certain species and ecosystems…

Species conservation and the beauty of nature are reasons for conservation commonly associated with intrinsic and non-use values. For instance, it can be regarded as morally right to maintain the existence of tigers in the wild, and to conserve the beauty of Yosemite Valley, regardless of human use. But accepting this should not preclude accepting arguments for conservation that are based on utilitarian value, particularly when we consider different levels of biological organization. For instance, populations of species provide vital ecosystem services such as pollination, such that loss of a population can cause loss of an ecosystem service that has utilitarian value. If the continued existence of populations of the species elsewhere means that the species itself is not threatened, or if the population lives in a human-dominated, non-wild landscape, then arguments for the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems are inadequate. Given that population declines are perhaps the most prevalent aspect of biodiversity loss [14], failure to recognize the utilitarian value of populations does a disservice to conservation.

Viewing reasons for conserving nature at different levels of biological organization thus clarifies when alternative arguments are most relevant, in particular that arguments based on intrinsic value are most commonly associated with species and ecosystem levels. This takes us some way toward melding utilitarian and intrinsic reasons for conservation, enabling both to be included within a multifaceted approach.

The article also wades into the debate on monetization.

I agree with using all the tools. We also have to recognize that even reasonable people have a range of values, and there are also unreasonable people out there, and we have to find arguments that appeal to a critical mass of people in order to make any progress.