AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.

Post by Titus G
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

bliss

Cryptoengineer

2024-10-30 01:37:43 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

I'd like to see some numbers on this.

Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.

But:

A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.

AND

Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.

This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.

pt

Titus G

2024-10-30 06:08:09 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

I'd like to see some numbers on this.
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
AND
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.
pt

I am quite ignorant regarding Climate Change with most of my
understanding from media headlines and discussions here. I have read
only the headlines and await comment from our resident expert, William Hyde.

The study was from Cornell University.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2024/10/liquefied-natural-gas-carbon-footprint-worse-coal

Biden faces climate dilemma over LNG exports to Europe.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-faces-climate-dilemma-over-061519325.html

Scott Lurndal

2024-10-30 14:32:05 UTC

Post by Titus G
I am quite ignorant regarding Climate Change with most of my
understanding from media headlines and discussions here. I have read
only the headlines and await comment from our resident expert, William Hyde.

I recommend

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

Scott Lurndal

2024-10-30 14:31:01 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Titus G
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of thatÂ Â A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!

Â Â Â Â More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

In addition, one must account for the energy required to
liquify methane.

"The energy required to chill, ship, and regasify the
fossil fuel makes it far more carbon-intensive and
increases the potential for leakage of dangerous methane."

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/liquefied-natural-gas-101

"LNG exports put upward pressure on gas bills for U.S.
consumers, forcing them to compete with overseas customers
for gas produced in this country."

Lynn will, of course, dismiss these criticisms as they are
counterproductive to his bottom line.

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-30 19:32:06 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

In addition, one must account for the energy required to
liquify methane.
"The energy required to chill, ship, and regasify the
fossil fuel makes it far more carbon-intensive and
increases the potential for leakage of dangerous methane."
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/liquefied-natural-gas-101
"LNG exports put upward pressure on gas bills for U.S.
consumers, forcing them to compete with overseas customers
for gas produced in this country."
Lynn will, of course, dismiss these criticisms as they are
counterproductive to his bottom line.

The process of liquefaction for LNG uses about 6% of the natural gas
liquefied. The newest LNG plants cost about $12 billion and there are
around 50 ??? of them in the world. The USA has 23 ??? operating LNG
plants in Texas and Louisiana.

The price of natural gas today is less than $3/mmbtu in the USA. That
is a bargain as it is the same price that natural gas was in the 1980s
in the USA. My employer at the time, TXU, one of the largest users of
natural gas in the USA, paid about $2.35/mmbtu in the 1980s. I know it
well from when I worked in short term dispatch (1 week to 52 weeks) from
1986 to 1989.

Four years ago during The Koof shutdown, over 2/3rds of the natural gas
only wells were shutdown in the USA. We have about 1/2 of the natural
gas only wells still shutdown in the USA. We are swimming in the stuff.

Asia is paying about $35/mmbtu. Europe is paying about $30/mmbtu. The
countries of Qatar, Trinidad, Australia, and the USA are providing LNG
to the rest of the world not in the middle East.

BTW, an mmbtu is a million btus, an energy dimensional unit.

Lynn

Robert Carnegie

2024-11-04 21:34:51 UTC

Post by Cryptoengineer
I'd like to see some numbers on this.
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-
mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
AND
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.

I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
converted to CO2.

Cryptoengineer

2024-11-05 01:13:23 UTC

Post by Robert Carnegie

I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
converted to CO2.

Yes, and far faster then CO2 gets recycled. But it's also a far
more portent as a greenhouse gas, pound for pound, as C02. Numbers
matter, and figuring out the relative contribution of each to
warming \caused is a non-trivial calculation.

pt

Scott Dorsey

2024-10-30 20:55:02 UTC

Post by Bobbie Sellers
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.

Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-30 22:50:18 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Bobbie Sellers
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.

All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will make
it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..

bliss

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-30 23:07:03 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.

We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.

