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.

> Remember that -162 degrees C?

What?

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:41:00 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 7:29:01 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> CO2 is greening the planet. Warm is good, cold kills.
>
>> >Warm is not 'good'; good and evil are very broad concepts, and
>> >temperature is not a broad concept, it is well specified. That
>> >sentiment seems to calm your fears?
>
>> Fears? I think things are great and will keep getting better.
>
> But just minutes ago, you were concerned with $7 per gallon gasoline? Clearly
> you do NOT think 'things are great'. You're just covering up some deep foreboding.

And just why is the gasoline so expensive? Because of greenies like you. And of course the morons who fight a "war" with Russia.

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.

One cosmic ray could change next winter too.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

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.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

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.

> One cosmic ray could change next winter too.

Now that's something the alarmists don't understand, the change of climate is natural.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:21:21 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> 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.

Yip, a few times more space for each person. Imagine you owned a couple of your neighbour's houses too.

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

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.

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!

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'.

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/

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?
>

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.