REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, October 31, 2024 14:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 24495
PAGE 7 of 19

Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Looks like Argonne did the EV v gasoline breakeven point for me.

Tesla 3 v Toyota Corolla (33 mpg)

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/lifetime-carbon-
emissions-electric-vehicles-vs-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
Based on a series of assumptions, the data showed that a Tesla Model 3 in the United States, for example, would need to be driven for 13,500 miles (21,725 km) before it does less harm to the environment than a Toyota Corolla. Lifetime vehicle miles traveled: 173,151.

The beauty of a new green energy system, for a Capitalist, is that it is built right next to the old dirty energy system. Both systems are up and running and gouging all the customers by setting prices as high as the market will bear. The sci-fiction TV show The Expanse showed how that works with an air market. Everybody needs air in outer space and the air price goes up month after month so that the workers in outer space can never save money. The air company takes all their cash. Breathing air companies don't exist, yet, but green energy companies can do the same as oil and gas companies have done and the results will be just as beautiful as on The Expanse -- War in the asteroid belt against the owners (who live on Earth) of the breathing air companies. The Belters, as they are called on the Expanse, were dropping asteroids onto Earth to show their displeasure with the wonderful and profitable capitalist system. When the green energy system gets up and running, there will be many Earthers, just like Belters, who will be angry at the cost of energy, just as Belters were angry at the cost of air. Don't take deep breaths. It is too expensive.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
When looking at a pollutant, calculations are usually made on the cost that the pollutant imposes on society v the cost of controlling the pollutant. It's my favorite way of deciding what to do: The risk - or cost- of "doing nothing: v the risk - or cost- of "doing something".

Unfortunately, the cost of "doing nothing" about climate change is unreliable bc we're forced to speculate about alternate futures. Do we assume that oceans will be less productive? Or more productive? Or likely less productive for shellfish (ocean acifification) but more productive with jellyfish- a Japanese delicacy.

Some farmland will become less productive due to drought. OTOH northern farmland may become MORE productive if the growing season lengthens and rain shifts northwards.

Will storms become more extreme? If so, by how much? Will clathrates release gigatons of methane?

How do you attach a dollar cost to any of this? Do you use current commodity prices? Maybe nothing of the predicted negative side effects will occur, but something entirely beneficial and unlooked-for will happen.

The calculations are based on climate models which so far haven't been particuary good at predicting the past (feed the parameters in from 1960 and see whether your model reprduces observed climate trends over the next 50 years. With the best of intentions and supercomputers climate models haven't been very successful.)

Just to give an example of an unexpected kink, one would think that cool roofs - white epdm - couldn't POSSIBLY have a negative effect on anything. After all, they simply increase the albedo of city rooftops and reduce the heat dome AND indvdual bldg AC costs. But all that reflected sunlight exposes the overlying air to a double-dose of visible and ultraviolet light, and promotes formation of ozone at ground level.

That's why I prefer to look at the cost of control measure "A" v the cost of control measure "B",and the best you can do after that is try to get a qualitatve sense of secondary effects and whether they're net positive or negative.

Solar panels, if widely distributed, make energy production more robust, especially if each bldg comes with a battery backup capable of supplying enough emergency power to bring the system back up the next sunny day (solar panels, ironically, need a source of electricity BEFORE they can start converting sunlight to electricity,) OTOH I wouldn't recommend it for northern USA. And at about 25 years the panels will become a significant e-waste problem, like lithium batteries are a problem today.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 9:26 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Solar panels, if widely distributed, make energy production more robust, especially if each bldg comes with a battery backup capable of supplying enough emergency power to bring the system back up the next sunny day (solar panels, ironically, need a source of electricity BEFORE they can start converting sunlight to electricity,) OTOH I wouldn't recommend it for northern USA. And at about 25 years the panels will become a significant e-waste problem, like lithium batteries are a problem today.
Since renewable energy production is variable, storage is essential. In the Fast Transition scenario we have allocated so much storage capacity using batteries and P2X** fuels that the entire global energy system could run for a month without any sun or wind (Document S1 section “Energy storage and flexibility requirements”). This is a sensible choice because both batteries and electrolyzers have highly favorable trends for cost and production (Document S1 sections “Batteries” and “Hydrogen and electrolyzers”). From 1995 to 2018 the production of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries increased at 30% per year, while costs dropped at 12% per year, giving an experience curve comparable to that of solar PV. Currently, about 60% of the cost of electrolytic hydrogen is electricity, and hydrogen is around 80% of the cost of ammonia, so these automatically take advantage of the high progress rates for solar PV and wind.

More at https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065

** Long-duration energy storage (LDES) and all hard-to-electrify applications are served by power-to-X (P2X) fuels, i.e., by using electricity for hydrogen electrolysis and either directly using hydrogen or using it to make other fuels such as ammonia and methane as needed.


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 9:35 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
In the Fast Transition scenario we have allocated so much storage capacity using batteries and P2X** fuels that the entire global energy system could run for a month without any sun or wind.


You're dreaming.

In related news, I don't hear Nathan Fillion talking about Solar Freakin' Roadways anymore.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:11 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

You're dreaming.
The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SECOND, I don't know why you're so invested in these high-cost technologies. (Maybe bc you're - literally- invested? and maybe you see a gravy train of government money?)

If "market forces" are so favorable for green energy, why hasn't it taken over like yesterday already?

The breakeven point for EV is sooner than I thought, but still dependent on the fuel used to generate electricity, and on the specific models being compared. If coal is the primary fuel in a particular region, the breakeven point doesn't occur until 59,000 miles, IIRC. And don't forget that the typical EV battery only lasts 7 years (84,000 miles on avg), sometimes less.

Like I already posted, hydrogen power make sense for some applications (stationary source, semi-stationary source). I've got nothing intrinsically against it, but it doesn't work for everything. EV can be beneficial is areas where electricity comes from clean(er) sources, but it doesn't work for areas where coal is a large part of the energy mix, and it will probably require a grid upgrade. Distributed solar power ... on rooftops, carports, commercial buildings etc with battery backup is both rugged and environmentally friendly and doesn't require taking up large swaths of wildland, but it should be used in sunny locations and we will have to solve the e-waste problem sooner rather than later.

