Tesla is fast...

[server]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:23:07 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
quantum mechanics will scramble things.

We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.

With some systems, no.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:52:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

No BS here; the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics means that unpredictibility
is an absolute feature of our universe.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

Again, not true. This has been known for about a century. Look up \'Laplace\'s Demon\'

And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.
Chaotic systems have statistical properties (temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties (Brownian motion)
are not.

Oh dear. So you can predict some bits and not others. Yet.

False assumption; it\'s not computer power or any personal limits, it\'s the nature of the
material universe.

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:53:34 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> And just why is the gasoline so expensive? Because of greenies like you.

Hey! Leave my friend Kermit out of this!

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 08:38 AM, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:13:39 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:06:22 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and ...

... in real news, India is a signatory to the Paris accords, which commits them to:

\"substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to limit
the global temperature increase in this century ...\"

Hilarious. \"How many armies does the IPCC have?\"

Many signatories to the Paris accords have armies; the IPCC is a UN committee,
not a sovereign state with military assets. The question is absurd, not hilarious.

Any of the signatories might declare war over a treaty violation.

For the history challenged:

https://wordhistories.net/2019/08/23/how-many-divisions-pope/

Whether Stalin may or may not have uttered the phrase the IPCC can be
summed up in an inelegant phrase an acquaintance used: \'alligator mouth,
paper asshole, and no fire insurance\'.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 05:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on
predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it.
With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable
weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as
predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful
computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the
math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a
wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict
there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.

Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to
yourself
undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties
(temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties
(Brownian motion)
are not.

Oh dear. So you can predict some bits and not others. Yet.

It\'s the swerve...

https://www.epicswerve.com/

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 02:54:49 +0100, <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:23:07 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:11:58 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:52:08 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it. With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

Wrong. No computer can compute the future states of a chaotic system.
Ignoring details like knowing current states and math precision,
quantum mechanics will scramble things.

We can be more and more accurate with more power and more understanding.

With some systems, no.

Everyone thinks things are impossible until something new is invented.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:20:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 05:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on
predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it.
With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable
weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as
predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful
computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the
math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a
wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict
there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.

Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to
yourself
undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties
(temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties
(Brownian motion)
are not.

Oh dear. So you can predict some bits and not others. Yet.

It\'s the swerve...

https://www.epicswerve.com/

Wat da fuq? https://youtu.be/mwq-T2CrJRU?t=68

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 12:42 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 10:33:40 UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
...

In the great glory days of evolution, CO2 was 5000 PPM or so.
Warm is not \'good\'; good and evil are very broad concepts,
Dying of cold is not a very abstract concept. Neither is malnutrition.

...

That is being naive - the strains of the dominant food crops that revolutionized yields were not around in that era. Semi-dwarf wheat for example was only created about 60 years ago.

High-yielding wheat and rice have already been showing declines that have been attributed to environmental changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

Borlaug\'s work is fascinating however Vogt has his points too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt

I highly recommend \'The Wizard and the Prophet\'

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/book-review-the-wizard-and-the-prophet


> I just read that one of my favorite hot chile sauce brands is not available now because of severe drought in Mexico.

Biden can kick the can down the road on inflation, supply chain issues,
gas prices, and everything else he is ignoring but when the shelves are
empty of Sriracha there will be blood.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 04:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:43:21 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 02:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Doesn\'t gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?
http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gas-truck.jpg
Wow, that\'s the biggest rearview mirror I\'ve ever seen.


Gasoline, as in petrol.

https://www.anstertrailer.com/lng-lpg-tank-trailer-guide/

That tanker\'s carrying propane gas, not gasoline.

Right. The discussion is about stranded gas, as in a mixture of gaseous
hydrocarbons, not gasoline. The problem is getting the gaseous
hydrocarbons to market. Pipelines are expensive and politically
difficult to build. Feasible truck or rail transport means liquefying
the gaseous hydrocarbons so a high volume can be stored at little above
atmospheric pressure therefore the -162.