Lynn

Scott Lurndal

2024-10-31 00:04:05 UTC

Â Â Â Â More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe.Â The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.Â So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

Â Â Â Â There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
Â Â Â Â All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
Â Â Â Â When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum?Â And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
Â Â Â Â If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.Â That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
Â Â Â Â bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.

"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"

"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3

It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

Post by Lynn McGuire
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-31 00:48:49 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.

bliss

2024-10-31 09:47:11 UTC

Â Â Â Â More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Paul S Person

2024-10-31 16:06:39 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.

Yet both were civilizations.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-31 18:58:37 UTC

On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...

Post by Bobbie Sellers
yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the
lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would
be fertilizers.

Lynn

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-31 20:11:39 UTC

...

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Global warming is going to result in many deaths because
fertile lands are already being flooded, See Bangladesh.
Tractors can be run on big batteries just like cars and a portion
of the farmer's acres can be turned to power generation.
Everyone on the planet now and in the future is doomed to
death because that is the payment for life. We all die sooner
or later and everyone puts it off as long as possible,
if sane and not living in constant pain.

But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.

bliss

2024-10-31 20:30:12 UTC

...

Â Â Â Â yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
Â Â Â Â bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Our present civilization is built on cheap energy.Â Getting rid of fossil
fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the planet.Â Maybe a
10X crash.Â The primary cause of the crash would be the lack of tractors
and harvesters.Â The secondary cause of the crash would be fertilizers.
Lynn

Global warming is going to result in many deaths because
fertile lands are already being flooded, See Bangladesh.

Incorrect. The planet is greening, harvest seasons lengthening. Also notes
that we've been able to handle floods since the chinese were fighting with
the yellow river a few 1000 years ago. So there are no worries on that
front.

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-31 20:33:19 UTC

...

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be
the lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash
would be fertilizers.
Lynn

    Global warming is going to result in many deaths because
fertile lands are already being flooded, See Bangladesh.
Tractors can be run on big batteries just like cars and a portion
of the farmer's acres can be turned to power generation.
    Everyone on the planet now and in the future is doomed to
death because that is the payment for life. We all die sooner
or later and everyone puts it off as long as possible,
if sane and not living in constant pain.
    But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
    Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
    bliss

Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do. The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service
conditions. Above 140 F, the liquid lithium batteries can spontaneously
combust.

And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment. That just means that the equipment gets used even
harder.

Lynn

Scott Lurndal

2024-10-31 21:15:33 UTC

...

Â Â Â Â But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
Â Â Â Â Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
Â Â Â Â bliss

Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do.

You are not a farmer, I see. While there are short periods
of the year where a combine harvester may work the night, that's the
exception not the rule. Likewise during field prep, although
there is seldom any demand to do that during darkness.

Mostly, tractor use is intermittent throughout a day.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service

https://www.tesla.com/semi

Post by Lynn McGuire
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment.

Which is mostly in the electronics, IC engines, and proprietary software.
Replacing the IC powertrain with an electric powertrain will certainly
reduce the overall cost.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/11/27/all-farm-equipment-including-tractors-and-combines-will-be-electric/

"A couple of Hylio\u2019s biggest drones, the AG-272, can
apply as much product in a day as a $700,000, top-end,
John Deere tractor, but cost only $200,000 with trailer
and support gear and run on dirt-cheap electricity. And
they can be fixed at the side of the field. They are incredibly
simple devices with few moving parts, and servicing them is
trivial for farmers. That\u2019s no longer true for tractors and combines."

"What about seeding? Well, as with product application, seeding
is increasingly done with seeding drones that put seeds precisely
where they should be with equal spacing and no soil compaction.

"But you can\u2019t harvest crops with a quadcopter. And you can\u2019t
spread tons of fertilizer across massive fields before planting. However,
fields are flat, speeds are low and torque is king. Those are the
conditions in which battery electric vehicles shine.

"That\u2019s with today\u2019s battery energy densities. As the series
has made clear, battery energy densities that are double what Teslas
currently use are commercially available from Chinese EV battery giant
CATL now. Further, silicon battery chemistries with a potential energy
capacity five times that of CATL\u2019s new battery are commercializing
in 2023. There are multiple vendors and groups which have demonstrated
the technical breakthroughs required for their use. As a reminder,
silicon is cheap and ubiquitous."

