The Electric Vehicle as a Solution to the Greenhouse Problem

Further to the discussion on climate change, in New Zealand now the argument is that we must reduce our greenhouse emissions by converting our vehicle fleet to electric vehicles. So, what about the world? Let us look at the details. Currently, there are estimated to be 1.2 billion vehicles on the roads, and by 2035 there will be two billion, assuming current trends continue. However, let us forget about such trends, and look at what it would take to switch 1.2 billion electric vehicles to electric. Obviously, at the price of them, that is not going to happen overnight, but how feasible is this in the long run?

For a scoping analysis, we need numbers, and the following is a “back of the envelope” type analysis. This is designed not to give answers, but at least to visualise the size of the problem. To start, we have to assume a battery size per vehicle, so I am going to assume each vehicle will have an 85 kWh battery assembly. A number of vehicles now have more than this, but equally many have less. However, for initial “back of the envelope” scoping, details are ignored. For the current purposes I shall assume an 85 kWh battery assembly and focus n the batteries.

First, we need a graphite anode, which, from web-provided data will require approximately 40 million t of graphite. Since Turkey alone has reserves of about 90 million t, strictly speaking, graphite is not a problem, although from a chemical point of view, what might be called graphite is not necessarily suitable. However, if there are impurities, they can be cleaned up. So far, not a limiting factor.

Next, each battery assembly will use about 6 kg of lithium, and using the best figures from Tesla, at least 17 kg of cobalt. This does not look too serious until we get to multiplying by 1.2 billion, which gets us to 7.2 million tonne of lithium, and 20.4 million t of cobalt. World production of lithium is 43,000 t/a, while that of cobalt is 110,000 t/a, and most of the cobalt goes to other uses already known. So overnight conversion is not possible. The world reserves of lithium are about 16 million t, so there is enough lithium, although since most of the reserves are not actually in production, presumably due to the difficulty in purifying the materials, we can assume a significant price increase would be required. Worse, the known reserves for cobalt are 7,100,000 so it is not possible to power these vehicles with our current “best battery technology”. There are alternatives, such as manganese based cathode additives, but with current technology they only have about 2/3 the power density and they can only last for about half the number of power cycles, so maybe this is not an answer.

Then comes the problem of how to power these vehicles. Let us suppose they use about ¼ of their energy on high-use days and they recharge for the next day. That requires about 24 billion kWhr of electricity generated that day for this purpose. World electricity production is currently a little over 21,000 TWh, Up to a point, that indicates “no problem”, except that over 1/3 of that came from coal, while gas and oil burning added to coal brought the fossil fuels contribution up to 2/3 of world energy production, and coal burning was the fastest growing contribution to energy demand. Also, of course, this is additional electricity we need. Global energy demand rose by 900 TWh in 2018. (Electricity statistics from the International Energy Agency.) So switching to electric vehicles will increase coal burning, which increases the emission of greenhouse gases, counter to the very problem you are trying to solve. Obviously, electricity supply is not a problem for transport, but it clearly overwhelms transport in contributing to the greenhouse gas problem. Germany closing its nuclear power stations is not a useful contribution to the problem.

It is frequently argued that solar power is the way to collect the necessary transport electricity. According to Wikipedia, the most productive solar power plant is in China’s Tengger desert, which produces 1.547 GW from 43 square kilometers. If we assume that it can operate like this for 6 hrs per day, we have 9.3 Gwh/day. The Earth has plenty of area, however, the 110,000 square km required is a significant fraction. Further, most places do not have such a friendly desert close by. Many have proposed that solar panels of the roof of houses could store power through the day and charge the vehicle at night, but to do that we have just doubled the battery requirements, and these are strained already. The solar panels could feed the grid through the day and charge the vehicles through the night when peak power demand has fallen away, so that would solve part of the problem, but now the solar panels have to make sense in terms of generating electricity for general purposes. Note that if we develop fusion power, which would solve a lot of energy requirements, it is most unlikely a fusion power plant could have its energy output varied too much, which would mean they would have run continuously through the night. At this point, charging electric cars would greatly assist the use of fusion power.

