Sons of guns

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when you're so pessimistic about an issue that you worry when someone takes a principled stand on something. Yet I now feel even less optimistic about US gun laws than I did before. 

When Obama praised Australia's gun laws and suggested they should be emulated, I was astonished and relieved. (A large proportion of US citizens fail to see the bleeding obvious link between heaps of guns and piles of corpses.) But I started to change my mind soon after.

Don't get me wrong: Obama's praise of our gun laws showed that he was indeed serious about ending mass shootings. Yet of course, the problem is that Australia-style measures are unlikely to find support with almost half of American voters,who view gun ownership as a fundamental part of their, and their country's, identity.

Remember, Obama didn’t back some half-assed gun confiscation measure today -- he went for the full Monty. When these laws were introduced in Australia, they ended mass shootings instantly. There's only one way to crush gun homicide, if you're serious about it -- take guns away from 'good guys' and 'bad guys' alike. Real life isn't Dirty Harry, and you're endangering everyone around you if you think it is.  

Obama understands that gun laws can only be tackled on a federal level. As Mother Jones pointed out recently, state gun bans don't work that well, because you just can get one from the next state over. (The NRA and its acolytes know this, of course, which is why they're so vehemently against a federal ban.) The exception that proves the rule, of course, is Hawaii. 

Yet I'm starting to think that Obama's surprisingly tough stance might be the biggest miscalculation he's ever made. For example, I can easily see the Republican Party using this announcement to stymie the remains of Obama's presidency. It would also be very easy for them to tar Hillary Clinton with the same brush, given that she also supports stricter laws.

From there, it's only a short step to Republicans painting Democrats as a threat to glorious liberty. (Oh look, it's already happened.) Considering how crazy and unelectable the Republican Party's become, this could be their best shot at getting back into power. Moreover, if things go wrong, it could be years until the Democrats are able to extricate themselves from being damningly accused of sanity.

As someone who detests nonfictional guns, I can’t believe I’m already starting to see Obama's remarks in such a negative light. Possible outcome: Obama floats rational gun laws, more sweeping than anything that has been implemented in the US. The Tea Party use these suggestions to whip half the public into a frenzy (unfortunately, the vastly scarier half). The whole thing explodes in a vast mushroom cloud of macho states-rights lunacy.

Howard banned pretty much all guns back in 1996. It will be interesting to see whether Obama does the same, or only goes after semi-automatic assault rifles (now euphemistically called 'long guns' by fanboys). Unless he wants to roll the legislative equivalent of an icosahedral dice, he'll stay well away from handguns: the US public will never go for it. Handgun ownership in that country now has the feel of an eternal physical fact, like the chemical composition of hydrochloric acid. 

If Obama & Co. come up with a carefully expressed plan to ban semiautomatics with large clips, he may have a fairly good shot at actually getting this passed. The problem is, supporters of extreme gun laws are much scarier than, say, animal rights advocates. Piss off the latter group, and you may get a few loud protests here and there. Piss off gun rights activists, and who knows what the hell you're in for.

Solar planes?

When the era of cheap air travel ends in a haze of kerosene fumes, we may have to once again view the world's faraway places only in our imaginations.

Yet even though aircraft cause around 5% of CO2 emissions, perhaps there's a way out. I recently read an article about the first viable electric airplane, a creature which was previously deemed unfeasible. For now, it's only small with limited range ... but it's possible.

Let's get serious, though. What about powering 400-person planes, say, with completely renewable fuel sources? What about the entire world's fleet?

Solar-power air travel might be a fix. Not directly -- we can't run a massive aircraft on solar -- but perhaps we can run it on hydrogen made from solar. If solar power continues to expand at its current rate, we might be able to develop a surplus store of hydrogen to supply the aviation industry.

Let's figure out how much hydrogen (H2) fuel we'd need to get from Sydney to Dallas on a 747. (The world's longest route, I think.) A 747's tank holds 240,000L, so let's assume that monster route uses the whole darn lot. 

A solar plant can make hydrogen via electrolysis -- that is, splitting water into its constituents of hydrogen and oxygen. According to Popular Mechanics, creating 150 million US tons of hydrogen (around 140 million metric tonnes) would take '113 million 40-kilowatt systems'. This works out at 4520 GW. 

Let's say we need four times as much hydrogen to fuel the plane as we would need kerosene -- near enough to 1,000,000L. (Hydrogen has less energy content than kerosene.) One litre of liquid hydrogen weighs only 70g. So, 1,000,000L of hydrogen -- the amount needed for our flight -- would weigh 70,000kg, or 70 tonnes.

Now, we have to figure out how many times 70 goes into 150 million. Answer: 2.14 million. 

So, 4520GW/2.14 million = 2.1MW. A 2MW solar plant like this one could theoretically produce enough hydrogen fuel for a single Sydney--Dallas flight every hour. Let's say this particular solar array could produce 5 flights' worth a day. 

There are around 15,000 commercial aircraft in the world--say, the equivalent of 5,000 747s. That means you'd need 1000 2MW solar arrays to produce enough hydrogen to supply the world's passenger aircraft fleet. 

I feel like there are many, many places I could have made a miscalculation. What are people's thoughts on my back-of-the-envelope calculations?