Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2023 23:26:42 JST teknomunk

   • teknomunk
   • EvilSandmich
   @EvilSandmich
   
   Yeah. It's definitely aimed at the midwits.
   • Embed this notice
     PunishedD (punishedd@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2023 23:26:40 JST PunishedD

     in reply to

     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich It's interesting, and good news that they're actually finding these deposits. Last I heard anyone talk about hydrogen it was 10 years ago and they didn't think these accumulations existed.
     
     I wonder how much energy it can provide though. The article says "500 million tons of hydrogen", but how many power plants or gallons of gas can that replace? Has hydrogen-burning tech been upgraded in the last decade?
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Oct-2023 23:26:40 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PunishedD @teknomunk @EvilSandmich Measured by weight, hydrogen has higher energy density per ton than diesel or gasoline. So 500 million tons of hydrogen are about equivalent to 1.3 billion tons of diesel fuel, which is about 1.5 times as much diesel as is produced by the USA. So it wouldn't replace fossil fuels, but it'd make a pretty big dent.
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 02:18:18 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD @teknomunk The issue is that hydrogen stores and transports very poorly and optimally would need to be turned into a hydrocarbon so that it could be more easily used.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 02:21:11 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @PunishedD @teknomunk Yes. The article measured by weight, so I'm going off of that. Their numbers could be complete bullshit. Hydrogen by weight is really good, but by volume is terrible, because it's really light. It also needs really good tanks to store it, because it can leak right through air tanks for normal air. So they need some kind of chemical wizardry to make it store well in a fuel cell, or just drive around with big tanks of the stuff and burn it directly (easy to convert a gasoline engine to directly burn hydrogen), or just use it as a chemical feedstock for other industries.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:13:46 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD I'm not sure that it comes from fossils. It sounds like it's geological. It's non-renewable though, that is true. The Russians even think that oil doesn't come from biomass, but is a result of geochemistry.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:13:48 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD
     
     White hydrogen *IS* a fossil fuel. It is just fossil hydrogen instead of fossil hydrocarbon.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:38:59 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD >Fossil water
     That's just stupid. We have words for reasons, and half-wits have no business shilling for policies they don't understand.
     
     >Yep. Which is why I am convinced of peak oil: there's only so much room to have oil, gas and coal in a finite planet and we are extracting it faster than it is being replenished.
     Probably. The main question is how much time is on our clock for it. But we keep finding huge deposits that push back the date, so we might have a while. Eventually though nuclear needs to take over.
     
     >I am unconvinced that CO2 is going to kill everyone by turning the planet into a fireball. :akko_shrug:
     Isn't going to happen. The planet is self-regulating, and if it wasn't we would've long since gone up in flames before humans ever existed. In the dinosaur eras C02 was 4x-10x what it is today, and it's been slowly going down ever since. Currently plants are on the lower end of what's tolerable, and any increase in Co2 will result in better plant growth worldwide.
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:39:01 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD There was an oil industry guy on Gab (the guy running the Kitler account as I recall) and while he said he didn't buy into the Russian theorem on the possible origins of oil he also said it was irrelevant since it's being drawn out way faster than it will ever be replaced, no matter what it's origins are.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:39:01 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD
     
     Yep. Which is why I am convinced of peak oil: there's only so much room to have oil, gas and coal in a finite planet and we are extracting it faster than it is being replenished.
     
     I am unconvinced that CO2 is going to kill everyone by turning the planet into a fireball. :akko_shrug:
     
     The strategies to combat the first are much easier and straightforward that trying to fight the second.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:39:02 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD
     
     Fossil X is the term for non-renewable. I've heard the term fossil water used to refer to aquifer water that is being drawn faster than it is replenished.
     
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:55:50 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD It's pure insanity that we're growing almond forests in the desert using groundwater wells. It matches just about any hairbrained schemes the Soviets came up with, like draining their biggest lake for cotton. But in any oligarchy, the system reinforces whatever makes a temporary profit for a rich political donor, so I think California is doomed.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 03:55:51 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD
     
     Agreed that halfwits shouldn't be making policy, but here we are. Regardless of what it is called, there are several aquifers in the US that have had the water level dropping consistently for decades now, and the only thing that is being done about it is drilling deeper wells. A lot of that water is used for people and crops, so this will probably turn into a massive problem at the worst possible time.
     