To summarise the use of electricity to power road transport using independent vehicles, there would need to be a significant increase in electricity production, but it is still a modest fraction of what we already generate. The reason it is so significant to New Zealand is that much of New Zealand electricity is renewable anyway, thanks to the heavy investment in hydropower. Unfortunately, that does not count because it was all installed prior to 1990. Those who turned off coal plants to switch to gas that had suddenly became available around 1990 did well out of these protocols, while those who had to resort to thermal because the hydro was fully utilised did not. However, in general the real greenhouse problem lies with the much bigger thermal power station emissions, especially the coal-fired stations. The limits to growth of electric vehicles currently lie with battery technology, and for electric vehicles to make more than a modest contribution to the transport problems, we need a fundamentally different form of battery or fuel cell. However, to power them, we need to develop far more productive electricity generation that does emit greenhouse gases.

Finally, I have yet to mention the contribution of biofuels. I shall do that later, but if you want a deeper perspective than in my blogs, my ebook “Biofuels” is 99c this week at Smashwords, in all formats. (https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/454344.)  Three other fictional ebooks are also on discount. (Go to https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/IanMiller)

Advertisements

Climate Change and the Oceans

It appears that people are finally seeing that climate change is real, although the depth of their realization leaves much to be desired. Thus German politicians are going to close down their nuclear reactors and presumably burn more carbon. Not exactly constructive. A number of US politicians simply deny it, as if to say that if you deny it often enough, it will go away. Here in New Zealand we have politicians who say, yes it is real, but what they are doing about it tends to be to encourage electric vehicles and bicycles, with a bit of tree planting. Good intentions, but perhaps the commitment is a little less than necessary, but still better than the heads in sand approach. So, consider the size of the problem: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees compared with pre-industrial levels could require the removal of 20 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year until 2100. That is a much bigger than average ask. However, planting trees is a start, and the good news is they keep working at it, year after year. So, what to do? In my opinion, there is no one big fix. The concept of beating climate change with a thousand cuts is more appropriate. Part of the problem is to persuade people to do something. They turn around and say, why me? Who pays?

As an example, it has been argued that in the US the application of biochar to soils could improve grain harvests by 4.87 – 6.4 %. The carbon tends to last for maybe hundreds of years, at least to some extent, so the argument goes that it will eventually pay for itself, but initially it is a cost. This works particularly well in acidic heavily weathered soils, where the yields are generally somewhat low because they do not hold nutrients well. This is also not exactly a single bullet solution, since with good uptake, it would sequester and offset about 0.5% of US emissions.

There was an article in a recent edition of Nature that summarised marine geoengineering. Rather pickily, they stated that none of the proposals have been rigorously tested scientifically nor published in peer-reviewed journals. Part of this gripe is fair: they complain that results have been published, but in places like websites that no longer work. That is a separate issue really, and provided the work is properly done, peer-reviewed journals, following editorial contractions to save space, may not be the best. But let us leave that for the moment. The oceans are an attractive place for one reason: they are not doing much else other than being a place for fish to live in. Land tends to be owned, and much is either required for environmental reserves or food production. Certainly, there is a lot of land that is little better than waste, often left over from previous forest harvesting, and there is no reason why this could not be planted. Another useful contribution, but what are the options for the sea?

The first approach noted by Nature is to try to reduce the albedo, by reflecting incoming sunlight. Two ways proposed for doing this would be to put films on the water, or to spray water upwards and let it form clouds. The latter should be reasonably harmless, leaving aside the problem of whether some places might be adversely affected, a problem that applies to any such proposal. The former could have a serious adverse effect on marine life. Squirting water into the air to form clouds would seem to reasonably easily tested, but it also leaves the question, who is going to do it because ultimately this concept involves a cost for which there is no return.

Two more processes noted in the article are the spreading of alkaline rock into the sea to absorb CO2, and the spreading of iron-rich fertiliser to promote the growth of microalgae. The problem for the first is what sort of rock? A billion tonne of burnt lime per year would do, but first it would have to have its CO2 pyrolysed off, so that would emit as much as it saved. We could try basalt, such as peridotite, but if we powdered that it would make more sense to apply it to land where previously we had applied lime because it does much the same job, but also absorbs carbon dioxide. The iron fertiliser case is more interesting. There have been experiments to do this. An example: a ship sailed around, spread the crushed rock, and found that yes, there was a microalgal bloom. However, they also concluded that the amount of carbon that was fixed by sinking to the bottom of the sea was insufficient to justify the exercise. That, however, omits two other thoughts. First, what happened to the algae? If it was eaten by fish (or mammals) that would increase the food supply, and an increase in animal biomass also fixes carbon. The second thought is that if it were harvested, it could well be used to make biofuels, which would reduce the requirement for oil consumption, so that is equally useful. Can it be harvested? That is a question that needs more research. As a general rule, if there is just one thing that needs doing, there is usually a way, if you can find it. The making of fuel is easy. I have done it. There is, of course, the problem of making money from it, and with the current cost of oil that is impossible. Also, scale-up is still a problem to be solved.

