Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: AGW. LNG Worse Than Coal.
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 09:15:18 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <egv9ij1gce1s2ol04mpuh13a4v25cron25@4ax.com>
References: <vfrvbu$1pcpr$1@dont-email.me> <vfrvtc$1pfke$1@dont-email.me> <vfu6f6$2rg$1@panix2.panix.com> <vfud7b$2b2a7$2@dont-email.me> <vfue6o$2bmhe$1@dont-email.me> <VPzUO.450888$WOde.360692@fx09.iad> <vfuk5i$2cgv0$2@dont-email.me> <b83e1935-08c7-dedc-a1a8-d6402c6a0885@example.net> <fma7ijhe2k26b0gkd3oo2dc6t73nvuhg5c@4ax.com> <vg0ncj$2qon7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 17:15:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f682dc3e61dbf9e211375c4857ae399";
	logging-data="3485654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+w7y6wpC9xZjXlDvLzRvxj2P26ZNjO0vU="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mXrnC4lt8Jn3Oq86ims6Um9Tn80=
Bytes: 8284

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:56:03 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>On 10/31/24 09:06, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:11 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bobbie Sellers=A0 <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   =A0=A0=A0=A0More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better=
 for the
>>>>>>>>> environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian =
Troops
>>>>>>>>> have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe.=A0 The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the =
environment is a
>>>>>>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.=A0 So if =
you take
>>>>>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere =
with
>>>>>>>> fracking,
>>>>>>>> I could see it looking pretty bad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas =
but to
>>>>>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
>>>>>>>> --scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    =A0=A0=A0=A0There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in =
Southern
>>>>>>> California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
>>>>>>> there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
>>>>>>> place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
>>>>>>> melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
>>>>>>> into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
>>>>>>> plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    =A0=A0=A0=A0All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the =
Climate Warming will
>>>>>>> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
>>>>>>> gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
>>>>>>>    =A0=A0=A0=A0When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get =
close enough
>>>>>>> to transfer petroleum?=A0 And the last fossil fuels will be used
>>>>>>> to power miliary equipment.
>>>>>>>    =A0=A0=A0=A0If you want read about how we would cope with that=
 read
>>>>>>> the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the =
destruction
>>>>>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.=A0 That =
would
>>>>>>> kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very =
powerful
>>>>>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
>>>>>>> generation post-Change..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    =A0=A0=A0=A0bliss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the =
seabed
>>>>>> of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet.  At 2,000 =
feet
>>>>>> below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six =
feet of
>>>>>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed.  The =
frozen
>>>>>> methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
>>>>> never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
>>>>>
>>>>>     "The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
>>>>>      underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
>>>>>      the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
>>>>>      reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
>>>>>      time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
>>>>>      released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
>>>>>      Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
>>>>>      estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow =
sub-seafloor"
>>>>>
>>>>>     "The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
>>>>>      a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
>>>>>      methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
>>>>>      carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
>>>>>      carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
>>>>> the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
>>>>> naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
>>>>> reaches the atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We humans did not cause this, it is nature.  And this phenomena =
happens
>>>>>> all over the planet.  I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst =
since the
>>>>>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>>
>>>> 	yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
>>>> humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
>>>> of faster and easier.
>>>>
>>>> 	bliss
>>>
>>> No, for the sake of civilization.
>
>	Where is this civilization of which you speak?
>Oh you mean tecnological advancement which is all that
>we see of civilization today. In the past before  we
>went crazy to travel very fast and go to places we
>think are better than where ever we are we had some
>evidence of civilization but it was dependent on
>human labor frequently involving horror upon horror of
>human slavery.
>=09
>
>>=20
>> Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
>> making massive CO2 emissions.
>>=20
>> Yet both were civilizations.
>
>	And they may have done ecological damage by their technology
>but they barely began to raise the CO0 levels. Most of the fuels they
>used were not fossil fuels. However they failed to replant the forests
>that they cut down for various purposes.
>   	Fossil fuels waited for the Industrial Revolution
>  What is called the first Industrial Revolution lasted from the=20
>mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The=20
>second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the=20
>early 20th century and took place in Britain, continental Europe, North=20
>America, and Japan. It involved the wider use of fossil fuels first
>in the form of coal to run steam engines and then to produce steel.
>Finally they discovered Petroleum aka rock oil and began to break it
>down into its volatile components. Oil replaced coal for transport
>in internal combustion engines and in steam engines when still in
>use. Now we not only made COO plus other contaiminents by traveling
>but by making the fuels.
>
>	I hope that the barbarism we will descend to in the
>coming years will retain some elements of civilization and
>the knowlege that we spoiled a lovely time on the Planet
>Earth for faster and easier.

Thanks for emphasizing my point.

I share the same hope.

I do not, however, share the pessimism.
--=20
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"