Merely compressing the gases is a losing proposition since then the
transport requires tube trailers where the weight of the pressure
vessels is much greater than the compressed gases.

Remember that -162 degrees C?

What?

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 04:47 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:49:22 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 04:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:15:47 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
decreases in
the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less
of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing
fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole,
so it
probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry
won\'t
like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.

Somebody told me they froze it, but that\'s -181 degrees, which is
maybe
unfeasible on ships.

About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
pressure. Boil off is a problem.

When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a
bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.

Isn\'t high pressure easier than low temperature?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-tube-trailers

Nope. That\'s the problem with hydrogen. It liquefies at −252.87 °C for
atmospheric pressure. The payload of hydrogen on a tube trailer is
ridiculously low although carbon fiber has reduced the tare somewhat.

Eh? You\'ve made my point, they use pressure rather than low temperature.

And I\'d love to see one of those crash.

They\'re rather sturdy. A company I worked for had a glass blowing
operation, not little elephants but tubes for strobe lights.

https://www.strobelamps.com/

Common soda glass can be worked with an oxy-acetylene flame but quartz
glass requires the hotter oxy-hydrogen flame. We used liquid oxygen,
another very cold liquid, since in the quantities used standard
pressurized oxygen welding cylinders would have been a pain compared to
LOX. That was no problem but to have a tank trailer of hydrogen on the
premises required a permit.

When we went for the permit and said \'hydrogen\' you could see the clerk
thinking \'bomb\'. Actually leaking hydrogen is a lot safer than leaking
acetylene.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 04:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was
light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco
is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0


The market or desperation?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

The problem was almost solved by famine in the \'60s and \'70s but then
the high yield crops of the Green Revolution allowed the population to
increase merrily. Standard population dynamics. Yeast in nice sugary
grape juice reproduce until they turn all the food into alcohol and die.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0

The market or desperation?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html

The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.

10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 04:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:59:31 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 04:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman
bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about
mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.

Unusual sense of humour.

How are we supposed to know what you mean?

It could mean either in the context of the conversation.

And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it
does
not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html







kw


Then there are the minor miners:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27

Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
there.

Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
still
deep
underground.


I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
couple off
State College north of Ball.

I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo

Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be
flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.

I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
warming
and all, you know.

A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic
fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is
something
like 70%, which is a big win.

After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
picked
up again.

https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/





That article claims

EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
which
was
“more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”


It wouldn\'t have helped the infrastructure problems but it\'s ironic
that
during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were
warm
and cozy.

Who, what, or where, is the Permian?

The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952


As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger
problem
than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both
worlds,
methane and CO2.

What\'s that place with a permanent fire they can\'t put out?

https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217



Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.

I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large
circular hole.

The one you mention is odd, why hasn\'t it run out of fuel yet?

It\'s a big coal vein?

Must be a limit on the air to let it burn. Otherwise it doesn\'t matter
how big it is, it would all burn out in a few days, just all at once.

Actually, can\'t they put it out by blocking all entrances of air?

If they could find them all. The mines are a 3D lattice of tunnels many
of which were never documented.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:49:08 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 04:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:43:21 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 02:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Doesn\'t gas go in tanks? Like this sorta thing?
http://energyfuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/gas-truck.jpg
Wow, that\'s the biggest rearview mirror I\'ve ever seen.


Gasoline, as in petrol.

https://www.anstertrailer.com/lng-lpg-tank-trailer-guide/

That tanker\'s carrying propane gas, not gasoline.

Right. The discussion is about stranded gas, as in a mixture of gaseous
hydrocarbons, not gasoline.

Indeed, and that stranded gas goes in the tanker above.

The problem is getting the gaseous
hydrocarbons to market. Pipelines are expensive and politically
difficult to build. Feasible truck or rail transport means liquefying
the gaseous hydrocarbons so a high volume can be stored at little above
atmospheric pressure therefore the -162.

Merely compressing the gases is a losing proposition since then the
transport requires tube trailers where the weight of the pressure
vessels is much greater than the compressed gases.




Remember that -162 degrees C?

What?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:00:53 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 04:47 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:49:22 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 04:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:15:47 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 18:07:23 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail..com
wrote:

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
decreases in
the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less
of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing
fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a whole,
so it
probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction industry
won\'t
like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.

Somebody told me they froze it, but that\'s -181 degrees, which is
maybe
unfeasible on ships.

About -160 C. Not frozen but a liquid that can be stored at a low
pressure. Boil off is a problem.

When I said -181, I meant C. If the ships are currently -160C, then a
bit colder and they could freeze it into blocks.

Isn\'t high pressure easier than low temperature?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-tube-trailers

Nope. That\'s the problem with hydrogen. It liquefies at −252..87 °C for
atmospheric pressure. The payload of hydrogen on a tube trailer is
ridiculously low although carbon fiber has reduced the tare somewhat..

Eh? You\'ve made my point, they use pressure rather than low temperature.

And I\'d love to see one of those crash.

They\'re rather sturdy. A company I worked for had a glass blowing
operation, not little elephants but tubes for strobe lights.

https://www.strobelamps.com/

Common soda glass can be worked with an oxy-acetylene flame but quartz
glass requires the hotter oxy-hydrogen flame. We used liquid oxygen,
another very cold liquid, since in the quantities used standard
pressurized oxygen welding cylinders would have been a pain compared to
LOX. That was no problem but to have a tank trailer of hydrogen on the
premises required a permit.

When we went for the permit and said \'hydrogen\' you could see the clerk
thinking \'bomb\'. Actually leaking hydrogen is a lot safer than leaking
acetylene.

Because it floats away bloody quick?

What\'s that stuff they use in making silicon chips? That\'s apparently very bad if it leaks.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:05:03 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 04:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop 10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We (US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany was
light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine fiasco
is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0


The market or desperation?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

The problem was almost solved by famine in the \'60s and \'70s but then
the high yield crops of the Green Revolution allowed the population to
increase merrily. Standard population dynamics. Yeast in nice sugary
grape juice reproduce until they turn all the food into alcohol and die.

I got 50 litres of that through there.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:21:14 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 04:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:59:31 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 04:51 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 05:09:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:45 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 21:48:10 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/05/2022 05:21 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 02:13:06 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/04/2022 03:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 06/04/2022 01:00 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2022 05:06:15 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana..com
wrote:

On 06/03/2022 12:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 22:06:25 -0600, rbowman
bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/02/2022 02:18 PM, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:55:55 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

You said \"minors\" meaning young people, nothing about
mining.
OCD fuckwit. I actually spelt it like that for a laugh,
making
fun
of our fucked up language. Anyway minors are more fun than
miners.

Unusual sense of humour.

How are we supposed to know what you mean?

It could mean either in the context of the conversation..

And most Lithium is \"mined\" using brine extraction, it
does
not
involve digging holes.
https://champ4mt.com/the-dangers-of-lithium-mining-and-how-to-do-something-about-it.html







kw


Then there are the minor miners:

https://allthatsinteresting.com/child-miners#27

Oil and gas are great. Once you drill a well, the stuff just
comes up
and flows into a pipeline. No dust, no miners, no crushers, no
chemicals, no trucks, no tailings. Nobody even needs to be
there.

Fracking needs a little more attention, but the action is
still
deep
underground.


I always get a kick out of those grasshoppers out in the
middle of
nowhere doing there thing. I get even a bigger kick out of the
ones you
stumble over in the middle of Anaheim. iirc there were a
couple off
State College north of Ball.

I take it you mean a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcykqOwDvyc
and not
a https://youtu.be/NfJQx8ZEr54?t=50 or a
https://youtu.be/yMFqyabMJTo

Yup. The other part of it is the flares. You\'d be driving through
Wyoming at night in the middle of nowhere and there would be
flares
miles off the road. Rather eerie.

I don\'t know if the still burn the gas off oil wells, gorbal
warming
and all, you know.

A lot of stranded gas is now liquefied using thermoacoustic
fridges
powered by a much smaller amount of gas. IIRC the yield is
something
like 70%, which is a big win.

After a little reading the volume dropped off for a while but has
picked
up again.

https://www.naturalgasintel.com/permian-methane-flaring-venting-said-still-stubbornly-high/





That article claims

EDF said other satellite data indicates Permian operators sent 280
Bcf
of gas worth about $420 million up their flare stacks in 2019,
which
was
“more than enough to supply every home in Texas.”


It wouldn\'t have helped the infrastructure problems but it\'s ironic
that
during the Big Freeze last year the varmints in the Permian were
warm
and cozy.

Who, what, or where, is the Permian?

The Permian basin in West Texas and eastern New Mexico.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30952


As someone pointed out flaring the gas is seen as the lesser of two
evils, since the gas is mostly methane which is seen as a bigger
problem
than CO2. There are plenty of leaks so you get the best of both
worlds,
methane and CO2.

What\'s that place with a permanent fire they can\'t put out?

https://www.treehugger.com/the-centralia-fire-has-been-burning-underground-for-over-50-years-5204217



Centralia is the most famous but not the only one.

I was thinking of one on the surface, burning methane over a large
circular hole.

The one you mention is odd, why hasn\'t it run out of fuel yet?

It\'s a big coal vein?

Must be a limit on the air to let it burn. Otherwise it doesn\'t matter
how big it is, it would all burn out in a few days, just all at once.

Actually, can\'t they put it out by blocking all entrances of air?


If they could find them all. The mines are a 3D lattice of tunnels many
of which were never documented.

Can\'t they see them (especially those on fire) from satellite?

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 08:34 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:20:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 05:52 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:34:33 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:49:04 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:09:36 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:54:26 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

If it\'s the prediction we need, we should concentrate on
predicting the weather instead of going all doom and gloom about it.
With or without your so called global warming, we have unpredictable
weather.

Extreme weather comes with climate change, and extremes aren\'t as
predictable
as averages, certainly not in year-by-year time scales.

Bullshit. Just learn to predict better. We have more powerful
computers now.

False; it\'s onset-of-chaos that determines events like hurricanes; the
math was first
worked out for astronomical work by George Airy, and it applies to a
wide variety of
cause-and-effect situations. Sometimes called \'catastrophe theory\'.

Chaos is only chaos with limited computing power.

And since we can\'t predict the extremes, how are we able to predict
there will be extremes? We can\'t. So shut up.

Why do want rational dialog to cease? So you can mutter nonsense to
yourself
undisturbed? Chaotic systems have statistical properties
(temperature is one of them)
that ARE predictable, though details underlying those properties
(Brownian motion)
are not.

Oh dear. So you can predict some bits and not others. Yet.

It\'s the swerve...

https://www.epicswerve.com/

Wat da fuq? https://youtu.be/mwq-T2CrJRU?t=68

A little Epicurus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

For someone from 300 BC he had some interesting ideas.

 

[rbowman]

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today
and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If
nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
(US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine
fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0


The market or desperation?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html


The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com
wrote:

On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It\'s $8 today
and
unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff should be
burning up.
Of course the price of gas won\'t stay at $8 a gallon. If
nothing
else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will drop
10%
because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
decreases
in the price of oil and gasoline.

There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more heavily, so
less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
availalble,
taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy as a
whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
extraction
industry won\'t like it.

Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
(US) got
more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it costs
around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
zero
economical sense, but only political sense.


It\'s not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
was light
on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
pipelines
for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
into
something that really isn\'t to their advantage. The Ukraine
fiasco is a
good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the obvious
answer.

Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!

That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.

India is amping up coal production and imports to generate power, and
buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won\'t drill
or refine themselves.

The market works.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0


The market or desperation?

They need to stop reproducing so fast.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html


The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.

2 billion would be a good number.


10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950 would
be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain\'t
double the fun.

Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
stupid you are

68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the state
where there\'s not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.

At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It\'s not global warming, it\'s weight!