The final two proposals were to cultivate macroalgae and to upwell deep water and cool the top. The latter does nothing for the carbon problem, so I shall not think too hard about that, but it is almost essential for the former. In the 1970s the US Navy carried out experiments on growing macroalgae on rafts in deep water, and they only grew when deep water was brought to the surface to act as a fertiliser. These algae can also be used as fuel, or the carbon absorbed somewhere else, and some algae are the fastest growing plants on Earth. It is quite fascinating to watch through a microscope and see continual cell division. This may be easier than some think. Apparently floating Sargassum is filling up some sections of the Atlantic and off the coast of Mexico.

So the question then is, should any of this be done? The macroalgae probably have the lowest probability of undesired side effects, since it is merely farming on water that is otherwise unused. However, to absorb enough carbon dioxide to make a serious difference an awful lot of algae would have to be grown. However, the major oceans have plenty of area.

Ebook Discount.

Through the month of July, my ebooks at Smashwords will be discounted. The fictional ebooks include”

Puppeteer:  A technothriller where governance is breaking down due to government debt, and where a terrorist attack threatens to kill tens to hundreds of millions of people and destroy billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/69696

‘Bot War:  A technothriller, set about 8 years later, a more concerted series of terrorist attacks made by stolen drones lead to partial governance breaking down.

Smashwords    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/677836

Troubles. Dystopian, set about 10 years later still, the world is emerging from anarchy, and there is a scramble to control the assets. Some are just plain greedy, some think corporate efficiency should rule, some think the individual should have the right to thrive, some think democracy should prevail as long as they can rig it, while the gun is the final arbiter.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/174203

 

Earth’s Twin: Venus

Leaving aside the Moon and the Sun, Venus is the brightest object in the sky, and at times the closest. Further, Venus is the only planet that is comparable to Earth; its mass is about 81.5%, its size is about 95%, and its gravity is about 90.5% that of Earth. The orbit of Venus has only 1/3 of Earth’s eccentricity, and while Earth has an axial tilt of 23.5 degrees (which results in right now I am embedded in winter and many of the readers will be enjoying a pleasant summer, or maybe a heat wave) Venus has a tilt of only 2.6 degrees. That means that Venus has a more or less uniform temperature and no seasons. At first sight, that would make it an attractive target for space probes, but while NASA has sent eleven orbiters and eight landers to Mars, it has only sent two orbiters to Venus. Why the lack? Not for lack of interest since from 1990 NASA has considered nearly thirty proposals, but it approved none. The dead hand of the committee strikes again. The reason is that Venus, up close, is strangely unattractive.

The first problem is atmospheric pressure, which is about 90 bar over most of the planet, and it has an average surface temperature of about 460 degrees C but this can vary by +160 degrees C. The second problem is the nature of the atmosphere. Most of it is carbon dioxide. Venus also has about four times the amount of nitrogen than Earth has, and all of that is relatively harmless. What is less harmless is the atmosphere has clouds of sulphuric acid, together with hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is particularly nasty, because it reacts with glass, and while the sulphuric acid will attack all the basic electronics, etc, the hydrogen fluoride will attack lenses. Very shortly, photography, or seeing where a rover is going, will no longer be possible. And, of course, if it can survive, the heat soon kills it. The first lander to return data was Venera 7, a 1970 Soviet lander that survived for 23 minutes. In 1975, Venera 9 sent back the first pictures from the surface, but it too did not last very long. Funding committees do not encourage very expensive rovers with a very short life.

This may change. NASA is designing a “station” that should last at least sixty days, and operate at the ambient temperature. The electronics would be made of silicon carbide, a substance that conducts electricity and melts somewhere above 2,800 degrees C. No danger of that melting, although all the metals in the craft would have to be resistant to the ambient heat and the corrosion. Titanium would probably manage reasonably well. So maybe we shall get to know more about the planet.

