| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vfh67g$3c1dh$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 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 Bytes: 8316 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