OTOH planting cover crops and urban trees costs (relatively speaking) virtually nothing and has no envirnmental downside that I know of. Limiting warmaking, ending production of gas guzzlers, and banning private jets costs less than nothing and has no environmental downside either. Forest management and environmental restoration has high labor costs, but low material costs, and if you're looking for a works program to employ those no longer making weapons that fills the bill.

Banning fertilizer is stupid. The crop that encourages over-fertilization most is corn, so stop using corn to make ethanol fuel already.

Somebody should pencil-whip ALL available options options in terms of

1) potential impact (how many million tons of CO2 removed/ prevented) and

2) dollar cost per ton of CO2

3) other probable benefits or costs

If the cost is low or - better yet- saves money, and it has multiple other benefits, why not implement it even if the potential impact is only moderate?

----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:56 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, I don't know why you're so invested in these high-cost technologies. (Maybe bc you're - literally- invested? and maybe you see a gravy train of government money?)
Let me make it simple for you. If America wanted zero CO2 added to the atmosphere and wanted to continue burning synthetic versions of natural gas and gasoline and jet fuel, it could be done, but there would have to be one big change. The carbon for these synthetic fuels would have to come from CO2 pulled from the atmosphere. That means no more wells drilled into the ground for crude and natural gas and no more coal mines and no more tar sand mining and no more burning wood. With that setup, everything stays exactly the same except for the source of the carbon in the fuel. Cars still run on gasoline. Homes are still heated by burning synthetic natural gas. Industry still has huge furnaces burning synthetic natural gas.

None of that has been done because it is easier to not think and just continue to automatically do what has been done for a hundred years: drill holes in the ground for crude and natural gas. The carbon will end up in the atmosphere. Dig up the ground for coal. The carbon in the coal goes into the atmosphere. Cut down forests for lumber and burn what is left. Again, carbon goes into the air.

If you never change anything about where the carbon comes from, nobody has to think carefully about what they are doing. Humanity has 300,000 years of not thinking carefully or not even thinking any deeper than wild animals do and the wild animals prospered for 66 million years since the last major extinction, didn't they? But there is a high likelihood of another major extinction if humanity won't think about what happens to carbon when fuel is burned.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You start with a wrong assumption/ false dilemma that we have to technologically pull carbon from the atmo.

Nature does a pretty good job by itself. If we trim our CO2 emissions and enhance the natural processes that absorb carbon we might reach equilibrium.

BTw, the idea of pulling CO2 from the atmo and turning it into fuel is energetically like pushing a boulder up a hill. The reason why we burn fuel is because oxidation releases energy. You have to use more energy than was released in order to stuff those molecules back together. Where does the energy come from?
Solar?
Wind?

If you're going to harvest that energy then why not use it to make electricity directly? Bc otherwise you lose energy with every conversion.

Unless you're using it for storage, since batteries aren't up to snuff yet. But there are also a lot of potentially more efficient ways to store excess energy, including pumping water uphill for hydro power later, or flywheels. In fact, the flywheel idea is already built into the energy sector's idea of "spinning reserve", since even unpowered turbines still spin and generate electricity.

Again, I have nothing against generating hydrogen (for example) from solar-powered hydrolysis of water, or coal gassification with water, or a methanol economy. (excpet burning methanol creates formaldehyde, so there would have to be controls on that).

My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 7:33 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.
That's nice, but Capitalism cannot consider all the options to solve excessive CO2 in the air because Capitalism is about making money, not solving problems. The government will have to pick one or more options and then PAY CAPITALISTS to implement them and the government must oversee the Capitalists so that they don't cheat in order to get paid without doing the actual work. If the government is the one in DC, it cannot pick a solution. It can't make up its mind because it is fragmented into hundreds of pieces, each Congressman is unable to join a 2/3rds majority necessary to get a significant decision made AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION FOR DECADES. Congress is not designed to make complicated decisions. The Presidency can make complicated decisions (see WWII or the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Mission to the Moon or the Interstate Highway system) but Presidents come and go and when a new one arrives, their predecessor's decisions get tossed into the garbage can. That is not conducive to solving problems that take decades to finish.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 7:40 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

My point is that ALL of the options need to be considered because there is NO "one size fits all" answer. You (and the authors you cite) keep polishing one single idea. It may be a good one, but there may be far more effective/less costly ones out there.
That's nice, but Capitalism cannot consider all the options to solve excessive CO2 in the air because Capitalism is about making money, not solving problems. The government will have to pick one or more options and then PAY CAPITALISTS to implement them and the government must oversee the Capitalists so that they don't cheat in order to get paid without doing the actual work. If the government is the one in DC, it cannot pick a solution. It can't make up its mind because it is fragmented into hundreds of pieces, each Congressman is unable to join a 2/3rds majority necessary to get a significant decision made AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION FOR DECADES. Congress is not designed to make complicated decisions. The Presidency can make complicated decisions (see WWII or the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Mission to the Moon or the Interstate Highway system) but Presidents come and go and when a new one arrives, their predecessor's decisions get tossed into the garbage can. That is not conducive to solving problems that take decades to finish.

Now if you pick a solution that Capitalists love, it doesn't matter that Presidents come and go or that Congress is full of flighty, foolish dilettantes. The Capitalists will drive the project to completion because it makes them rich. This brings everything back to this quote: The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future. While arguments for a rapid green transition cite benefits such as the avoidance of climate damages, reduced air pollution, and lower energy price volatility (Document S1 section “Additional benefits from the Fast Transition”), these benefits are often contrasted against discussions about the associated costs of the transition. Our analysis suggests that such trade-offs are unlikely to exist: a greener, healthier, and safer global energy system is also likely to be cheaper. Updating expectations to better align with historical evidence could fundamentally change the debate about climate policy and dramatically accelerate progress to decarbonize energy systems around the world.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X#secsectitle0
065

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Why does the government have to pay capitalists?