There have apparently been proposals to “colonise” Venus through “settlements” floating above the cloud levels, i.e.presumably some ship-like structure supported by gigantic balloons. Personally, I feel this is unreal. The total weight must displace an equal weight of gas, and the idea is to get above the clouds. Up there, the gas is nowhere near as dense (the pressure is only about half that 90 bar at the top of the highest mountain) and to go higher the pressure really drops away. So to support sufficient mass you would need very large balloons, made of what? Any fabric or rubber would be broken down by the solar UV at that height. Metals would corrode. And what would the gas be? The obvious ones would be hydrogen and helium (no danger of fire because there is no air) but these gases leak like crazy. You may think you can hold it, but for centuries? Then there is another minor problem: at the top of the atmosphere winds can reach several hundred kilometres per hour.

So what is “wrong” with Venus, from our point of view? There are two things. The first is the very slow rotation, which happens to be retrograde. The direction is not so much a problem, but the slowness is. However, the main one is, no significant water. If Venus had the amount of water Earth has, it would have fixed all that carbon dioxide as limestone or dolomite, in which case the atmospheric pressure would be about 3 times our atmosphere (because it has four times the amount of nitrogen). If we wanted to have breathable air, we would have to add another atmosphere of oxygen.

So in theory we could terraform Venus. At the expense of much energy what we would have to do is bring in a number of Kuiper Belt objects, or maybe cometary material from around Jupiter would be better because they contain much less additional nitrogen and carbon monoxide, and make them hit Venus, preferably on the side in a way that the angular momentum of the incoming object was added to the current Venusian rotation, in other words, spin it up. Give it water, and chemistry would do the rest, although it would probably also be preferable to cool it by shading it from the sun at least to some extent. Yes, the temperatures would still be high, but as long as it can cool to 300 degrees C, the pressure will ensure there is some liquid, and the fixing of the gas will start, and initiate positive feedback

Suppose we could give Venus as much water as Earth, then the planet would be more like a water world. It is an interesting question whether Venus has any felsic/granitic material. This is the stuff that makes continents. The great bulk of the material on any rocky planet is basaltic, which in turn is because the oxides of silicon, magnesium and iron are the most commonly available rock-forming materials. Aluminium, as an element, is over an order of magnitude less common than silicon, which it replaces in aluminosilicates. Being less dense than basalt, granite floats on the basalt, provided it can separate itself from the basalt. In my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”, I propose that the separation essentially has to take place prior to and during planetary formation. Venus does have two minicontinents: Ishtar and Aphrodite Terrae.

The actual differentiation of the planet, when the granite moves from the deep and comes out on the surface occurs slowly (the small amounts of plagioclase on Mars apparently took about two billion years.) and the rate probably depends on the amount actually accreted. The evidence is that on Earth very large amounts erupted in massive pulses. In the absence of such granite, a large planet will be rather flat, apart from some volcanic peaks.

There would still be a problem in that Venus has no plate tectonics. They are needed to provide the recycling of carbon dioxide, as eventually if the lot were fixed, any life would presumably die. We don’t know what starts plate tectonics. One possibility is the presence of granitic continents, another is the forces arising from rotational motion.  It is just possible they could start if there were more rotational motion, but we don’t know. All in all, not an attractive planet in detail, so maybe we should look after our own better.

More on MH 17

Everyone knows that Malaysian airliner flight MH 17 that overflew Eastern Ukraine was brought down by a missile. We also know that previously the western Ukrainian forces had been carrying out bombing raids on the Eastern break-away province, and had lost at least one aircraft to ground missiles. Under the circumstances, some may think that it was totally foolhardy to fly over the area, and also Ukraine should have closed its air space to commercial flights. Mistakes happen, and the eastern forces obviously had missile defences.

However, international investigators have filed charges in a Dutch court, alleging four defendants committed murder. One defendant is Igor Girkin, a former FSB colonel, and at the time the Minister for Defence for the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. Exactly how he is linked as a murderer is hard to tell at this stage because he would not have been present at the firing of the missile, and apart from the fact he is a rebel in Kyiv’s eyes, his role as Defence Minister does not seem to be that evil. There is no evidence so far he ordered such an aircraft to be brought down. The fact that he was organising a defence against the bombing of civilians brings international justice to an interesting point: what criteria have to be met for a rebellious zone to claim it is self-governing? If people are being bombed, do they have the right to defend themselves? What say you?