Scott Lurndal

2024-11-01 13:59:43 UTC

...

Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do.

You are not a farmer, I see. While there are short periods
of the year where a combine harvester may work the night, that's the
exception not the rule. Likewise during field prep, although
there is seldom any demand to do that during darkness.
Mostly, tractor use is intermittent throughout a day.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service

https://www.tesla.com/semi

Post by Lynn McGuire
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment.

Which is mostly in the electronics, IC engines, and proprietary software.
Replacing the IC powertrain with an electric powertrain will certainly
reduce the overall cost.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/11/27/all-farm-equipment-including-tractors-and-combines-will-be-electric/
"A couple of Hylio\u2019s biggest drones, the AG-272, can
apply as much product in a day as a $700,000, top-end,
John Deere tractor, but cost only $200,000 with trailer
and support gear and run on dirt-cheap electricity. And
they can be fixed at the side of the field. They are incredibly
simple devices with few moving parts, and servicing them is
trivial for farmers. That\u2019s no longer true for tractors and combines."
"What about seeding? Well, as with product application, seeding
is increasingly done with seeding drones that put seeds precisely
where they should be with equal spacing and no soil compaction.
"But you can\u2019t harvest crops with a quadcopter. And you can\u2019t
spread tons of fertilizer across massive fields before planting. However,
fields are flat, speeds are low and torque is king. Those are the
conditions in which battery electric vehicles shine.
"That\u2019s with today\u2019s battery energy densities. As the series
has made clear, battery energy densities that are double what Teslas
currently use are commercially available from Chinese EV battery giant
CATL now. Further, silicon battery chemistries with a potential energy
capacity five times that of CATL\u2019s new battery are commercializing
in 2023. There are multiple vendors and groups which have demonstrated
the technical breakthroughs required for their use. As a reminder,
silicon is cheap and ubiquitous."

The harvesters (cotton, corn, maze, etc) around here run day and night
when they run for a couple of months in the fall. There are not many
charging outlets on the fields surrounding my house and my office complex.
I have watched the farmer of 900+ acres just to the south of my office
complex plow his 900+ acres in just a week using a huge 300+ hp turbo
diesel tractor that can pull a 20+ foot wide batwing plow. He has huge
flood lights on his tractor and runs 16+ hours a day at 70 years old.
He just plowed everything under for the third ??? time this year after
the harvester went through.

And they'll be able to do all that with electric tractors. Didn't you
read the article?

Lynn McGuire

2024-11-01 17:03:14 UTC

...

    But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
    Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
    bliss

Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do.

You are not a farmer, I see. While there are short periods
of the year where a combine harvester may work the night, that's the
exception not the rule. Likewise during field prep, although
there is seldom any demand to do that during darkness.
Mostly, tractor use is intermittent throughout a day.

Post by Lynn McGuire
The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service

https://www.tesla.com/semi

Post by Lynn McGuire
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment.

Which is mostly in the electronics, IC engines, and proprietary software.
Replacing the IC powertrain with an electric powertrain will certainly
reduce the overall cost.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/11/27/all-farm-equipment-including-tractors-and-combines-will-be-electric/
"A couple of Hylio\u2019s biggest drones, the AG-272, can
apply as much product in a day as a $700,000, top-end,
John Deere tractor, but cost only $200,000 with trailer
and support gear and run on dirt-cheap electricity. And
they can be fixed at the side of the field. They are incredibly
simple devices with few moving parts, and servicing them is
trivial for farmers. That\u2019s no longer true for tractors and combines."
"What about seeding? Well, as with product application, seeding
is increasingly done with seeding drones that put seeds precisely
where they should be with equal spacing and no soil compaction.
"But you can\u2019t harvest crops with a quadcopter. And you can\u2019t
spread tons of fertilizer across massive fields before planting. However,
fields are flat, speeds are low and torque is king. Those are the
conditions in which battery electric vehicles shine.
"That\u2019s with today\u2019s battery energy densities. As the series
has made clear, battery energy densities that are double what Teslas
currently use are commercially available from Chinese EV battery giant
CATL now. Further, silicon battery chemistries with a potential energy
capacity five times that of CATL\u2019s new battery are commercializing
in 2023. There are multiple vendors and groups which have demonstrated
the technical breakthroughs required for their use. As a reminder,
silicon is cheap and ubiquitous."

