Getting Greedy?
 

Zero fossil fuels in you grandchildren's lifetime is probably a pipe dream.

Engineers say the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

Going directly to non-fossil fueled vehicles is probably a bridge too far.

But there are a lot of partial measures to use to assure a prosperous transition.

1. We could at least partially beat the battery/recharging problem by using direct catenary electrification of railroads and long-haul truck. Electrified railroads are a long proven alternative. The Russians manage to operate 10,000 km of fully electrified railroad from Ekaterinberg to Vladivostok. Yeah, they power it with roadside coal plants but they also have plenty of natural gas.
A European consortium is experimenting with electrified eighteen wheelers in Scandanavia. I see no reason it can't work. All the tech is well-proven old-school stuff.

2. The US could substantially reduce its "carbon footprint" by transitioning independent IC motor vehicles by converting much of the transportation system to running on CNG or LPG - supplanting gasoline, ethanol, and diesel. Natural gas emits 60% less CO2 (in lb CO2 per HP-hr than gasoline or diesel. Don't believe that? Peruse EPA Publication AP-42. A night time satellite phot of the northern US shows a light signature nearly as big as Chicago out in the Dakotas. That's flaring of gas needed for pressure control of the wells. Just by building enough pipelines to market areas that flared gas could be compressed/liquified natural gas to run millions of vehicles. Just reducing CO2 by 60% from say ten million vehicles is quite a bit of progress.

Considering the most recent IPCC GHG emission inventory showed that China emits more GHG than the rest of the world combined - and that includes the US. If we cannot get China on-board, what's the point of impoverishing everyone else?

BTW, I am STILL of the opinion that Global Warming is an elitist scam.

Building pipelines is politically problematic. Natural gas is lighter than air, is it not?

Zeppelins! Else, blimp-rigid hybrids. https://plimpairships.com/

Even though I don't hold my breath for that, I do believe non-fossil fuels may play an important role.


That's when a pipe dream turns into a practical nightmare.


Fuels are not the only matter of concern. Nowadays lube oils and greases, and other fluids, have been harder to find a non-fossil replacement.


Catenary electrification could be interesting on some routes, even though I would still be favorable to some degree of hybridization instead of supporting a full-EV setup.


CNG has the advantage of being also possible to replace with biomethane, which can resort to the same pipelines and dispensers already in use with CNG, not to mention the same fuel systems already in use in many vehicles worldwide. But I also consider ethanol a reasonable fuel under some circumstances.


Making it easier for China to spread its influence all around the world.


I am of the opinion that global warming is a scam too, mostly because some relatively simpler solutions to fix its claimed damages are discouraged by the media and most governments, while approaches that are more likely to fail are pushed down everyone's throat.

I don't know. I believe the scientists that say that global warming is a problem. If global warming is just a scam and therefore I can't believe the scientists, then who can I believe??

Just because there is no good solution doesn't make it a scam. Maybe the solution is something we don't want or can't achieve and the damage that has been done has been done and we'll just have to face the consequenses and that's that.

Meanwhile my state keeps getting bombarded with forest fires every year, and every year it seems they keep getting worse. I'm just waiting for the day it's my town and my house that's burnt down. (Good thing I rent I guess). All the forests here are full of dry dead trees. You can't find a forest that's nice and green anymore. Is this just a normal cycle or part of mankind's effect on the environment? Scientists say it's the latter, drought from global warming and previous clearcutting and seeding operations.

What's the most efficient forms of transportation? Railroads are far more efficient than vehicles. Big vehicles can transport a lot more than smaller ones for the same amount of fuel/electricity. The more we rely on public transportation (AHEM! covid...) the more efficient transportation becomes and therefore the easier it is to transition to other fuels. (Air-ships are also more efficient than airplanes, but are slower.)

Smaller vehicles could be made to be much more efficient but would have to become Aero Civics or Apteras. (Safety?)

The more efficient things are the few batteries and less electric grid expansion we need.

ICE's currently out there can be converted to CNG (good bye trunk space).

Else it's a scam and the scientists are bought and paid for, choose your scientists wisely.

There is a solution but it is beyond a single post. Basically people don't know what they could have.

It involves building [fired ceramic] houses out of the dirt from their footprint and not needing to go anywhere in the first place. Elon Musk's best part is no part, best process is no process.

Doctors are paid lots of money. So don't go to the hospital for any reason?? :confused:

I don't know of a scientist that works for free either. Not that there isn't bribery and bias. But how do you prove one side or the other even if the money for the project comes from here or the results favor that politcal party or religion?

I'd be all on board with a clay house and not needing to commute distances requiring a motorized vehicle.

9 out of 10 doctors no longer recommend smoking Camels. The times, they change.

I'm glad you like the idea of mud bubbles. :) They could be egg-shell thin or built like a bunker with a living roof. I have this scheme that involves lifting the wet material in an Olds elevator (probably wind powered) to drop it into a print head/nozzle that's placed via three ropes -- manually by three crews that coordinate their movements with sea shanties.

I'd want it thick for maximum thermal mass. It's 45°F 7°C right now (is it summer already?) and I fell a bit chilly. A living roof would help cool the place (not sure I'd need that though).

.

Forest fires...


https://youtu.be/raR_IkUD7is



>

.

Massive forest fires are nothing new. Isn't it possible that many of the fires today are the result of massive changes in forest management over the last 30 years? So back at the turn of the previous century we had the worst fires ever before we managed forests. Then we went through a golded period of few fires and strict management. Now we are back to hands off and massive fires. It's like an A-B-A test but instead blame it on C.

The main reason is drought and overseeding (after clear cutting). Trees get less water than they need. Less water means less sap. Less sap means the tree is more susceptible to disease such as pine beetles. In a matter of a few years entire forests all over the state have died. When you have an entire state suddenly have all it's trees die it doesn't matter what forest management did it didn't do.

Around here, there used to be a massive network of forest service roads. Those roads were built by logging operations that thinned the forest out. Clear cutting wasn't widespread unless it was to salvage dead or dying trees. Then the forest service policy was to use those roads and manpower to immediately put out the first spark of wildfires. So we thinned and cleaned forests, and aggressively stopped fires. Now every mill has been closed, they don't cut any trees on the national forests. They closed and destroyed most of the roads. They won't fight most fires until they are too big to fight and then waste billions throwing manpower at it when nothing's going to stop it but winter. I am a big hunter and hiker and have been since 1975 in this area. I remember what it used to be like. I remember each fire in a 200 mile radius. I see before and after of fires, and of logging, fires in logged areas and fires in natural aeras. Aeras that are still managed and aeras that have gone wild. It may not be the only cause, but it is certainly a huge cause, and if you have seen the emissions a forest fire puts out and were concerned about CO2 caused global warming, there would be a bigger effort to stop fires, use the wood to build with, which sequesters the carbon for 100s of years. Use it or just watch it burn.

That's a clear, well made video. Why on earth would you delete statistics unless you are pushing an untrue narrative.

Like I said, the entire state is dead. If you want to chop down all the dead trees you'd need to clear cut the whole state, right now.

About the only thing that would fix it is just evacuate the whole state and throw a match and let it do its thing. Then come back and start from scratch.

The wood isn't allowed to be used for export because it's diseased, mostly pine beetles, and could cause the same condition elsewhere. If you go sit in the forest you can hear all the pine beetles chewing on the wood inside the trees. And although there's a big need for building in Colorado, you wouldn't be able to use all that wood due to the low population.

Uh, not even hardly. The forests have some beetle damage and those trees could certainly be made into lumber to be used domestically instead of all the imported wood we get from Canada. We can't cut it down becuase very permit is challenged and blocked. Then as they could never cut anything down the mills had nothing to mill so they all closed. Now they have been closed so light they have been dismantled. So it would take a decade or more to bring it all back online. Sadly we will be back to the true record fire seasons of before 1920 and modern management by then.

I was talking about the entire state of Colorado. Anywhere you drive in the state the trees are all dead where they haven't burnt down yet.

I compare the current situation to the biggest burn during my youth:
Fabricated narratives are not new. Did Mrs. Leary's cow, the proximate cause of the Chicago fire, start the fires in Minnesota the day before?

Note: it came out of the sky. This was a space weather event.

The difference is that now we're talking about closer to 24,500,000 acres, not just 350,000.

Although all news should be viewed with a certain degree of scrutiny, one mistake in one paper in one place at one time doesn't disprove all information in all places at any time.

If all available sources confirm the same narrative, the story becomes 'truthy'.

Not every scientist out there endorses anthropogenic global warming, even though many influent politicians tend to be more favorable to the ones who do so, because fear is an instrument of social control, and many people would be too scared to argue about better solutions when a politician tries to push some agenda.


With the ownership of motor vehicles still holding some sort of status, which may not be seen to the same extent in the United States as in Mexico or here in Brazil, some folks would rather pay a premium for something worse under the efficiency perspective while it looks more prestigious on another aspect. No wonder the earliest generation of the Mercedes-Benz A-Class failed here, despite the 3-point star badge...


Had it been for absolute safety, we would never see a motorcycle anymore.


I have already seen a lot of vehicles converted to CNG with underbody tanks, leading to a minimal intrusion to the trunk mostly caused by the relocation of the spare tire.

The problem for me is that there are politicians that support the other side. So which politician is right?

Global warming just seems logical to me I guess. Pump a lot of carbon to the surface, burn it and not expect some sort of environmental effect doesn't seem logical.

The one who places fewer barriers to the implementation of practical solutions, instead of imposing problems in order to sell a false solution.


Raising all hell to prevent some bio-remediation approaches which could lead to a much lesser disruption to the average Joe's life also doesn't seem logical, yet it's what most politicians seem to endorse nowadays in a worldwide basis. This is why sometimes I take some global warming claims with a grain of salt, when practical solutions which seem to have fewer downsides are neglected in order to promote fancier approaches which in turn may become too expensive and unpractical.

I think we simply have differences of opinion, and that's ok. I'll say just one more thing and quit.

What are practical solutions and what are false solutions? All I see among politicians are those who feel there is a problem and think they can fix it so make more restrictions, and those who say there isn't a problem and so loosen the restrictions. I don't think ignoring the problem and loosening restrictions is a practical solution. I don't think there is a practical solution. And politicians aren't the only ones with wants and desires. People in general have their own goals and desires. Telling them something they don't want to hear isn't easy. Just because everyone wants to drive a car doesn't make it harmless.

If cars and power plants and the like are destroying the planet and the quickest solution is to just stop driving, using electricity, etc., how do you implement that without disrupting the average Joe's life? If scientists say we need to reverse the damage done wouldn't measures that only lessen the damage being done still be damaging? I don't think there is a practical solution. I don't think EVs are the solution. I don't think public transportation is the solution. I really don't know what mankind can do about it.

I have friends in many places around the world. I've seen an increase in hurricanes, drought, tornadoes and the like. I've been in a hurricane, I've been in a couple storms close to several tornadoes, in one with softball sized hail smashing down on my car with me and my family inside it. We no longer get the snow we used to, in fact there are years that we get less than an inch that sticks around, a huge difference to the several feet we used to get that was so deep you had to tunnel into your house. Reservoirs are dry, there isn't enough water. Forest fires are at an all time high.

I don't think politicians have the ability to fix the problem. If people are hooked on electricity and automobiles and we've already pumped too much CO2 into the atmosphere, what can be done? Build fireproof, hurricaneproof and tornadoproof houses and cars I guess and just continue as we have.

I amuse myself at your expense. Sorry.

Things we apparently cannot do:

• Stop using ad revenue to build Internet.
• Use performance rather than specific materials in building codes
• Chill out and stop being so frenetic

Absolutely.


Well, I consider ethanol and CNG (eventually replacing it with biomethane) are a much more practical approach than insisting on an EV-only approach. Let's suppose all the electric power became sourced from zero-carbon sources, and the ICE became effectively banned even while they could run on biofuels and help closing the carbon and nitrogen cycles, all the organic matter discarded instead of being used as a feedstock for biofuels would simply rot away releasing raw methane into the atmosphere, which half-life is IIRC 6 times longer than post-combustion CO². Considering not only the possibility for farmers to brew their own fuel integrated to their cash-crops and livestock raising, but also a cleaner management of waste and sewage in large metropolitan areas, neglecting eventual benefits the ICE can still provide becomes troublesome.

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYsgLsfq/42898-...86-BC981-D.jpg


:turtle:

>

.

"Finding it whether it exists or not"... I guess you know about the goat-in-the-room metaphor.

Before it was global cooling. What if the effect is an exact balance of cooling and heating?

I personally think the earth is a very buffered system. Input in one area causes a reaction in another to stabilize everything. It just couldn't have been here for so long and survived the cruelty of space, there just has to be more to it. Just ignoring in the models for changes in how clouds might increase with increasing CO2 reflecting more solar energy out into space. If a model is made, a guess has to be made, and the guess is always to make it worse not better.

Also warmer is always terrible. To me it seems the best land masses will actually be improved for humans by a warmer climate overall. Maybe we lose some aeras over here, but gain twice as much over there. So we adapt if it all does go as bad as some proje8.

Been watching a bunch of PBS EON shows where they infer that warmer is pretty much lots wetter in places where people aren't crammed together. sucks for the crammed masses, but makes the Saharan desert a green jungle again.

Back in the day it was proposed that Gaia was removing the pest infestation of people but that precludes intentions unmeasureable.

Makes sense.


A warmer climate may eventually be beneficial for agriculture and food safety, as some crops may get 2 harvests year-round.

I'm always a fan of killing 2 stones with 1 bird.

That makes me wonder if running the electrical cables to electrify trains could double as interstate power transfer infrastructure? Provide a means of transporting goods electrically and build a more interconnected and robust power grid at the same time.

I do think our focus on EVs (seen as the perfect) is detracting from things like PHEV (plug-in hybrid vehicles) or as you point out, natural gas or other "cleaner" fuels.

Science can make predictions and record results, and nothing more. It doesn't say what is good or bad.

Scientism attempts to extend the utility of the best method of making predictions we have, the scientific method, into systems so complex that the amount of arbitrary assumptions that must be made render the results nearly meaningless.

Politicians then pounce on the imagined (so far) threat to seize authority (power) and resources (money) to further their agendas.

It's easier to identify terrible ideas because they lack any specific stated goals, lack any evidence of efficacy, and address a symptom rather than the problem.

The EV tax credit embodies every one of those deficiencies in thought. What is the specific stated goal? How much CO2 has been prevented from being released to the atmosphere because of the credit? How does the subsidy directly address burning of fossil fuels? No cost/benefit analysis was done, and if it was, they aren't releasing the info because nobody would stand for a 0.0000000001 C delay in global temperature rise at the cost of trillions of dollars. As an aside, it's a regressive tax policy that benefits the wealthy.

The best ideas have a stated goal, the results can be measured, and addresses the problem most directly.

As I continuously say, IF the problem is burning of fossil fuels, then the most effective, measurable, and direct way to address it is to slowly introduce progressive taxation.

Uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom.

The only research that gets funding is the type that looks for problems. Who is funding research to enumerate the positive effects of global warming?

Since the globe was warming before the industrial revolution (we're still exiting the most recent ice age, a period of uncommon coldness), at what point did warming go from being beneficial to humanity to being detrimental? How is that point measured?

There isn't a single solution because there isn't a single problem. Rapid environmental change stresses the species encountering the change. We'll adapt in a myriad of ways and possibly thrive in the process just like we've done in our relatively short history.

Adaptation is the greatest strength of our species. Easier to modify our microenvironments like our homes than to tweak the outdoor thermostat.

A good point regarding biofuels, besides their compensation of emissions and net-zero carbon footprint, is an eventual opportunity to decrease rural exodus as it may increase profitability even for small farmers whenever they can add value to residues from their main products (either crops or livestock).

Many of us miss the big picture. Only 14% of national energy use is automotive. Even a 50% improvement here (impossible) means only a 7% reduction in national energy use, kind of a "nothing-burger" IMHO.

Mankind must make safe, then embrace and love nuclear power if we are to avoid a dark future. FWIW, we can do nukes safely, and nukes can provide billions of years of energy production at any level we'd like. Put another way, unlimited future generations can live in prosperity if we do so.

Burning hydrocarbons, including sustainable fuels, have some very specific uses, such as aviation. The rest can be done electrically.

From what I've learned with 50 years of government is they don't ever really want to solve a problem, just use a problem. Then again I have lived in basically world peace. I would say Lincoln solved a problem and Churchill solved a problem but so many others like to manage the problems.

Perhaps you remember the term Peak Oil! Some terrified individual calculated that 1974 was going to be the year of peak oil production. With every subsequent year having less production.

As a 20 something college educated person back then I bought into it, well for a bit, but in a few short years, I realized what a joke it was. Just part of a religious cult like belief that mankind was ruining the earth. Gasoline today is well cheaper than it was back then. Even with higher taxes.

Having an electric car as a sole vehicle is putting all your eggs in one basket. I doubt if the electric grid could withstand any general near 100% electric car usage. Events in Texas late last winter pretty well proved it.

I generally agree with the above, but there will be a peak oil, I just don't think it will be a result of "running out".

The subsidies for EVs is putting all eggs in one basket, which is bound to have unintended negative consequences, and I suspect consequences worse than having not manipulated the market so heavy-handed.

That said, an ICE doesn't solve the problem of a blackout. When the electricity stops, the fuel stops.

Really though, people should prepare to be able to go without refuelling or electricity for a few days. People should own warm clothes, have access to drinking water, and have some battery powered light. (or stored fuel and a genset).

The infrastructure for sure could be made more resilient, especially if they properly exposed customers to the real-time pricing of fuel so that they have the incentive to not hoard scarce resources and thus cause a collapse of the infrastructure.

EVs will be a net benefit to grid stability and reliability with things as simple as raising baseload demand during off-peak charging, to things as complex as feeding power back to the grid when demand is high.

.

Until the next Carrington Event... 😉


>

.

Saving@Home needs more attention. The only post there in the last year was about Elon Musk living in a tiny house. I've always thought if I bought into a quarter-million dollar house (the going rate?), that it should shelter me, feed me and put folding money in my pocket. Would you like to know more?

The dark future is inexorable. The only question is whether society can marshal it's resources and get interplanetary ASAP. That's why I like Thorium. One could loft a cold reactor and use the acceleration to jump-start it after Max q.

It seems really popular right now to say everything should go electric to be green. There are some fundamental issues....most especially is that Electricity is not "green". Electrical grid efficiency is about 36% at best. The grid efficiency of natural gas is about 85%. Fossil fuels are largely used to power this incredibly inefficient electric system in the US. Most of the balance is being provided by throw away Nuclear plants.... typically 30 year life. I believe our newest plant is at least 10 years past its design life. Also, if electric cars are so efficient, why can't they beat the fuel economy of most Diesel vehicles that are often larger.
Also, if nuclear sources are so safe, why is it that not a single insurance company worldwide will insure a nuclear plant? All of the plants in the US are essentially subsidized by the Feds.
The simplest solution to our energy and pollution issues has been available to us for decades...taking our existing buildings and systems and making cost effective improvements to them and using the appropriate power sources for the use.
I work with buildings quite regularly in the Chicago area and I go into building after building which are still using flourescent lighting for sales floors, offices etc. The payback to upgrade this lighting is only a couple years in Chicago. Mechanical systems are in decrepit condition, incorrectly sized, improperly managed and everyone in the building is uncomfortable. Forced air heating and cooling system continue to be installed almost exclusively despite having energy usage needs about 20 to 40% higher than better conventional systems. Buildings and homes have never even upgraded attic insulation. The U.S is filled with gasoline powered vehicles despite the fact that they use about 80% more fuel than an equal diesel vehicle.

It is often said that the U.S. is addicted to energy use.....and the word addiction seems to be the truth. We could have an increased standard of living, with more comfortable homes and buildings, more money available, and address the fundamental issues of energy and pollution but refuse to make the changes necessary. Is there any better definition for an addiction than this?

To me electricity will not be the answer until the loses are not 60% and clean and insurable generation sources can be found. In the meantime, we can go back to much more efficient generation methods...cogen or in todays terms "combined heat and power." Moving from a gas fleet to a diesel fleet, moving back to railroads for most of our commerce instead of trucks in the U.S will kick in a nice chunk of energy and pollution savings.

I had always assumed that ion engines could power a vehicle so long as it didn't run out of electricity and gas. Turns out the grid that ionizes the gas wears out, so there's a mechanical limit to how long it can run, which kinda puts a limit on the speed the vehicle can reach.

I'm wondering now if linear accelerators can last longer since they don't use a grid to ionize the gas? The company I work for makes proton accelerators. Could such a machine be made to last several decades of continuous operation?

Let's do a round trip to the nearest solar system and get some photos and measurements back in say, 100 years. Some speculate that it would be pointless because we would develop better technology that would pass whatever spacecraft we sent, even if we started a decade or 2 later. Gotta start somewhere though.

Nuclear has basically been criminalized due to misplaced fear of catastrophe. The regulatory process is so cumbersome that prices are so high that nobody would privately invest because the payback is so far out into the future. While risk is low for a major catastrophe, the price is high if one occurs.

This is why it requires government-sized backing. Either that, or maybe we just need a Go Fund Me. Regardless, it will require eliminating the unnecessary red tape.

I'm all for increasing efficiency. That doesn't really address the demand though because we'll just find new ways to expend more energy as we improve efficiency. Larger vehicles, larger homes, more of everything.

Saying we're addicted to energy is like saying we're addicted to money. Obviously more is better and represents greater freedom.

Again, I'm all for improving efficiency, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problem of reliance on fossil fuels.