The next two defendants were Sergei Dubinsky and Oleg Pulatov. According to the New York Times article, they worked under Girkin and had been agents of the GRU, which was implicated in interfering with the US election. Talk about guilt by association. The fourth, Leonid Kharchenko is Ukrainian and was apparently a leader of a separatist combat unit. Just maybe he was associated with the event. So far there is no evidence produced that any of these four were anywhere near the missile launch, but of course they may have some evidence and are leaving it for the trial. The basis of Girkin’s charges appears to be that he made a phone call (intercepted) to Russia asking for antiaircraft defence material. If you are a Minister for Defence, and you are being bombed, is that an unreasonable thing to ask for? According to the Dutch prosecutor, they are “just as punishable as the person who committed the crime.” They are also charged with obtaining the missile with the intent to “shoot down a plane”. Well, that is a surprise. Why else would they obtain missiles? Presumably, the Dutch have no missiles, or they would be criminals too.

There is also the question of where the missile came from. Originally, of course, it came from Russia, and it is agreed by all involved that it was a Buk missile. The investigative team said it is “convinced” the missile came from the Russian army’s 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade based in Kursk. The Russians deny that. They also point out that the outer casing of the missile has been recovered, and the manufacturing number is clearly identifiable. According to the BUK factory, that missile was shipped to Ukraine during the old Soviet Union. It should also be noted the missile is obsolete, and a modern unit of the Russian army would not have them. It is well established that Ukraine had a major arsenal in Eastern Ukraine, so maybe it came from there, but even if Russia supplied arms, then what?

The Dutch prosecutor has also accused Russia of providing no assistance to this case. Apparently, providing shipping details of the missile that does not fit the charges is “of no assistance”. That says something about the nature of the charges. Interestingly, the premier of Malaysia has also denounced the charges, saying “so far, there is no proof, only hearsay”. Malaysia is part of the investigation, and of course it was its aircraft that was brought down.

The case is confused because the Joint Investigative Team is trying to identify two men who were overheard in intercepted communications discussing the movements of a convoy the day before the attack. The team also admits there is no evidence these calls have anything to do with MH 17. This is relevant to the alleged “Russian obstruction”. Apparently, the GRU were supplied with questions demanding to know whether certain people were GRU officers and where they have been moving. I can just see The CIA giving details of who their agents are and what they have been doing.

So where does all this leave us? The current position seems to be that the accused could be linked to arms procurement. Does that make it a crime to supply arms that end up killing civilians? What about those supplying arms to those bombing Yemen? So far, at least 70,000 dead, but the Dutch don’t seem to find that exceptional. If it is a crime to shoot down an airliner, what happened to the US Navy officers that shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft some time ago? The short answer was the US regarded that as an accident, and I am reasonably convinced the US officers taking part in this would not have intended to kill civilians. They made an error, despite being extremely well-trained and having the best equipment available. So why is it not possible that Ukrainian irregulars, with little military training, could not make the same sort of mistake? My view is simple: do not fly over war zones where it is known the defenders are being bombed, and have anti-aircraft missiles. This trial, if it ever takes place, will be simply political. The defendants will be absent, which makes the whole point ridiculous, other than, maybe, to make the Dutch feel good. Then again, maybe that is a benefit.

Chaos in the Gulf?

What is going on in the Gulf of Oman? Four tankers off the UAE port of Fujairah had been struck on May 12, and two further offshore on June 13.  The most obvious consequence is that the world’s oil supplies are going to be threatened because already the owners of tankers are starting to stop sending them to the Gulf until this situation resolves itself. As of the time of writing, it is unclear who is responsible, although the US has immediately blamed Iran. Iran has previously threatened to close the gulf, and it is easy to jump to the conclusion they are doing it, but the fact is the latest happened at the same time as Japan and Germany are working to ease tensions and to ease sanctions. There was a visit from the Prime Minister of Japan to Tehran so surely that would be a stupid time to do that, especially to Japanese ships. It would be more likely that someone would want to prevent the Japanese from getting friendly with Iran.

The cause of the explosions is believed to be limpet mines. We “know” that because after the explosions, the US released a video showing the Iranian navy sent a boat to rescue sailors on the Japanese ship, and they disabled and removed an unexploded limpet mine. This prodded the US to accuse them of having put it there. There is the question as to why they got there so quickly, but one reasonable answer is the Gulf of Oman is rather narrow, they regularly patrol, and if Iran were innocent and the naval boat heard an explosion and saw smoke coming from a ship, it would be natural for it to go and assist since it could be by far the closest possible source of help.

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, immediately blamed Iran, stating his blame was “based on intelligence” and they have the ability. He claimed nobody else had the ability, then he stated that the US will defend its interests, stand by its partners and allies to safeguard global commerce and regional stability. He offered no evidence for his claim and took zero questions.

