Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.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 15:14:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vfgu6m$3am74$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:14:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb7ee95e544f6c774d58bcee8ac1e1ac";
	logging-data="3496164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ru3Rb6KEzGvmD8kv6+VEa881R8bOQoJ0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vWuXvVDqVswk6s/IpRWjJMbs0yI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a2908bbf-a8b8-b5a6-eb7f-44d6fb228327@example.net>
Bytes: 7468

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