     Language is also a fascinating thing, in that it rejects almost all attempts to order it and people instead just tack things on whenever they need to describe a concept to other people, only to have things later die out when different descriptors arise.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:03:22 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD
     
     A lot of the straightforward things that would help a lot like cogeneration with district heating/cooling or reliable public transportation can't be deployed without solving the racial tension issues that plague society now. These things used to exist without government force to dictate it, but the conditions were different.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:03:23 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     @PoalackJokes88 @teknomunk @PunishedD >That's just stupid
     I dunno, if people say "aquifer" or "well" the midwit club thinks it's hooked to some infinite supply from the center of the planet or something. Saying "fossil water" implies a one-use resource, or close to it.
     
     And obviously the bigger issue with the climate change crowd is that they're sucking up resources that do nothing to address...really anything at all lets be honest, however those resources should be going to diversify our energy supply (and no, Chinese solar panels don't do that).
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:05:50 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD It's probably the only thing getting Germany through their "self" imposed energy disaster (the greens get lots of foreign funding). If they had nuclear though they wouldn't have any energy shortage and would still be competitive against China for manufacturing. Germany is going to be even worse off because they don't have suburbs to run to, and it would be too expensive to live in if they did.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:12:40 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @teknomunk @PunishedD Land use reform is the biggest environmental positive with almost no societal downsides. Simply going back to large grazing operations instead of corn & soy megafields / cattle feedlots would create tons of environmental benefits. But there's a huge corn lobby that resulted from short-term thinking extended over 50 years, and now here we are.
     
     A lot of the environmental movements have been taken over by outright shills, to lead the well-meaning activists on the ground in the wrong direction.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:24:46 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD
     
     Yep.
     
     Backing off the farm subsidies is probably one of the hardest things to do, because most (small) farmers already barely make ends meet and usually have to take on extra jobs to do so and the large agrobusinesses basically use illegals as slave labor.
     
     If you turn off the subsidies, the small farmers basically all go under, food supplies drop and price rise. The big players buy out all the smaller ones and then drive prices up even more now that they have a monopoly that the government is too scared to break up out of fear the people will starve and lynch the politicians.
     
     I don't know the way out of this, to be honest. :fauna_cry:
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:43:52 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD Exactly. With the current political system, there is no possible way. There's lots of other industries in the same situation, for basically the same reason. Large capital is organized power, and even if it's numerically outnumbered by an unorganized group, it'll still prevail because organization trumps raw numbers in nearly any contest. And even if we get the political will, it'll take decades of concerted effort to undo what took us decades to get to.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:48:59 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @teknomunk @PunishedD I'd never though of this, but this makes tons of sense. Otherwise they would've loved expensive gas to squeeze the peasants, but they're reliant on it too.
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 04:49:00 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD It's kind of like we were thinking many moons ago: something like $10 a gallon gas ruins the business model of the oligarchs since they rely completely on economy of scale (which doesn't work if they have to pay exorbitant shipment rates from their one warehouse in Texas, etc.). 🤔
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:03:59 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @EvilSandmich @teknomunk @PunishedD I've thought about the China trade thing before. But it goes deeper than that. They need long supply lines so they can relocate their factories at will. If China gets too uppity, they go to India. If workers unionize in Kentucky, they easily go to Tennessee. But if transport is expensive, capitol is at a disadvantage, because you're likely already using the cheapest distribution network you've got. This weakens their bargaining position no matter who they're bargaining with.
   • Embed this notice
     EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:04:00 JST EvilSandmich

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     @PoalackJokes88 @teknomunk @PunishedD I think that's really why they panicked after the "putin price hike", not because the peasants had to pay more for gas, but because they realized that their globalization dreams are 100% reliant on cheap energy, that Evil White Guy Joe's machine shop was suddenly price competitive with China.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Spingebill (spingebill@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:38:26 JST Spingebill

     in reply to

     • d
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @deprecated_ii @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD The law that corporations have a legal obligation to make line go up needs to go. Infinite growth enforced at legal gunpoint is Talmudic beyond all measure
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:38:27 JST d

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD among other things there needs to be really brutal regulation and breaking up of large corporations, and laws written to prevent them forming again
     
     efficiency is a false god
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:47:56 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @Ivan_Ivanovich @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD It's all chemistry, but the main input is energy. If energy is cheap enough, you can do just about anything. Using Haber-Bosch, you can pull nitrogen out of the sky (it's what allows all fertilizer and munitions production). Electrolysis can crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. Add in some carbon and you've got all the feedstocks needed for fuel. But electrolysis and HB-process for nitrogen requires a LOT of power, which can only be economically done on earth using nuclear power.
     
     Co2 production though comes from literally every living being and every possible production system. It's all encompassing and impossible to regulate without a system that would make communism look hands-off in comparison. The plutocrats like to push it because it gives them carte-blanche to do anything they could possibly want, including forced population reduction.
   • Embed this notice
     Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (ivan_ivanovich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:47:57 JST Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD >The strategies to combat the first are much easier and straightforward that trying to fight the second.
     Can you elaborate on this, please?
     As far as I understand it, even being generous and optimistic about all the variables concerning electricity production (say, changing to nuclear and so on), many derivatives of oil and other such fossil substances have inferior or no alternatives. I'm talking about all sorts of lubricants and plastics for instance.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 05:48:44 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @Ivan_Ivanovich @EvilSandmich @PoalackJokes88 @PunishedD
     
     So, any energy system based on fully renewable energy would have to be carbon neutral, but not in a way where you care about absolute levels of atmospheric carbon. Carbon is an energy carrier in every form that isn't CO2. Anything that isn't effectively carbon neutral is non-renewable.
     
     It is easier because it isn't so concerned with eliminating carbon from its very useful place as a dense energy carrier, so you aren't so fixated on things like battery electrics and make more use of synthetic fuels and biomass-powered steam.
     
     As for those things that are currently produced from petroleum, there are known synthetic chemical pathways for pretty much every one of those hydrocarbons starting from carbon monoxide or acetylene. The reason they aren't in use now is because they cost more than using petroleum.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     d (deprecated_ii@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:00:59 JST d

     in reply to

     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • Wolffkran
     • EvilSandmich
     @Wolffkran @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD I don't expect anything to be done proactively
     
     and I have great concern that even if there is some kind of collapse, we'll just make the same mistakes again when we're rebuilding because "that's how it's done"
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:00:59 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • d
     • PunishedD
     • Wolffkran
     • EvilSandmich
     @deprecated_ii @Wolffkran @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @PunishedD Fuhrerprinzip is the only way. Someone has to have both authority *and* responsibility (i.e. full blame for failure) or nothing will get done.
   • Embed this notice
     Wolffkran (wolffkran@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:01:00 JST Wolffkran

     in reply to

     • d
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @deprecated_ii @teknomunk @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @PunishedD I'm extremely pessimistic about any kind of policy or reform because the prerequisite for it working before was that it was applied to humans with basic emotions and thoughts and I don't think many people are even self aware anymore, even CEOs and especially not their spreadsheet managers.
   • Embed this notice
     PoalackJokes88 (poalackjokes88@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:08:54 JST PoalackJokes88

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @teknomunk @EvilSandmich @Ivan_Ivanovich @PunishedD This is all true, but a big problem with biomass is the need to collect it. It burns a lot of fuel just going around with trucks picking it up. If it's concentrated it's a different story.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:08:56 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @Ivan_Ivanovich @PunishedD
     
     Honestly, electricity is high grade energy and unless there is no other option, it should be the last thing you use for a process. Electrolysis only really makes sense coupled to nuclear because it makes no sense to ramp the power output of the plant. It is why I focus a lot on biomass to a large extent.
     
     The other major reason being that biomass is everywhere, is constantly trying to make more of itself and the energy will literally fall out of trees and causes wildfires if not managed properly. California does a terrible job of this. All those wildfires are energy being wasted.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 06:08:57 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @Ivan_Ivanovich @PunishedD
     
     The Haber process is exothermic (releases energy). The energy expensive part is getting the hydrogen (often done by steam reforming of methane from natural gas) and the other industrial processes involved (compressing, scrubbing, etc).
     
     Hydrogen can also be produced from biomass thru gasification followed by water gas shift reactions. All the energy for this is in the initial biomass.
     
     Fischer-Tropsh will produce long-chain hydrocarbons, upwards of 20-cabon waxes, given a feed of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
     
     All of these produce waste heat, which could be used for heating, but currently is just dumped to the atmosphere or to the closest body of water.
     
     I definitely agree that the ruler's primary motivation for pushing the anthropogenic climate change idea is the amount of control it gives them over absolutely every aspect of life and the entire globe. It is a major reason I push back on it.
   • Embed this notice
     teknomunk (teknomunk@apogee.polaris-1.work)'s status on Wednesday, 01-Nov-2023 07:12:14 JST teknomunk

     in reply to

     • Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
     • PoalackJokes88
     • PunishedD
     • EvilSandmich
     @PoalackJokes88 @EvilSandmich @Ivan_Ivanovich @PunishedD
     
     It being distributed widely and infeasible for large-scale collection to centralized locations means it is more suited to smaller communities, putting the waste heat generated in all these processes close to people's homes where it can be used for heating and hot water, close to where the energy is going to be used and close to where the synthetic chemicals will be used. It also makes it much more difficult to monopolize the energy and use it as a way to exhert control over people's lives.
     
     I consider this a good thing.
     PoalackJokes88 likes this.