Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
On 10/29/2024 7:41 PM, Titus G wrote:
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that  A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon). The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in there
also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a six
million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts to
60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the cost
is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn
On 10/29/2024 8:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/29/24 17:41, Someone claiming to be Titus G wrote:
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting >>> for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that  A side benefit >>> of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
     More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
I'd like to see some numbers on this.
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
But:
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
AND
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.
pt
On 10/29/24 19:06, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/29/2024 7:41 PM, Titus G wrote:
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting >>> for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that  A side benefit >>> of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).Â
The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas
which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in
there also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much
sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that
lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a
six million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts
to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the
cost is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka
Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn
    It is not pertinent to this Newsgroup at all but that is one of
the characteristics of Trolls spreading disinformation at the behest
of either their own or other causes that they do not care a whit for
the nature of the group in or its interests. They just have to get
the lies out.
   Â
    bliss
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting
for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that A side benefit
of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
On 10/29/2024 8:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/29/24 17:41, Someone claiming to be Titus G wrote:
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting >>> for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in
2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden
crime family was profiting from that was part of that  A side benefit >>> of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas
exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
I'd like to see some numbers on this.
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
But:
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
AND
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.
On 30/10/24 15:43, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/29/24 19:06, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/29/2024 7:41 PM, Titus G wrote:
Recent headlines report on research confirming that LNG has a far
greater negative impact on climate change than coal. I have been waiting >>>> for D or Dimwire to raise this topic but not holding my breath. Back in >>>> 2014 the US was offering IMF and World Bank funding to Ukraine to
develop its natural gas industry to gain independence from Russia
despite a required doubling in the Ukranian price of gas and the Biden >>>> crime family was profiting from that was part of that  A side benefit >>>> of the US proxy war with Russia has been a significant increase in gas >>>> exports for the US so neither Trump nor Harris are likely to consider
this problem if they obtain the power to do so. Almost fracking
unbelievable!
How did you escape my killfile again ? I generally don't traffic with
people who routinely call other people names.
But, going by the rules that CO2 is bad and H2O is good, your unURLed
report here is wrong.
Most coal, depending on the coal mine, is 70% to 100% carbon (I am
unsure about peat moss which may have a different range of carbon).
The other possible 30% can be up to 6% H2S (makes SO2), and up to 29%
volatiles and sand (SiO2). Most of the volatiles is CH4 (coal gas
which makes CO2 and H2O) but there can be some CO2 and N2 trapped in
there also. I have run coal (lignite) units in the past with so much
sand embedded in it that the coal was red, not black. We called that
lignite coal burner Mikey (it was Sandow Steam Electric Station #4, a
six million hp steam boiler).
LNG (liquefied natural gas) is 90+% CH4. There is some ethane and
propane in there with possibly a little CO2 and/or N2. CH4 combusts
to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. LNG is created by liquefying natural gas, the
cost is generally 6% of the LNG to be liquefied.
So coal combusts to almost 100% CO2 and SO2 with possibly some H2O in
the 1% to 10% range. LNG combusts to 60% CO2 and 40% H2O. I submit
that LNG is better for the aforementioned rules.
So how is this pertinent to Science Fiction and Fantasy, aka
Speculative Fiction ?
Lynn
Have I just won an award for the first off topic post in several decades
to this group?
    It is not pertinent to this Newsgroup at all but that is one of
the characteristics of Trolls spreading disinformation at the behest
of either their own or other causes that they do not care a whit for
the nature of the group in or its interests. They just have to get
the lies out.
    bliss
Thank you, Bliss, for your on topic contributions to the group.
Major off topic subjects that have been extremely popular in recent
years include Electric vs ICE vehicles, Covid 19 and AGW.
The "lies" I am getting out are from established and respected media.
On 30/10/24 14:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 10/29/2024 8:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
I am quite ignorant regarding Climate Change with most of my
understanding from media headlines and discussions here. I have read
only the headlines and await comment from our resident expert, William Hyde.
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will >> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the >atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the >atmosphere.
On 10/29/24 23:17, Titus G wrote:SNIP
Major off topic subjects that have been extremely popular in recent
years include Electric vs ICE vehicles, Covid 19 and AGW.
The "lies" I am getting out are from established and respected media.
    If as you say you are getting these bits of disinformation
from respected sources look online at their sites and give us
URLs for the articles.
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take
into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will >> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers?? <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:????????There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
????????More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe.?? The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable.?? So if you take >>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to
seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
????????All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will >>> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
????????When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum??? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
????????If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction
of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed.?? That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful
series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
????????bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the
several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of
frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
This is bad, bad news. Why isn't somebody capturing that and selling it? Burning that as fuel would reduce global warming and also provide energy
at the same time. How can we use this? How can we make money from it? --scott
On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the >>>>>> environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops
have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to >>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough >>>> to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction >>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful >>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed
of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet
below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens
all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
On 31/10/24 03:34, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/29/24 23:17, Titus G wrote:SNIP
Major off topic subjects that have been extremely popular in recent
years include Electric vs ICE vehicles, Covid 19 and AGW.
The "lies" I am getting out are from established and respected media.
    If as you say you are getting these bits of disinformation
from respected sources look online at their sites and give us
URLs for the articles.
I think the first headline was from the Guardian. Prior to replying to
Peter Trei, I did a simple duckduckgo of "LNG Worse Than Coal" and the Cornell Uni was the first.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the
environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops >>>>>>> have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>>>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with
fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to >>>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will >>>>> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough
to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction >>>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would
kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful >>>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed >>>> of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet >>>> below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >>>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen
methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor"
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens >>>> all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >>>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
    yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
    bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would
be fertilizers.
Lynn
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:11 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:    There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern >>>>>> California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
    More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the >>>>>>>> environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops >>>>>>>> have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with >>>>>>> fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to >>>>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
    All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
    When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough >>>>>> to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
    If you want read about how we would cope with that read >>>>>> the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction >>>>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would >>>>>> kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful >>>>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
    bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed >>>>> of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet >>>>> below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >>>>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen >>>>> methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor" >>>>
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens >>>>> all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >>>>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would be fertilizers.
Lynn
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:11 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the >>>>>>>> environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops >>>>>>>> have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a >>>>>>> worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with >>>>>>> fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to >>>>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well
there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking
place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting
plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will >>>>>> make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough >>>>>> to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction >>>>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would >>>>>> kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful >>>>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed >>>>> of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet >>>>> below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >>>>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen >>>>> methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the
atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor" >>>>
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens >>>>> all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >>>>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
On 10/31/24 11:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
    yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
    bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of fossil >> fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the planet. Maybe a >> 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the lack of tractors
and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would be fertilizers.
Lynn
Global warming is going to result in many deaths because
fertile lands are already being flooded, See Bangladesh.
On 10/31/2024 3:11 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/31/24 11:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
    yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake >>>>>> of faster and easier.
    bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be
the lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the
crash would be fertilizers.
Lynn
     Global warming is going to result in many deaths because
fertile lands are already being flooded, See Bangladesh.
Tractors can be run on big batteries just like cars and a portion
of the farmer's acres can be turned to power generation.
     Everyone on the planet now and in the future is doomed to
death because that is the payment for life. We all die sooner
or later and everyone puts it off as long as possible,
if sane and not living in constant pain.
     But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
     Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
     bliss
Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do. The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service conditions. Above 140 F, the liquid lithium batteries can spontaneously combust.
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment. That just means that the equipment gets used even harder.
Lynn
On 10/31/2024 3:11 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/31/24 11:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
    But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
    Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
    bliss
Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do.
The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment.
Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do. The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service >conditions. Above 140 F, the liquid lithium batteries can spontaneously >combust.
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment. That just means that the equipment gets used even
harder.
On 10/31/2024 4:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 10/31/2024 3:11 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/31/24 11:58, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
    But by use of fossil fuels we have ensured the death
of nations all over the planet.
    Now cities like San Francisco imagine that they can
in the future ameliorate the effects of rising waters by
building sea wall but these will not work when the water from
the SF Bay is high enough to intrude into the Central Valley.
The food supply will begin to suffer as the salt water intrudes.
Of course if we build a high dam at the Carquinez Strait we
might get a very contaminated fresh water lake. It would take
a long time to get the water cleaned up and might be simply
impossible.
    bliss
Good luck in getting batteries to work in tractors and harvesters that
run 24 hours per day as many do.
You are not a farmer, I see. While there are short periods
of the year where a combine harvester may work the night, that's the
exception not the rule. Likewise during field prep, although
there is seldom any demand to do that during darkness.
Mostly, tractor use is intermittent throughout a day.
The battery manufacturers and the
vehicle companies are having severe problems keeping today's liquid
lithium batteries in the 59 F to 85 F service range for severe service
https://www.tesla.com/semi
And of course, cost is a major condition here. Many of the farmers now
buy tractors and harvesters using collectives due to the extreme costs
of such equipment.
Which is mostly in the electronics, IC engines, and proprietary software.
Replacing the IC powertrain with an electric powertrain will certainly
reduce the overall cost.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbarnard/2023/11/27/all-farm-equipment-including-tractors-and-combines-will-be-electric/
"A couple of Hylio\u2019s biggest drones, the AG-272, can
apply as much product in a day as a $700,000, top-end,
John Deere tractor, but cost only $200,000 with trailer
and support gear and run on dirt-cheap electricity. And
they can be fixed at the side of the field. They are incredibly
simple devices with few moving parts, and servicing them is
trivial for farmers. That\u2019s no longer true for tractors and combines."
"What about seeding? Well, as with product application, seeding
is increasingly done with seeding drones that put seeds precisely
where they should be with equal spacing and no soil compaction.
"But you can\u2019t harvest crops with a quadcopter. And you can\u2019t >> spread tons of fertilizer across massive fields before planting. However,
fields are flat, speeds are low and torque is king. Those are the
conditions in which battery electric vehicles shine.
"That\u2019s with today\u2019s battery energy densities. As the series
has made clear, battery energy densities that are double what Teslas
currently use are commercially available from Chinese EV battery giant >> CATL now. Further, silicon battery chemistries with a potential energy >> capacity five times that of CATL\u2019s new battery are commercializing >> in 2023. There are multiple vendors and groups which have demonstrated >> the technical breakthroughs required for their use. As a reminder,
silicon is cheap and ubiquitous."
The harvesters (cotton, corn, maze, etc) around here run day and night
when they run for a couple of months in the fall. There are not many >charging outlets on the fields surrounding my house and my office complex.
I have watched the farmer of 900+ acres just to the south of my office >complex plow his 900+ acres in just a week using a huge 300+ hp turbo
diesel tractor that can pull a 20+ foot wide batwing plow. He has huge
flood lights on his tractor and runs 16+ hours a day at 70 years old.
He just plowed everything under for the third ??? time this year after
the harvester went through.
On 10/31/2024 11:06 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
...
yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
Our present civilization is built on cheap energy. Getting rid of
fossil fuels today would cause a huge population crash across the
planet. Maybe a 10X crash. The primary cause of the crash would be the >lack of tractors and harvesters. The secondary cause of the crash would
be fertilizers.
On 10/31/24 09:06, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:47:11 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 17:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:yes and it has a short half life in the atmosphere but we
On 10/30/2024 5:50 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/30/24 13:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>There are lots of Methane leaks from fields in Southern
More Putin BS propaganda. LNG is about 50% better for the >>>>>>>>> environment than coal or 100% better than the way Russian Troops >>>>>>>>> have treated Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Maybe. The problem is that LNG if it escapes into the environment is a
worse greenhouse gas than CO2, although not as stable. So if you take >>>>>>>> into account the large amounts of gas lost to the atmosphere with >>>>>>>> fracking,
I could see it looking pretty bad.
Of course, the solution for this isn't to abandon natural gas but to >>>>>>>> seal systems better and reduce waste.
--scott
California and all over the world wherever oil was sought as well >>>>>>> there are leaks from garbage dumps where decomposition is taking >>>>>>> place. The evidence is riff that the clathrates undersea are
melting and releasing methane while the Permafrost is collaping
into large pits releasing more methane. Satellites are detecting >>>>>>> plumes of this gas in the atmosphere.
All fossil fuels will be abandoned becuse the Climate Warming will
make it impossible to handle. Think about the temperatures that
gasoline ignites at and which promotes its vaporizastion.
When the Ports are flooded how will tankers get close enough >>>>>>> to transfer petroleum? And the last fossil fuels will be used
to power miliary equipment.
If you want read about how we would cope with that read
the Emberverse series by S. M. Stirling. It starts with the destruction >>>>>>> of the usefulness of technology as presently deployed. That would >>>>>>> kill me but aside from that off-putting realization it is very powerful >>>>>>> series. But his inventiveness seemed to have flagged at the 3rd
generation post-Change..
bliss
There are probably more methane leaks from natural seeps in the seabed >>>>>> of the Gulf of Mexico than anywhere else in the planet. At 2,000 feet >>>>>> below the surface to 10,000 feet below the surface, there is six feet of >>>>>> frozen methane covering the entire Gulf of Mexico seabed. The frozen >>>>>> methane is constantly sublimating and rising to bubble up into the >>>>>> atmosphere.
There are methane leaks under all the oceans, but most of it
never leaves the ocean and the carbon is precipitated out.
"The total modern emission of seafloor methane is likely
underestimated10 and the volumes of methane released at
the seafloor are orders of magnitude higher than those
reaching the sea surface, owing to the short residence
time of methane in seawater11,12. The volume of methane
released from the seafloor is reduced also via microbial
Anaerobic Oxidation of Methane (AOM)13, which consumes an
estimated 45\u201361 Tg\u2219y\u22121 in the shallow sub-seafloor" >>>>>
"The AOM process is of primary importance since it provides
a significant mechanism to decrease the volume of escaping
methane10 and leads to the precipitation of methane-derived
carbonates (MDC) as a by-product15, thus representing a
carbon sink in the sedimentary record16,17"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-59431-3
It may be that man-made leaks add to the volume that reaches
the surface, which is bad, but the bulk of the carbon in
naturally seeped CH4 returns to the sea floor and never
reaches the atmosphere.
We humans did not cause this, it is nature. And this phenomena happens >>>>>> all over the planet. I think that Gulf of Mexico is the worst since the >>>>>> several reservoir pressures peak at 35,000 psia.
Lynn
humans tilted the balance with our COO emissions. All for the sake
of faster and easier.
bliss
No, for the sake of civilization.
Where is this civilization of which you speak?
Oh you mean tecnological advancement which is all that
we see of civilization today. In the past before we
went crazy to travel very fast and go to places we
think are better than where ever we are we had some
evidence of civilization but it was dependent on
human labor frequently involving horror upon horror of
human slavery.
Somehow, I never thought of (say) Assyria or Classical Greece as
making massive CO2 emissions.
Yet both were civilizations.
And they may have done ecological damage by their technology
but they barely began to raise the CO0 levels. Most of the fuels they
used were not fossil fuels. However they failed to replant the forests
that they cut down for various purposes.
Fossil fuels waited for the Industrial Revolution
What is called the first Industrial Revolution lasted from the
mid-18th century to about 1830 and was mostly confined to Britain. The >second Industrial Revolution lasted from the mid-19th century until the >early 20th century and took place in Britain, continental Europe, North >America, and Japan. It involved the wider use of fossil fuels first
in the form of coal to run steam engines and then to produce steel.
Finally they discovered Petroleum aka rock oil and began to break it
down into its volatile components. Oil replaced coal for transport
in internal combustion engines and in steam engines when still in
use. Now we not only made COO plus other contaiminents by traveling
but by making the fuels.
I hope that the barbarism we will descend to in the
coming years will retain some elements of civilization and
the knowlege that we spoiled a lovely time on the Planet
Earth for faster and easier.
On 05/11/2024 01:13, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 11/4/2024 4:34 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 30/10/2024 01:37, Cryptoengineer wrote:
I'd like to see some numbers on this.
Yes, burning methane generates less CO2 per BTU than
methane.
But:
A significant amount of methane escapes the system in leaks
and gets into the atmosphere without being burnt. In the US,
about 1.4%. Other countries do much worse, and a recent satellite
has started mapping the problem:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nasa-s-methane-satellite-just-
mapped-its-first-plumes/ar-AA1spd3X?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Coal that 'leaks' out of the system just sits on the ground.
AND
Methane, molecule for molecule, is a far more potent greenhouse
gas than CO2. 120x as potent, in fact.
This is mitigated by the fact that methane only lasts about 10
years in the atmosphere, while CO2 lasts far longer.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials >>>>
So, I'd like to see some actual numbers to support of debunk this
claim, not a simple declaration.
I understand that methane in the sky is slowly
converted to CO2.
Yes, and far faster then CO2 gets recycled. But it's also a far
more portent as a greenhouse gas, pound for pound, as C02. Numbers
matter, and figuring out the relative contribution of each to
warming \caused is a non-trivial calculation.
I wanted to make the point that the increase of
methane in the atmosphere means that CO2 in the
atmosphere increases as well.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:20:27 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,381 |
| Posted today: | 1 |