What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)

It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:04 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?

What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)

It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.

Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.

Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.

With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.

Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.

The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.

“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.

“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”

Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.

The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).

https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:30 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


This will all be moot soon.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 10:46 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will all be moot soon.
I already made that point. Congress has hundreds of egotistical drama queens, most of whom don't actually have any ideas in their heads about climate change (but they try very hard to conceal their vast ignorance with far too much talking) which is why Congress can't actually get much done on that subject. You don't get elected by appealing to the most knowledgeable voters in your state. You get elected by appealing to stubborn know-nothings. That's why Congress is what it is. (The situation is not hopeless because the Congressional staff has more knowledge and expertise than their bosses on the Democratic side. On the Republican side? From my experience with the staff of Republicans, the staff is dumber and more stubborn than their bosses. Why? I don't know. Maybe hiring of the donors' favorites?)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?

What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)

It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.

Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.

Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.

With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.

Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.

The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.

“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.

“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”

Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.

The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).

https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.

That's not capitalism.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:10 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.

That's not capitalism.
I assume you never read "Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances That Stem From Federal Research Support"
https://www2.itif.org/2014-federally-supported-innovations.pdf

There are not any Bell Labs inventing these ideas because AT&T stopped generously funding research once pure Capitalists took over the company.

Federal R&D funding: the bedrock of national innovation
https://sciencepolicyreview.org/2020/08/federal-rd-funding-the-bedrock
-of-national-innovation/
Article Summary
The U.S. government’s financial commitment to scientific research has significantly declined in the past few decades. Recent research has also revealed a lack of public awareness of the importance of federal research and development (R&D) funding; only one in four Americans believe that the government’s role in science is indispensable. In this paper, we argue that federal funding provides the bedrock for the U.S.’s innovation infrastructure while guiding the national research agenda to benefit society.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 15, 2022 11:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 6:24 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works? It is as mindless as some blind fish at the bottom of the deepest ocean sucking up decaying food falling from the surface. But in Capitalism's case, it is money it sucks up. If government doesn't give Capitalism a direction and a higher purpose, humanity gets exactly what it is now getting from Capitalism: a huge waste stream of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Capitalism can dispose of its own wastes, but that requires the government to spend money and enforce regulations on carbon dioxide. The choice is up to the government of how much money and what regulations. The Capitalists are NOT thinking ahead about climate change or anything except money. If the government won't think ahead, expecting Capitalists to altruistically save the world from climate change, we are dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works?
I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, I'm refering to the defintion of itself.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if they could be used interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:37 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.

It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.

You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.

There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.

It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.

You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.

There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Actually, engineers, chemists, etc think in words FIRST, and these words have extremely specific definitions. LEARNING the physical sciences involves learning the words and concepts that go with them: what is a cell? What is DNA? what is an alcohol, an amine? what is heat? what is a lever? what is current? Voltage?

And, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't change the world? and laws... the're just words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements and subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?

WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)

People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't understand and haven't even defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... capitalism, communism ... they don't know where the defintion begins and where it ends.

So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:00 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?

You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)

People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.

So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best, which is talk and write. The lawyers and philosophers denigrate as inferior what they are worst at, which are all the things engineers do for a living.

If legislatures want to solve the excess CO2 problem in the atmosphere (and I doubt legislatures do want a solution because it will cost money, just as sewage treatment plants cost money) the legislatures should hire some engineers to write the legislation and rules in a way that engineers can understand what the legislature wants.

By the way, somebody had to pay for the engineers and their construction projects. If nobody pays, CO2 will rise and rise until it kills all.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


A more relevant topic:


Quote:
Cover Crops

Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.

These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matter
that is, CARBON...
Quote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.


https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:06 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:


Quote:
Cover Crops

Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.

These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matter
that is, CARBON...
Quote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.


https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
by SIGNYM:

So, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't chnage the world? and laws... the're jus words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements an subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?

You can't transmit communicate discoveries and knowledge to others for them to build on unless you can attach a name to it. WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)

People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't nderstand and haven'teven defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... they don'y know where the defintion begins and where it ends.

So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

SECOND :You are far too impressed with vocabulary, just as every lawyer I have known and every philosopher I have read is impressed with what they do best,
And I'm not either of them. But as a retired chemist, I understand that the words that I used to make my living were all important and tightly defined.

So we didn't use the word "mass" when we wanted to say "density", or "liquid" when we needed to say "fluid", or "alcohol" when the word we were looking for was "amine".

And I bet when you were an engineer you didn't use "power" when you meant "temperature" and "exchange" when you meant "pressure".

You're far too careless with words you don't understand bc you don't respect the concepts behind them. So why should I bother to read what you write?

Oh yeah, that's right ... I rarely do.

Maybe if you were more disciplined with your definitions you'd make more sense, not just to us but to yourself as well.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A more relevant topic:


Quote:
Cover Crops

Cover crops can be broadly defined as any non-cash crop grown in addition to the primary cash crop.

These crops have the potential to increase soil organic matter
that is, CARBON...
Quote:
and fertility, reduce erosion, improve soil structure, promote water infiltration, and limit pest and disease outbreaks. There are numerous benefits to cover cropping, though, as with any management technique, there are tradeoffs and limitations that must be considered. In many situations cover cropping can lead to a decreased reliance on fossil fuels and improved agricultural productivity.


https://sarep.ucdavis.edu/sustainable-ag/cover-crops
That's lovely and utopian when one farmer out of a thousand does this, but if the other 999 farmers do NOT, CO2 will keep rising until it kills all. If you think most farmers will voluntarily do right, you will be wrong.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage tthe practice.

You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 10:16 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.

You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?

Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live. These solutions allow aviation to continue in the United States without inventing hydrogen-burning jet engines or electric motors to turn airplane propellers. And millions of farmworkers can continue to farm however incompetently they please without ever learning new techniques. Almost forgot that the high-tech solutions also allow Americans to get fat eating like gluttons.

https://www.google.com/search?q=agricultural+subsidies

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 16, 2022 1:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Which is why there should be a subsidy tied to increasing soil carbon content .. or at least planting cover crops ... to encourage the practice.

You're all hot to trot for the government to spend money to discover a "clean jet fuel" that may never come to frutition. why would you be against helping farmers out, except that you're not invested in farming?
The clean jet fuel problem can be "solved" by shutting down aviation in the USA. See how easily the CO2 emissions could go to zero with just the passage of one law?

Farmers' problems can be solved by Americans fasting until CO2 drops to safe levels. Agricultural subsidies will let farmers' fields lay fallow for a few years while absorbing CO2. Plow the crops under to increase carbon in the soil. If the crops are harvested, the food will become more CO2 after people digest the food. Instead, America can import food from Canada and Mexico. It is the perfect solution to too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Alternatively, high-tech solutions to excessive CO2 exist that don't require hundreds of millions of Americans to change how they live.
Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.

I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:02 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Fossil Fuel Industry Seeks to Expand Free Speech for Corporations and Limit It for Citizens
by Amy Westervelt / September 16, 2022 at 12:41PM

https://theintercept.com/2022/09/16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-
speech/

Reps. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., probably didn’t plan for their committee hearings to run at the exact same time this week, but the hearings sure were talking to each other.

In her Committee on Natural Resources hearing, Porter highlighted the role PR firms play in blocking climate policy. Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, and his selected witness, Amy Cooke, CEO of the conservative John Locke Foundation, expressed concern that preventing companies and their hired PR firms from spreading misinformation about climate change would have a chilling effect on free speech.

Meanwhile, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, chaired by Raskin, focused on free speech attacks against environmentalists, digging into the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to curb citizens’ speech rights via strategic litigation and laws that criminalize protest. Taken together, the two are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens.

Raskin’s free speech hearing focused on two key tactics: the increased filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs — defamation suits aimed at penalizing citizens or citizen groups for exercising their First Amendment rights — and the proliferation of so-called critical infrastructure bills, which pile on fines and criminal sentences for those caught trespassing or vandalizing near pipelines, power plants, railroads, or other infrastructure. These anti-protest bills were a direct industry backlash to the Standing Rock protests in 2016 and 2017. Starting with a law passed in Oklahoma in 2017, they proliferated with the help of the industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts and disseminates pro-corporate model legislation for adoption by state governments. Seventeen states now have critical infrastructure laws on the books, with several more considering proposals.

“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel for Greenpeace and a witness at Raskin’s hearing. “They’re tactics used by the same corporate actors to quash dissent. They’re pushing legislation to silence us, to criminalize our critiques through anti-protest bills. And they’re also filing SLAPP suits to silence dissent.”

Greenpeace has dealt with both. Greenpeace USA activists were arrested in 2019 under Texas’s felony critical infrastructure law for unfurling banners on a bridge, which temporarily blocked shipping. The goal of the action was to highlight the connection between the oil industry and climate change.

Greenpeace is engaged in active litigation in a couple of SLAPP suits too. In one, Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued the organization for its role in the Standing Rock protests. The suit was initially filed in federal court and invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a law designed to prosecute organized crime. “Energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy work to uplift Indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime,” Padmanabha said.

Because RICO allows for damages to be tripled if a defendant is found guilty, Greenpeace faced a $1 billion fine. Losing that suit would have had a truly chilling effect on free speech. A federal judge threw out the case, but Energy Transfer filed again in North Dakota (minus the RICO charge), a state that doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law on the books.

“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin.”
Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants a quick way to get SLAPP suits dismissed, minimizing the time and money spent on meritless cases. Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes, which makes it fairly easy for corporate entities to go venue shopping for a court in a state without such a law. To address that gap, Raskin proposed new legislation this week to create federal anti-SLAPP protection. While some players in the fossil fuel industry may oppose Raskin’s bill, others have actually sought to avail themselves of anti-SLAPP protections. Exxon Mobil, for example, in its final attempt to thwart the fraud case against it in Massachusetts, argued that the suit was a SLAPP.

The oil company’s attorney Justin Anderson maintained that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s fraud complaint against Exxon was not valid because the company’s public statements on climate policy should be considered political opinion (“petitioning activity,” in legal parlance), not misleading advertising — even when Exxon falsely claimed that climate change wasn’t real and overstated the company’s investments in low-carbon technology.

When one judge asked why Exxon would file an anti-SLAPP complaint rather than make a First Amendment argument in court, Anderson made clear that the point was to avoid discovery, when the corporation would be asked to hand over files and make its executives available for depositions. “The anti-SLAPP statute provides a mechanism to have a case that is brought against someone for petitioning activity dismissed at the outset before burdensome discovery is imposed on the party,” he argued.

The “petitioning activity” argument is one that the industry and its allies have trotted out repeatedly, both in court and in congressional hearings like those held this week. It’s a broad interpretation of free speech rights for corporations, the very sort of protection these same companies are opposed to extending to individuals. In his testimony before Raskin’s subcommittee, Daren Bakst, a senior research fellow on environmental policy and regulation for the Heritage Foundation, said, “The chilling effects are states bringing lawsuits against people for their speech.” It’s hard to tell because he said “people,” but he meant oil companies. Which he made clear by immediately referencing “what municipalities are doing, the government is doing against these fossil fuel companies. And I also see that Massachusetts is doing.”

This view of an oil company as a person who is being silenced for simply sharing their views on climate policy is the basic argument oil companies are making in dozens of cases across the country. These cases, brought by both municipalities and states, hinge either on fraud or nuisance claims and effectively ask that fossil fuel companies pay up for delaying action on climate, which increased both the impacts of the climate crisis and the price of adapting to a warming world. In all of them, the corporate defendants make some version of a free speech argument. They maintain that their public speech about global warming differed from their internal knowledge because their public statements were “petitioning speech,” related to their political views and desires and thus, protected. The industry has been building the foundation for such an argument for about as long as it has known about climate change — since the late 1960s.

