Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody been talking about the new fuel? Comes from air, captures Oxygen from CO2, requires ZERO modifications to existing gas combustion engines?

Currently $11 per gallon, but getting reduced.

Pro Racing will have a year or 2 of running on it, Porsche is leading research.

Greens hate it, will eliminate their power of scare tactics over everybody.

---

Something like this makes the rounds every few years. The car that runs on WATER! The fuel that NASA developed that gets 200 mpg that GM bought up the rights to and killed. The car that runs off the earth's electromagentic filed!

Thinking about the chemistry of separating oxygen from CO2... well, that takes energy. Plants do it quite nicely using solar power, but I can't think of any process to do that that doesn't USE energy. ANd a process that USESenergy can't possibly be used to fuel anything.

Hey, I'll be happy to learn something very new, but if it happens it would completely overturn everything we think we know about physics and chemistry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Sorry, I guess I failed to include the key term eFuel.

Looks like your 3rd and 4th links got it.

---

Quote:

---

For example, an EU-wide blending of just 5% eFuels to conventional fuel, would result in a saving of 60 million tons of CO2 – equivalent to taking 40 million cars off the road for an entire year. This is essential to meet EU climate targets, as a big part of today's more than 300 million vehicles with an internal combustion engine (ICE) will continue to dominate our roads for many years to come.

---

Quote:

---

The first step in manufacturing eFuels – electrolysis for hydrogen production – requires a great deal of energy, which is what makes the perpetual availability of green electricity so important. Water (H2O) is a very stable chemical compound. Two hydrogen atoms (H) bond with an oxygen atom (O) to form a water molecule. It takes a great deal of energy to extract hydrogen from this compound. Because the Patagonian wind offers inexhaustible energy, hydrogen can be generated there more sustainably and affordably. In regions with limited energy, any electricity produced has to be used directly for the greatest benefit.

In addition to hydrogen, eFuel production requires a second component, carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a greenhouse gas that at high concentrations in the atmosphere promotes global warming. CO2 can be filtered from the air using direct air capture, a process by which air flows through a ceramic filter similar to a catalytic converter in a car. However, rather than precious metals, the flow channels use a chemical substance to bind CO2 molecules. Once all of the spaces are filled with CO2, the filter is closed, vacuumed, and heated. Heat releases the CO2, which can then be vacuumed into a tank. In concrete terms, one liter of eFuel requires hydrogen from three liters of desalinated seawater and CO2 from 6,000 cubic meters of air.
Preparation and use of eFuels

A synthesis plant then binds the hydrogen and CO2 to create methanol, which is age resistant and suitable for storage and transportation. Ship engines are currently designed for operation with methanol. However, use in passenger cars requires further processing, with additional carbon compounds added in the final step of synthesis, methanol to gasoline. The end product is a gasoline and diesel alternative as well as eFuel for mixing with conventional, mineral oil–based fuels for ongoing reduction of emissions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

IMHO the limitation of this process is the number of sites that are capable of gnerating massive reliable "green power". Look at the location in this article: The southermost tip of South America. Not too many places like that!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Most of U.S. wind electricity generation capacity is in the middle of the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Most of U.S. wind electricity generation capacity is in the middle of the country.

---

Problem solved then.

Charge people on the coasts $3 per kWh for wind energy.

---

Quote:

---

From a global perspective, our planet is rich in energy thanks to the inexhaustible resources sun and wind. But that’s not necessarily the case on a local level, as regions with limited wind and sun can cover little to none of their energy requirements with these sources. In Germany, for example, wind turbines operate at full capacity just 66 days out of the year on average. ...

Punta Arenas has a population of around 130,000 and is located in the Patagonia region at the southern tip of Chile, ­making it the southernmost large city in the world. It’s also the most important center of trade on the western coast of the Strait of Magellan. This area is known for its strong winds, which blow incessantly across the barren landscape, almost always from the same direction. They’re so powerful that they can transform trees into bizarre sculptures, which are referred to as “flag trees.” Wind turbines could operate at maximum capacity 270 days a year here,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
IMHO the limitation of this process is the number of sites that are capable of gnerating massive reliable "green power". Look at the location in this article: The southermost tip of South America. Not too many places like that!

---

Most of U.S. wind electricity generation capacity is in the middle of the country.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed
.php

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Looks like the Cape Horn tip is similar latitude south as north is for Ketchikan, AK, Hudson Bay, Glasgow, Copenhagen.
I read it is 100 degrees F this week there, the middle of their winter.

Internet says it is "inhospitable" there - what better place to use for producing power? If everybody could put power plants in the middle of the desert, effectively barren land, they likely would.
This Sur portion of Chile apparently also has great Hydro resources. The steep mountains flow water directly into the ocean, without any pause. This sounds almost like a wonderful place for hydro-electric dams - another free source of electricity.

Chile could well become the energy producer of the world. More power to them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Looks like the Cape Horn tip is similar latitude south as north is for Ketchikan, AK, Hudson Bay, Glasgow, Copenhagen.
I read it is 100 degrees F this week there, the middle of their winter.