And they'll be able to do all that with electric tractors. Didn't you
read the article?

What some so-called journalist says just does not happen in a farm.
Been there, done that at my grandparents farm back in the 70s and 80s.

Lynn

Scott Dorsey

2024-10-31 22:43:31 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire
Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do. The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service
conditions. Above 140 F, the liquid lithium batteries can spontaneously
combust.

The bad news is that as autonomous systems get better and better, farm
machinery will be more apt to be running by itself through the night, so
the need for 24-hour operation is going to be greater.

The good news is that the real battery temperature issues are at low
temperatures where plants don't do well either. Farm machinery is not
used quite so much in the cold of winter (and sometimes not as much in
the hottest part of summer either depending on the crop).

The interesting news is that replaceable batteries and battery trailers
which are impractical for road use might be perfectly reasonable solutions
for long charge times on farm machinery.

Post by Lynn McGuire
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment. That just means that the equipment gets used even
harder.

That's a real problem. Many of the smaller farmers around here are using
equipment that is fifty or more years old, both because of capex costs,
long-term operating costs, and a lack of smaller equipment on the market.

But they also aren't doing stuff on an industrial scale either because
nobody can compete with the big guys on the crops that the big guys grow.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

2024-10-31 20:27:18 UTC

...

Post by Bobbie Sellers
yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of fossil
fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the planet. Maybe a
10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the lack of tractors and
harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would be fertilizers.
Lynn

And don't forget the deaths from cold in the northern hemisphere! Already
the nr of people who die from cold is 10x the people who die from heat.
But this is forbidden knowledge due to the spooky climate change
narrative.

Regardless, getting rid of fossil fuels over night, would kill enormous
amounts of people.

Paul S Person

2024-11-01 16:06:34 UTC

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:58:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Bobbie Sellers
yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

He didn't restrict his statement to "present civilization".

And some parts of the Third World may be civilized in an old enough
way to get along, if not just fine, then at least not catastrphically.

Many of the targets of Starlink, for example, would not miss the
Internet (or even cellphones), since they don't have them presently
(if they did, they wouldn't /need/ Starlink). After a few generations
of population growth, they can repopulate the cities at an appropriate
technological level (ie, horses). If not before.

Of course, you may be thinking the way Tillich did when he reported
that he was appalled that the Germans, "the most highly cultered
nation on Earth", descended so quickly into barbarism in the
1930s/1940s: he was treating the cultured frosting on top of the cake
as the whole cake. The cultured Germans may have been the most highly
etc, but the remain 99% or so were not.

Just because /our/ civilization (in the USA/Commonwealth/Europe) is
totally dependent on cheap energy doesn't mean that /all/ current
civilizations are as fragile.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-31 19:56:03 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Where is this civilization of which you speak?
Oh you mean tecnological advancement which is all that
we see of civilization today. In the past before we
went crazy to travel very fast and go to places we
think are better than where ever we are we had some
evidence of civilization but it was dependent on
human labor frequently involving horror upon horror of
human slavery.

Post by Paul S Person
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

And they may have done ecological damage by their technology
but they barely began to raise the CO0 levels. Most of the fuels they
used were not fossil fuels. However they failed to replant the forests
that they cut down for various purposes.
Fossil fuels waited for the Industrial Revolution
What is called the first Industrial Revolution lasted from the
mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The
second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the
early 20th century and took place in Britain, continental Europe, North
America, and Japan. It involved the wider use of fossil fuels first
in the form of coal to run steam engines and then to produce steel.
Finally they discovered Petroleum aka rock oil and began to break it
down into its volatile components. Oil replaced coal for transport
in internal combustion engines and in steam engines when still in
use. Now we not only made COO plus other contaiminents by traveling
but by making the fuels.

I hope that the barbarism we will descend to in the
coming years will retain some elements of civilization and
the knowlege that we spoiled a lovely time on the Planet
Earth for faster and easier.

bliss

Paul S Person

2024-11-01 16:15:18 UTC

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:56:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Post by Paul S Person
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

And they may have done ecological damage by their technology
but they barely began to raise the CO0 levels. Most of the fuels they
used were not fossil fuels. However they failed to replant the forests
that they cut down for various purposes.
Fossil fuels waited for the Industrial Revolution
What is called the first Industrial Revolution lasted from the
mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The
second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the
early 20th century and took place in Britain, continental Europe, North
America, and Japan. It involved the wider use of fossil fuels first
in the form of coal to run steam engines and then to produce steel.
Finally they discovered Petroleum aka rock oil and began to break it
down into its volatile components. Oil replaced coal for transport
in internal combustion engines and in steam engines when still in
use. Now we not only made COO plus other contaiminents by traveling
but by making the fuels.
I hope that the barbarism we will descend to in the
coming years will retain some elements of civilization and
the knowlege that we spoiled a lovely time on the Planet
Earth for faster and easier.

Thanks for emphasizing my point.

I share the same hope.

I do not, however, share the pessimism.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

2024-10-31 20:22:32 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss

No, for the sake of civilization.

Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.

Sure. You go to classical greece, and I'll stay right here where I am in
the 21:st century. ;)

2024-10-31 09:46:44 UTC

????????More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe.?? The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.?? So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

????????There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
????????All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
????????When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum??? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
????????If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.?? That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
????????bliss

There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.

Research indicates that while a significant fraction of leaked methane may
be consumed by microbes or dissolved in seawater, a notable percentage
still makes it to the atmosphere. Studies suggest that approximately 10%
to 50% of leaked natural gas may escape into the atmosphere depending on
various environmental conditions and specific locations.

In summary, while not all carbon from natural methane leaks on the sea
bottom reaches the atmosphere due to microbial consumption and dissolution
processes, a measurable amount does escape into atmospheric circulation
under certain conditions.

Scott Dorsey

2024-10-31 02:03:35 UTC

This is bad, bad news. Why isn't somebody capturing that and selling it?
Burning that as fuel would reduce global warming and also provide energy
at the same time. How can we use this? How can we make money from it?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

2024-10-31 09:54:42 UTC

Post by Scott Dorsey

Probably too dispersed, too deep and too little to make it economical.

Cryptoengineer

2024-10-31 16:24:37 UTC

Probably too dispersed, too deep and too little to make it economical.

Its not just seabed methane clathrates. Global warming is also causing
methane to release as permafrost melts:

2024-10-31 09:41:56 UTC

Â Â Â Â More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed of the
Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet below the
surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of frozen methane
covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen methane is constantly
sublimating and rising to bubble up into the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens all
over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the several
reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn

Something has to be done! Why doesn't the US enlist the Navy submarines to
drive around and plug the holes? ;)

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-31 19:01:07 UTC

More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott

     There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
     All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming
will make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
     When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
     If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
     bliss

There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet
of frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The
frozen methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into
the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena
happens all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst
since the several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn

Something has to be done! Why doesn't the US enlist the Navy submarines
to drive around and plug the holes? ;)

Because you are dealing with moving tectonic plates causing huge
disturbances in the Earth's crust. Good luck with that.

Lynn

2024-10-31 20:27:55 UTC

Â Â Â Â More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.

Â Â Â Â Â There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
Â Â Â Â Â All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
Â Â Â Â Â When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum?Â And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
Â Â Â Â Â If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.Â That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
Â Â Â Â Â bliss

There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed of
the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet.Â At 2,000 feet below
the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of frozen
methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed.Â The frozen methane is
constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature.Â And this phenomena happens
all over the planet.Â I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn

Something has to be done! Why doesn't the US enlist the Navy submarines to
drive around and plug the holes? ;)

Because you are dealing with moving tectonic plates causing huge disturbances
in the Earth's crust. Good luck with that.
Lynn

Increase the size of the plugs! And if the plates move, just glue them
together.

Robert Carnegie

2024-11-02 14:51:41 UTC

Post by Lynn McGuire
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.

And this frozen stuff evaporating isn't anything
to do with the sea getting warmer?

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-30 02:06:54 UTC

How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.

But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.

Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon). The
other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas which
makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in there
also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much sand
embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that lignite
coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a six
million hp steam boiler).

LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts to
60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the cost
is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.

So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.

So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka Speculative
Fiction ?

Lynn

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-30 02:43:16 UTC

How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon). The
other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas which
makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in there
also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much sand
embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that lignite
coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a six
million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts to
60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the cost
is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka Speculative
Fiction ?
Lynn

It is not pertinent to this Newsgroup at all but that is one of
the characteristics of Trolls spreading disinformation at the behest
of either their own or other causes that they do not care a whit for
the nature of the group in or its interests. They just have to get
the lies out.

bliss

Titus G

2024-10-30 06:17:59 UTC

How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).
The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas
which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in
there also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much
sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that
lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a
six million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts
to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the
cost is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka
Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn

Have I just won an award for the first off topic post in several decades
to this group?

Thank you, Bliss, for your on topic contributions to the group.
Major off topic subjects that have been extremely popular in recent
years include Electric vs ICE vehicles, Covid 19 and AGW.
The "lies" I am getting out are from established and respected media.

Bobbie Sellers

2024-10-30 14:34:22 UTC

Post by Titus G

How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).
The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas
which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in
there also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much
sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that
lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a
six million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts
to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the
cost is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka
Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn

Have I just won an award for the first off topic post in several decades
to this group?

If as you say you are getting these bits of disinformation
from respected sources look online at their sites and give us
URLs for the articles. If you are not a Troll then excuse me
for so categorizing your posts.

A great part of the respected media are silent on theee
topics but to point to Biden as an offender is to dismiss the
fact that most of these respected media are owned by rich people
whose income will be theatened by the extension of Democratic
tax polieies to get back money that was ill spent on stock buy
backs rather then the employee retention and plant improvements
for which they were given money due to Covid-19 worst restrictive
policies. So-called "Liberal Media" is a Republican Myth even
in San Francisco where the remaining 'respected media' chose to
promote the Mayoral candidacy of a the richest man in the race.

bliss

Titus G

2024-10-31 04:16:35 UTC

SNIP

Post by Titus G
Major off topic subjects that have been extremely popular in recent
years include Electric vs ICE vehicles, Covid 19 and AGW.
The "lies" I am getting out are from established and respected media.

If as you say you are getting these bits of disinformation
from respected sources look online at their sites and give us
URLs for the articles.

I think the first headline was from the Guardian. Prior to replying to
Peter Trei, I did a simple duckduckgo of "LNG Worse Than Coal" and the
Cornell Uni was the first.

2024-10-31 09:55:58 UTC

Post by Titus G
SNIP

Â Â Â Â If as you say you are getting these bits of disinformation
from respected sources look online at their sites and give us
URLs for the articles.

I think the first headline was from the Guardian. Prior to replying to
Peter Trei, I did a simple duckduckgo of "LNG Worse Than Coal" and the
Cornell Uni was the first.

Ahh.. the wonders of modern search engines!

Lynn McGuire

2024-10-30 19:32:45 UTC

Post by Titus G

How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).
The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas
which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in
there also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much
sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that
lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a
six million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts
to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the
cost is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka
Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn

Have I just won an award for the first off topic post in several decades
to this group?

There is no respected media in the USA.

Lynn

2024-10-30 09:49:51 UTC