“They will try to defend their misinformation efforts as political speech covered by the First Amendment and not subject to false advertising laws.”

The argument arose out of a situation not unlike the one playing out today, with war driving up prices at the pump and oil companies desperate to control public perception.

According to documents from Mobil’s corporate archive at the University of Texas at Austin, the company’s longtime PR whiz Herbert Schmertz and then-CEO, Rawleigh Warner, came up with an idea to help wrestle back control of the narrative. Using Mobil’s PR and advertising budget, they would create “idea advertising” to push the company’s take on key issues of the day and create the sense of Mobil as a citizen with a distinct personality.

They ran weekly advertorials in the New York Times as well as regular placements in a wide range of other publications, from the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal to Time and Fortune. Then Schmertz proposed TV and radio too. Why not?

In the early 1970s, Mobil took their TV and radio advertorials to all the big broadcast stations and only one, NBC, agreed to run them. CBS and ABC said they preferred to have their journalists cover energy issues. For Schmertz and Warner, it was a battle they had to win. What if the newspapers, or PBS, started to rethink playing nice with Mobil? In a media blitz, the two blasted CBS and ABC from every angle, in their NYT spot, on radio and TV programs, at events. Warner went to various business clubs to talk about the importance of protecting corporate free speech. Schmertz testified before Congress in 1978, urging First Amendment protection for Mobil’s ads and arguing that there was no difference between Mobil advertorials and New York Times editorials, because after all the Times was a business too.

Mobil helped rally support and funding for the first big Supreme Court case on the matter, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the precursor to Citizens United. The court ruled that corporations could spend whatever money they wanted to influence politics, overruling a Massachusetts statute that said otherwise. “If the restricted view of corporate speech taken by the Massachusetts court were accepted,” Justice Lewis A. Powell wrote, “government would have the power to deprive society of the views of corporations.”

“I don’t think people really appreciate how big of a deal that was in shifting the rules of speech in the public space,” environmental sociologist Robert Brulle said. “Now, suddenly, corporations could use their budgets — which are enormous, you know, much larger than individuals — to advocate their position in the public space. … It allowed for a systematic distortion of the public space that gives corporations basically a loudspeaker to amplify their voice above everybody else’s.”

The 2010 Citizens United ruling, of course, intensified that dynamic. Whereas Bellotti allowed corporations to publicly campaign for particular ballot initiatives or candidates, Citizens United allowed political speech of any sort without disclosure of who was paying, who was actually speaking. Oil companies have been working to broaden corporate free speech rights even more in recent years, as their arguments in climate litigation and before Congress show.

“They will try to defend their misinformation efforts as political speech covered by the First Amendment and not subject to false advertising laws,” said Brulle, who has co-authored briefs in some of these cases.

Robert Kerr, who’s researched Mobil’s role in the corporate free speech movement for years, said to side with the oil companies’ arguments in these cases, the Supreme Court would have to turn its back on about a century’s worth of legal precedent. “It’s really deeply established even by some of the members of the current Supreme Court that the First Amendment will never protect expression that is fraud,” he said. “The worry now is that with this court there seems to be a majority that wants to say yes to almost any question the corporate interests raise.”

It makes sense then, that the industry and its allies would be working hard to rebrand climate denialism as simply a difference of opinion, to put some distance between greenwashing and fraud, to collectively gasp about the “chilling effect” (a phrase that came up so often in minority witness testimony this week that it’s hard to believe someone somewhere wasn’t disseminating talking points) that tackling misinformation might have on free speech. The fact that those efforts are happening alongside coordinated attempts to criminalize protest is more of the same: corporations drowning out the public.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:11 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Cover crops don't require anyone to change how they live, either. EVs would require more change than methane powered vehicles, bc people have to worry about range, charging stations, and changing out a $12,000 battery every 5-7 years. And, yanno, MOST people don't fly regularly. I think the thing YOU'RE worried about is your ginormous fancy truck and your private jet.

I've spent way too much time on you. So why don't you ponder the definition of capitalism for a while?
Maybe I should check your claim? You will not be replacing a battery if Tesla is an example:
Quote:
Tesla will even cover the battery replacement cost if charge capacity falls below 70% during the warranty period—something that’s also very rare. EV batteries tend to retain most of their charge capacity even hundreds of thousands of miles into their lifespan.

In fact, Tesla claims their EVs can retain 90% of their charge capacity even 200,000 miles in. Data from UK research firm NimbleFins seems to back that claim up—the company studied over 500 models, with those at the 150,000-mile mark retaining 90% charge capacity and those over 200,000 still holding about 80% capacity.
https://www.howtogeek.com/830513/how-much-does-it-cost-to-replace-a-te
sla-battery/

This is going completely beyond what you can understand, but the dumping of hundreds of gigatonness of CO2 required a major industrial effort over more than two hundred years. That dumping will not be undone by a million farmers, or even all farmers, planting cover crops to withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere. It will require another major industrial effort to reduce CO2.

As of 2018, CO2 constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3210 gigatonnes of CO2. Since there are 8 giga-humans, that is a lot of tonnes of CO2 per human.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 17, 2022 6:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Regenerative grazing

Cattle Farmer Says New Livestock Grazing Method Could Save Grasslands, Reverse Desertification

https://www.theepochtimes.com/cattle-farmer-says-new-livestock-grazing
-method-could-save-grasslands-reverse-desertification_4733016.html

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Your statistic for CO2 in the air is flawed, SECOND. There was CO2 in the air BEFORE industrialization. if you plan on stripping the air entirely of CO2 you'll kill all plant life.

The previous non-industrial concentration of CO2 in the air was about 250 ppm. For simplicity slightly more than half of today's amount, but cut your figure in half and it'll be close enough.