Internet says it is "inhospitable" there - what better place to use for producing power? If everybody could put power plants in the middle of the desert, effectively barren land, they likely would.
This Sur portion of Chile apparently also has great Hydro resources. The steep mountains flow water directly into the ocean, without any pause. This sounds almost like a wonderful place for hydro-electric dams - another free source of electricity.

Chile could well become the energy producer of the world. More power to them.

---

Yes. To them. The trick would be transporting that power elsewhere.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Huh? There's plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's increased over the past significantly over the past 100 years. Enough to go around.

AFA eFuel... well, the limiting factor on production is the #of suitable sites. It needs to be reliably windy but close to roads and, ultimately, ocean-going tankers.

Porsche plans to make just enough to fuel it's current IC engines on the road. Porsche only. No plans to scale up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Huh? There's plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's increased over the past significantly over the past 100 years. Enough to go around.

AFA eFuel... well, the limiting factor on production is the #of suitable sites. It needs to be reliably windy but close to roads and, ultimately, ocean-going tankers.

Porsche plans to make just enough to fuel it's current IC engines on the road. Porsche only. No plans to scale up.

---

There is a company in California called eFUELCO. What a catchy name! https://efuelco.com/

The company sales pitch:
Renewable Diesel Delivered to Your Fleet
Save time. Save money. Eliminate risk.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

eFuel eliminates the need for your drivers to fuel your vehicles. This saves you time, money and eliminates fueling risks. We deliver diesel fuel and DEF directly to your fleet, generator and equipment at a cost lower than conventional fueling options.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Certainly not anything that would cost the elites any of their wealth or power. It's just used as an excuse to 'screw the people', all the way.

---

Quote:

---

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes. The elite here are very sinful, . . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not posting about Christians, SECOND, YOU are
Not posting about Democrats or Republicans , either: they're both crooked at the top.

I'm posting about the elite being sinful. I'm posting about YOU being sinful.

Now can we get back on topic?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not posting about Christians, SECOND, YOU are
Not posting about Democrats or Republicans , either: they're both crooked at the top.
I'm posting about the elite being sinful. I'm posting about YOU being sinful.
Now can we get back on topic?

SECOND: The topic is climate change and why it is not being responded to.

---

Quote:

---

The reason is clear: nearly everybody, rich or poor, realizes that they can get all the benefits from halting climate change without any expense to themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

THAT"S why nothing EFFECTIVE is done about climate change. "The people" aren't the problem, it's the rich. The rich, who are in charge of decision-making, need to be removed from decision-making.

If you want to solve a problem, start at the very top. You'll get 90% of it fixed right there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Newsweek used to be interesting. Now it's just wrong.

PS, the uber elite aren't driven by avarice. They see their holdings as a game that they want to 'win'. Money, for them, is just a marker.

---

Quote:

---

Shell Quietly Ditches Failed Carbon Credit Scheme

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War
Neta C. Crawford, Boston University
Updated and Revised, 13 November 2019

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/Pentagon%20F
uel%20Use%2C%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20War%20Revised%20November%202019%20Crawford.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Indeed, the DOD is the world’s largest institutional user of
petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest institutional producer of greenhouse
gases (GHG) in the world.

---

Quote:

---

Military industry directly employs about 14.7 percent of all people in the
US manufacturing sector.47 Assuming that the relative size of direct employment in the
domestic US military industry is an indicator for the portion of the military industry in the US industrial economy, the share of US greenhouse gas emissions from US based military industry is estimated to be about 15 percent of total US industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War
Neta C. Crawford, Boston University
Updated and Revised, 13 November 2019

And dood, it's not just fuel use, it's all the energy us d to make all of the materiel that just winds up getting destroyed.

Quote:

---

Military industry directly employs about 14.7 percent of all people in the
US manufacturing sector.47 Assuming that the relative size of direct employment in the
domestic US military industry is an indicator for the portion of the military industry in the US industrial economy, the share of US greenhouse gas emissions from US based military industry is estimated to be about 15 percent of total US industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

---

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War
Neta C. Crawford, Boston University
Updated and Revised, 13 November 2019

SIGNY: And dood, it's not just fuel use, it's all the energy us d to make all of the materiel that just winds up getting destroyed.

Quote:

---

Military industry directly employs about 14.7 percent of all people in the
US manufacturing sector.47 Assuming that the relative size of direct employment in the
domestic US military industry is an indicator for the portion of the military industry in the US industrial economy, the share of US greenhouse gas emissions from US based military industry is estimated to be about 15 percent of total US industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

---

SECOND: o, Signym. No to everything you suggest, including the Trillion Tree Initiative from Donald Trump, which requires new land be planted with trees. Antarctica would be perfect because it has no trees, but could have a trillion trees once the ice melts.

---

hey SECOND

A) That estimate was from the paper YOU LINKED. I suppose you didn't even scan it???
B) I never posted anything about a trillion trees. You're lying, again. And everybody knows it.



-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM