Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:31:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <vfh67g$3c1dh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net>
 <ceff4cd0-7f16-0f42-588b-374e89acf00c@example.net>
 <vcfq1i$8o8k$2@dont-email.me>
 <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>
 <vcvu4d$3hnv8$1@dont-email.me> <vd1td8$3qtr8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdmtmu$3s32s$1@dont-email.me> <vdn1t8$3sog6$1@dont-email.me>
 <30f4bfa3-9260-946a-1b74-2823bc0b5c49@example.net>
 <vfej9h$2qqt8$3@dont-email.me>
 <a2908bbf-a8b8-b5a6-eb7f-44d6fb228327@example.net>
 <vfgu6m$3am74$1@dont-email.me> <vfguil$3amgn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:31:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1622fbbdb93be732d15ca76d611c6f7c";
	logging-data="3540401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dBOAPbYxGakk18yoiXUvOWOunL5vV6rw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jqu6qB3m/H2CJJ3fbX6uLXfNWC8=
In-Reply-To: <vfguil$3amgn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 10/25/2024 3:20 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 10/25/24 13:14, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 10/25/2024 4:11 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2024 3:32 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/25/2024 3:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <eef9e921-3ea3-76ee-39de-e34ac66733e4@example.net>,
>>>>>>>>> D  <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely
>>>>>>>>>> contradicts the narrative of man made global warming is never
>>>>>>>>>> taken into account or ever discussed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My position remains the same -- whether or not CO2 increases
>>>>>>>>> cause global warming, to quote JEP, this is an uncontrolled
>>>>>>>>> experiment on our biosphere that we probably shouldn't be doing
>>>>>>>>> unless and until we know a lot more about what we're doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are in a Catch 22.  Trying to run techological civilization
>>>>>>>>> on exclusively "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy
>>>>>>>>> is impossible.  To the extent the attempt is compelled by force,
>>>>>>>>> the results will be collapse and millions of deaths wherever
>>>>>>>>> it is successfully compelled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm perfectly happy to phase out fossil fuel use as quickly
>>>>>>>>> as possible.  Where "quickly" is defined as "Two gigawatts
>>>>>>>>> of nuclear comes on line for every gigawatt of fossil fuel
>>>>>>>>> taken off line.  Nuclear comes on line first, *then and only
>>>>>>>>> then* does the fossil go offline."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Two-for-one for now, because we're behind on electric
>>>>>>>>> generation capacity, and if we're going to have electric cars,
>>>>>>>>> we'll need a lot more electricity to charge them.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The adamant opposition to nuclear power by the people who
>>>>>>>>> are most gung-ho on the "Global Warming" thing unalterably
>>>>>>>>> convinces me that they do not belive it themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually I am strongly pro-nuclear power, as are most climate 
>>>>>>>> scientists I know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Circa 2000 a group from Princeton came up with a plan to limit 
>>>>>>>> the warming to 2.5C which did not involve nuclear, but also did 
>>>>>>>> not involve catastrophic economic decline.  But even if we 
>>>>>>>> accept that this was possible then, it isn't now.  Nuclear is a 
>>>>>>>> must, at least for a few decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am also pro-hydro, which most greens oppose, though it has to 
>>>>>>>> be carefully done (poorly placed reservoirs for dams can emit 
>>>>>>>> C02 and CH4 to such a degree that the power is only as clean as 
>>>>>>>> non- fracked natural gas. Better than coal, but not good enough).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt for a very long time. 
>>>>>>>> There is no conceivable way of shutting them down rapidly. We 
>>>>>>>> don't currently have a carbon capture system worth anything, but 
>>>>>>>> I can't believe it's beyond our abilities. Put Lynn on the job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All Carbon Capture Systems (CCS) suck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But rockets sucked in 1930, televisions sucked in 1940, wind power 
>>>>>> sucked in 1980, solar sucked in 1990, and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an unsolved problem and a hard one.  But we really need it, 
>>>>>> and should take a run at it with a mass of smart people and decent 
>>>>>> funding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which funding would be utterly trivial compared even to the 
>>>>>> expansion of one highway in Toronto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we solve this one people burn fossil fuels to their hearts 
>>>>>> content, while preserving the real estate value of Florida, and 
>>>>>> even undo some of the damage we've already done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, long shot or no, the payoff is huge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the key for that to succeed, is to think about where CO2 is 
>>>>> used most. If those capture systems could then be used to feed 
>>>>> processes requireing CO2, a nice business might start.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Holcim has some project looking into that for concrete 
>>>>> manufacturing, but I'm not sure.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the CO2 capture system require stainless steel 
>>>> absorbers as CO2 is an acid gas.  That drives the cost of the CO2 
>>>> adsorption plant to the same cost as the power generator.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> Ah, but I don't think cost or feasibility has ever stopped the eco- 
>>> fascist crowd! ;)
>>>
>>> But slowly it seems as if rationality and the laws of physics are 
>>> overtaking the politicians in the EU at least. Several car 
>>> manufacturers have communicated that they will continue to sell ICE 
>>> cars past 2030 or even 2035, since it would be financial suicide for 
>>> them to go all EV when the politicians told them to.
>>>
>>> Another bright spot is the swedish mining company LKAB who were 
>>> thinking about producing CO2-free steel by 2035, they scrapped the 
>>> idea too, since it turned out they would need all the current 
>>> electricity produced by sweden to make the process work, and doubling 
>>> the power generation and distribution capacity of the country by 2035 
>>> would be impossible.
>>>
>>> Finally, it also seems as if Northvolt, the eco-bubble battery 
>>> manufacturer started in Sweden, is close to bankruptcy, due to china 
>>> outcompeting the. The investors are getting more and more reluctant 
>>> to throw good money after bad, so I hope it crashes soon.
>>>
>>> But this is what happens when politicians try to dictate to the 
>>> markets what works and what doesn't, so I hope the current generation 
>>> has learned their lesson, although probably not. ;)
>>>
>>> The sad part is that a lot of pension money has been invested in this 
>>> madness, so future pensions will suffer, but hey, the people voted 
>>> for it, so they can only blame themselves. ;)
>>
>> Huh, I wonder how you make carbon free steel since the definition of 
>> steel is carbon added to iron using anthracitic coal ?
>>
>> Lynn
>>
> 
>      Learn more about the metals alloyed with iron to make various
> sorts of steel. Thinking of Stainless here. Carbon steel is a lot
> of steel but not the only item combined with iron to make steel
> though it was good enough for medieval weaponry.
> 
>      bliss

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering from TAMU in which we played 
around with iron and various steels in labs quite a bit.

Lynn