An immediate problem here is that Pompeo has previously told blatant lies about Iran, and at an audience at Texas A&M University he seemed to boast that when he was Director of the CIA, “We lied, we cheated, we stole.” In short, he is not a man to be taken at face value, and worse, the US has a history of using lies and false flags to justify military intervention. You may recall the “firm intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction”. John Bolton is also known to be a liar when necessary to achieve his goals, he was a strong advocate for the Iraq war, and he has made statements to the effect that there should be military action against Iran. Back to Pompeo, he was reported here as stating, in response to a question of why Iran would do it, that if you keep poking someone in the eye with a stick, you have to expect a response. That does not prove that Iran did this, but it does strongly suggest that the US has a strongly malevolent policy towards Iran. It also makes a lie of Pompeo’s claim that the attack was unprovoked. If Iran did do it, the sanctions applied to Iran, and Pompeo’s “poking its eyes with a stick” could be regarded as acts of war, and whatever else, they would not be unprovoked.

The next question is how were these mines attached? There would seem to be only two methods: from a boat at sea, or in a harbour. A ship at sea, if there is any sort of watch, would see the perpetrators. There appear to be no reports about this. These were limpet mines, which would be difficult to attach to a moving ship anyway, so perhaps they were attached while in harbour. It should be noted the mines were attached above the waterline. The US video that has shown the Iranians removing an unexploded mine (assuming that was what it was) has the Iranians standing on the deck of a patrol boat to reach it. This would be difficult to attach at sea. Images of the other ship show corresponding holes well above the waterline.

Perhaps we should look at cui bono– who benefits? The Japanese Prime Minister was in Tehran attempting to negotiate a de-escalation of US-Iran tension, and Trump had given his blessing to it. Why then attack a Japanese ship? Why rescue the crew and remove the limpet mine? All this at a time when Iran was busy negotiating with Europe. Why attach explosives so high above the waterline? The only reason for doing that is that you do not wish to sink the ship. Why not? Presumably because you do not want any accidental evidence that it was you who did it to blame you for the damage. So who wants to merely be a nuisance and strictly limit any damage?

There are other players. The region is torn with the struggle between Shia and Sunni Islam. Iran is helping Shias and has fought Sunni extremists, including ISIS, in Iraq and Syria, and it supports the Houthis in Yemen, who are being bombed by the Saudis on a regular basis. Against Iran is a group of countries including the Sunni states, probably the Sunnis in Iraq, al Qaeda and its offshoots, and, for totally different reasons, Israel and the US. The problem for the Sunni states such as the Saudis is that while they have a lot of money and buy a lot of armaments, and are happy enough to bomb the defenceless, they are not soldiers and do not want to fight on the ground. Accordingly, they might well want to goad the US into going to war with Iran.

So who did it? I do not know, but common sense suggests to me one more likely suspect would be some Sunni fringe group, such as al Qaeda, or one of its many offshoots, out for revenge against Iran. They cannot get it themselves directly, but they would have their revenge if the US went to war against Iran. There is reasonable evidence consistent with it having done that in Syria with the so-called chemical weapon attacks. The area is a powder keg.  Against that, why protect the ship against sinking? If ships sank, the US would be more likely to go to war. However, despite what some in the US may have us believe, I believe it really does not want to get into a war with Iran. While Iraq had an ideal landscape for mechanised war, Iran does not, and unlike the Iraqis, the Iranians have had some battle experience. A war there would be much worse for America than Afghanistan was, and that was not exactly good.

Book Discount

From June 13 – 20, Legatus Legionis will be discounted to 99c on Amazon in the US and 99p in the UK. The second book in a series, in which science fiction has some real science. Have you got what it takes to actually develop a theory? In the first book in the series, Gaius Claudius Scaevola is asked by Pallas Athene to do three things, before he will be transported to another planet. The scientific problem is to prove the Earth goes around the Sun with what was known and was available in the first century. Can you do it? The answer is given here, but try it first. Following Athene’s prophecy, Scaevola meets the first woman in his life, and ignores her. When Caligulae is assassinated, Scaevola must save Claudius from the attempted Scribonianus coup, then he is given command of Legio XX Valeria for the invasion of Britain. Leaving aside Scaevola’s actions, this is as historically accurate as I can make it, but since the relevant volume of The Annals are lost, there will be inaccuracies, but equally that gives some opportunity to imagine. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JRH83E2