*****
According to this study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70224-6
and this statistic
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196104/total-area-of-land-in-farms
-in-the-us-since-2000/

and using the highest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 8 gigatons of carbon, or 26 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success so cover crop practices need to be optimized.

But multiply half of that that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, better land use planning, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem.

Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but some of them are too far in the future (hydrogen cars) and they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:51 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

using the lowest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 4 gigatons of carbon, or 13 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success. Multiply that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem

Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.
As far as I can tell, the world had 40 years to handle this CO2 waste problem and work out all the kinks but didn't do the work. Well, a few people did the work because free energy from wind and sun could make them very rich, but most people did not get involved, other than buying electricity from the people who were getting rich.

Maybe next month most of humanity will get its large and very lazy ass in gear by NOT buying fossil fuel. Or maybe next year. Or the year after that. But probably most won't change how they do anything and would much rather burn fossil fuel than try something new. But I do know those good old ways of doing things will dump 35 gigatonnes per year into the atmosphere because that is the easiest, dumbest thing to do since any dopey fool can understand fire, humanity's oldest technology from 1,000,000 years ago. Until I checked just now, I was thinking cooking fires were discovered 300,000 years ago. How swiftly time flies when you are inventing advanced technology. Tonight is steak night cooked on an electric grill powered by a windmill in the Texas Panhandle. Your average caveman can't match that for their cooking fire.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Human Ancestors Tamed Fire Earlier Than Thought
https://www.history.com/news/human-ancestors-tamed-fire-earlier-than-t
hought

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 18, 2022 3:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

using the lowest measurement of soil carbon sequestration, cover crops in the USA alone have the potential to store 4 gigatons of carbon, or 13 gigatons of equivalent CO2, in the soil.
Not all studies show such great success. Multiply that by the amount of land across the globe currently under cultivation and the potential is significant. When combined with better forest management, better grazing practices, conservation, green energy, and technological improvements this should be a solvable problem

Nobody is dismissing techno fixes, but they're not the ONLY solution. ALL options should be on the table.
I think I've said that three or four times by now, but apparently it hasn't sunk into your brain yet.

SECOND: As far as I can tell, the world had 40 years to handle this CO2 waste problem and work out all the kinks but didn't do the work. Well, a few people did the work because free energy from wind and sun could make them very rich, but most people did not get involved, other than buying electricity from the people who were getting rich.
Oh, who's supposed to be saving the day, SIX? "Capitalism" (as you call it) and "capitalists" who got u into this mess in the first place?

Yanno, greedy people make the MOST money by flogging old infrastructure bc no new investment is needed. THAT'S YOUR VERSION OF CAPITALISM, INNIT? Grab the most money that you can as fast as you can without regard for anybody or anything?

Quote:
SECOND:Maybe next month most of humanity will get its large and very lazy ass in gear by NOT buying fossil fuel.
You despise "humanity" but it's not "humanity" setting up the rules of the game, is it?

Is the subsistence farmer hoeing her field in Africa or hand-gathering wheat in northern India lazy, fat? Is the sheepherder in N Africa or the family farmer in Haiti or the illegal cobalt miner in the Congo to blame?

The poorer someone is, the shorter their view of the future. Sometimes it's as short as the next rainfall, the next harvest and, in the extreme, the next meal or the next sip of water.

Only people who have their basic needs met have the luxury of worrying about the future of their children. But under CAPITALISM (as you call it) those that have freedom of action can't have the luxury of conscience, lest they be eaten by those less principled than themselves.

So let's turn our attention to those who are truly to blame.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2022 5:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


New device pulls water from air to make H2
The system can harvest water from low humidity air and use solar power to drive electrolysis
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/New-device-pulls-water
-air/100/web/2022/09

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 22, 2022 5:21 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Old Capitalists won't switch to new tech unless the fuel for the new tech is cheaper, climate change be damned. At long last, H2 fuel might be cheaper than diesel fuel, overcoming at least one of many prejudices held by old Capitalists who own the trucking industry:

Canada-based Loop Energy unveiled its new hydrogen fuel cell at the IAA Transportation 2022 conference in Germany this week, saying it marks “a milestone” for the transport industry’s transition to clean energies.

At current fuel price levels, a commercial truck equipped with the S1200 hydrogen fuel cell could travel 179km (111 miles) with $100 worth of fuel, compared to 175km for a diesel truck with the same amount of fuel.

Several leading vehicle makers have invested heavily in the technology for use in freight trucks, as they seek to transition to zero-emission transport.

Alternative battery technologies are currently seen as too heavy for medium- to heavy-duty commercial vehicles, though automakers like Tesla have built fully battery-powered trucks.

By making it a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels, the new system developed by Loop Energy overcomes one of the main challenges to mass adoption of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hydrogen-fuel-cell-breakthro
ugh-is-more-efficient-than-diesel-engines/ar-AA125g2u

Special note for Signym: If diesel fuel becomes less expensive than H2 in the future, old Capitalists would switch back, once again, to diesel engines for their newest trucks. Assuming that H2 became more common than diesel, diesel fuel refineries would drop the price to hold onto customers, climate change be damned. This is how Capitalism works, Signym. External costs like destroying the world do NOT figure into a Capitalist's calculations, unless the Capitalist is forced by government to change fuels, regardless of fuel prices. Capitalists always whine about going bankrupt unless the government allows the Capitalist to choose the cheapest way, be it fuel or wages or safety. This is why truck drivers' wages are under downward pressure (unless there is a driver's union) and why trucking companies cut corners on safety (unless there are police stopping trucks that are not being maintained).

Loop Energy’s zero-emission solution for the heavy-duty transportation sector.
https://loopenergy.com/s1200/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:05 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Climate change threatens up to 100% of trees in Australian cities, and most urban species worldwide

Study published in Nature Climate Change found climate change will put 90-100% of the trees and shrubs planted in Australian capital cities at risk by 2050. Without action, two-thirds of trees and shrubs in cities worldwide will be at potential risk from climate change.

We have also identified steps people can take to help their local trees survive, thrive and keep on cooling.

https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2022/09/20/climate-change-threatens-u
p-to-100-of-trees-in-australian-cities-and-most-urban-species-worldwide/

Climate change threatens the health and survival of urban trees and the various benefits they deliver to urban inhabitants. Here, we show that 56% and 65% of species in 164 cities across 78 countries are currently exceeding temperature and precipitation conditions experienced in their geographic range, respectively. We assessed 3,129 tree and shrub species, using three metrics related to climate vulnerability: exposure, safety margin and risk. By 2050 under Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0, 2,387 (76%) and 2,220 (70%) species will be at risk from projected changes in mean annual temperature and annual precipitation, respectively. Risk is predicted to be greatest in cities at low latitudes—such as New Delhi and Singapore—where all urban tree species are vulnerable to climate change. These findings aid the evaluation of the impacts of climate change to secure long-term benefits provided by urban forests.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01465-8

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2022 7:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Exclusive: Shell plans $1.48B Bio-refinery in Louisiana as Part of Transition away from Fossil Fuels

The plan is the first in a series of projects Shell is considering at its chemicals facilities along the Gulf Coast to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. The regional spending plan, which is still in flux, could cost as much as $10 billion.

The company is also considering new projects at facilities in Deer Park, east of Houston, and Geismar and Norco in Lousiana to help the company reduce emissions and provide reduced-carbon products and chemicals needed to advance the energy transition.

Shell is prioritizing projects in the region based on the low-carbon products that are most in demand, Lewis said, which now include biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel. Shell is one of the main suppliers of traditional aviation fuel, so it has strong relationships with airlines.

https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/exclusive-shell-plans-1-48b-bio-refin
ery-in-louisiana-as-part-of-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2022 8:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
New device pulls water from air to make H2
The system can harvest water from low humidity air and use solar power to drive electrolysis
https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/New-device-pulls-water
-air/100/web/2022/09


I'll believe this one when I see it. I've been hearing about these magic water getters for years now. Every one of them have been lucrative scams run on kickstarter platforms. Don't donate any money if they're asking for donations at least until there is irrefutable proof that they have a working prototype.









Honestly, it drives me crazy how many people have reinvented the dehumidifier, put a solar panel on it, and the media has danced around like they've just saved the world! ~Thunderf00t

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2022 12:13 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Can we make air travel "green"? Yes, but "green" liquid fuel is more expensive than fuel made from crude oil.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2022 8:32 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


As the US Department of Energy (DoE) continues to look for ways to improve molten salt nuclear reactors (MSRs), a team from Brigham Young University in Utah has designed one it says can fit safely in the bed of a 40-foot truck.

The molten salt micro-nuclear reactor, which will be built by Professor Matthew Memmott and his team, has a chamber that measures just four by seven feet (1.2 x 2.1 metres), has no risk of a meltdown, and can produce enough energy to power 1,000 homes, the university said. Prof Memmott separately told The Register the reactor's output should be around 10MWe.

"For the last 60 years, people have had the gut reaction that nuclear is bad, it's big, it's dangerous," the professor said. "Those perceptions are based on potential issues for generation one, but having the molten salt reactor is the equivalent of having a silicon chip. We can have smaller, safer, cheaper reactors and get rid of those problems."

Unlike traditional light-water reactors, which typically store uranium fuel in solid rods that have to be kept cool with liquid water to avoid a meltdown, MSRs instead dissolve fissile material into a molten salt that also acts as the reactor's primary coolant. Treating the fuel and primary coolant as one, and not relying on keeping water coolant flowing and below boiling point, is seen as one safety advantage, among others, for MSRs.

In a typical MSR, the primary fuel salt, with its high melting point of 1022°F (550°C), moves through the reactor and transfers its heat to non-radioactive secondary coolant salt, which can pass on its heat to other things, such as traditional steam-turbine-driven electricity generators.

According to Prof Memmott, nuclear power, and molten salt in particular, is an ideal solution to the world's current energy conundrum because it is safe and stable, the core reaction doesn't produce carbon emissions, and it generates valuable elements accessible for reprocessing after the reaction is complete.

According to his university, the waste generated by an MSR reactor would allow companies to extract Molybdenum-99, an expensive element used in medical imaging; Cobalt-60; gold; platinum; neodymium; and other elements that could be sold for other applications.

Additionally, Prof Memmott said his team were able to pull oxygen and hydrogen from the salts as well. "Through this process, we can make the salt fully clean again and reuse it. We can recycle the salt indefinitely," he said.

Have we entered a molten salt renaissance?

Molten salt reactors were developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and were billed as an alternative to light-water reactors due to their touted smaller size and improved safety. The designs at the time ultimately proved unusable for their original purposes. The Dept of Energy lately launched a $9.25 million study led by Los Alamos National Laboratory to address MSR shortcomings and determine what's needed to make them practical.

During last century's MSR experiments, Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that fluoride salts were incredibly corrosive to metals and other materials used to build reactors – even for a specialized alloy built in the lab to reduce corrosion at high temperatures.

While the DoE is still investigating ways to get around these showstopping corrosion issues, Prof Memmott said that his team, along with Alpha Tech Research Corp (the commercializing partner for the BYU MSR, and of which Memmott is director and senior technical advisor), believe they have solved the problem by removing water and oxygen from the salt, massively reducing the corrosion issue.

The Department of Energy, incidentally, gave Prof Memmott and two other Brigham Young University (BYU) engineering professors, Stella Nickerson and Troy Munro nearly $800,000 in grants in 2019 to determine the physical properties of molten salt.

That particular study was funded by the DoE's Nuclear Energy University Program. The team looked into the density, viscosity, heat capacity, thermal conductivity and other properties of molten salt, and also included a look at how fission and corrosive byproducts are produced inside MSRs.

While the compact BYU reactor now under construction won't be operational for testing until next year, Memmott said, the micro design doesn't require salt to flow through the reactor, which means it eliminates components such as pumps and valves, as well as solving operational problems, like having to tightly control flow and temperature.

The reactor is also designed to cool itself down using nothing but conduction, which the professor said "makes it a truly passively safe reactor according to the IAEA passivity scale."

This, of course, assumes that all goes well when the reactor is actually tested next year, though the wait isn't stopping Prof Memmott or Alpha Tech from seeking wider use for the tech they developed – specifically their molten salt.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Alpha Tech has partnered with the San Rafael Energy Research Center in Orangeville, Utah, to turn a shuttered coal mining equipment warehouse into a facility to refine salts for use in MSRs.

Prof Memmott told the newspaper Alpha Tech's refined salts will also be sold to other companies and research institutions, such as MIT, which plans to use it as an enveloping material for its hot nuclear fusion reactor.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/05/micro_molten_salt_reactor/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 6, 2022 9:05 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


GMC's new Hummer costs $90,000 and takes 4 days to charge.

SCAM.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 15, 2022 5:04 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Animal populations shrunk an average of 69% over the last half-century, a report says

October 14, 2022

That's the upshot of a new report from the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, which analyzed years of data on thousands of wildlife populations across the world and found a downward trend in the Earth's biodiversity.

According to the Living Planet Index, a metric that's been in existence for five decades, animal populations across the world shrunk by an average of 69% between 1970 and 2018.

Not all animal populations dwindled, and some parts of the world saw more drastic changes than others. But experts say the steep loss of biodiversity is a stark and worrying sign of what's to come for the natural world.

"The message is clear and the lights are flashing red," said WWF International Director General Marco Lambertini.

According to the report's authors, the main cause of biodiversity loss is land-use changes driven by human activity, such as infrastructure development, energy production and deforestation.

Climate change may become the leading cause of biodiversity loss

But the report suggests that climate change — which is already unleashing wide-ranging effects on plant and animal species globally — could become the leading cause of biodiversity loss if rising temperatures aren't limited to 1.5°C.

Lambertini said the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change are already responsible for a raft of problems for humans, including death and displacement from extreme weather, a lack of access to food and water and a spike in the spread of zoonotic diseases.

He said world leaders gathering at the U.N. Biodiversity Conference in Montreal in December should take major steps to reverse environmental damage.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/14/1128858953/animal-populations-are-shrin
king-drastically

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 15, 2022 8:45 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html

That means you.

And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 15, 2022 9:33 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html

That means you.

And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
I remember dozens of people, all dead now from smoking, who were angry at Democrats for condemning smoking. They are not angry anymore. They are not anything anymore. There are people who will die because of global climate change, but they don't want to hear about it from politicians because they want low price gasoline and low price coal fired electric power. They don't want to know that they can't have what they want. And they sure don't want to know that if they got what they wanted, it would kill them.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 15, 2022 9:23 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In Overheated Economy, Dems Forced To Cool Climate Messaging

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/in_overheated_ec
onomy_dems_forced_to_cool_climate_messaging_148319.html

That means you.

And nobody else in the world wants to talk about it right now either.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
I remember dozens of people, all dead now from smoking, who were angry at Democrats for condemning smoking. They are not angry anymore. They are not anything anymore. There are people who will die because of global climate change, but they don't want to hear about it from politicians because they want low price gasoline and low price coal fired electric power. They don't want to know that they can't have what they want. And they sure don't want to know that if they got what they wanted, it would kill them.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two



False Equivalency King.

Take your worthless opinions as well as your vices that we all know you have and bounce on them until your brains leak out of your ears.

It won't take long. Trust me.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 16, 2022 7:39 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

False Equivalency King.

Take your worthless opinions as well as your vices that we all know you have and bounce on them until your brains leak out of your ears.

It won't take long. Trust me.
In Alaska, the Republican fishermen are telling themselves that once Trump is back in the White House the fishermen can catch as many snow crabs and king crabs as they want. All the fishermen will be rich, Rich, RICH! In reality, climate change is killing off the industry because the water is getting too hot for the crabs to reproduce. But being Republicans, the fishermen say it is Fake News. Just wait until Trump is President when we can sell all the crabs all the time. There are no limits when Trump is President! Everything is possible! Nothing is forbidden!

Billions of snow crabs have disappeared from the waters around Alaska. Scientists say overfishing is not the cause
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/16/us/alaska-snow-crab-harvest-canceled-cl
imate/index.html

Vote for Republicans because they will repeal the laws of nature! Democrats foolishly obey laws that limit Republicans' Freedom!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 16, 2022 8:08 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.

Just pout then.



--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.

Just pout then.
Didn't you know that climate change is a hoax? Once the Republicans get partial control of Congress, they will hold hearings to make sure the whole world is aware of how Greta Thunberg is the mastermind behind the hoax.

Climate change is a Chinese Hoax! - Trump
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709051001/https://time.com/5622374/do
nald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 17, 2022 4:36 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Cement is an extremely emissions-generating material, currently accounting for about eight percent of the world's global carbon emissions.

But Seratech carbon-neutral concrete wins the Obel Award 2022 because it stores CO2, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.

The raw materials needed for Seratch's technology – carbon dioxide from industry and olivine, a magnesium iron silicate – are abundant around the globe. If industry cannot supply the carbon dioxide, then Draper says that Seratech could use an affordable direct air capture technology instead, drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

https://www.dezeen.com/2022/10/17/carbon-neutral-concrete-seratech-obe
l-award-2022/#

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 17, 2022 7:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Words of a man who knows that he's already lost.

Just pout then.
Didn't you know that climate change is a hoax? Once the Republicans get partial control of Congress, they will hold hearings to make sure the whole world is aware of how Greta Thunberg is the mastermind behind the hoax.

Climate change is a Chinese Hoax! - Trump
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709051001/https://time.com/5622374/do
nald-trump-climate-change-hoax-event/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Greta who?

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE
SECOND 10.31 14:25

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:06 - 592 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:47 - 236 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL