Fusion, Maybe

What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

So, you think the 'one child' policy is progress? And that it wasn't part of the input to the analysis?

The 'progress' word is a lame excuse for something, I'm just not sure what.

What sign? That statement makes no sense, either.

I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn't bother him.

The Paris Agreement bans oil, gas and coal plants. The chinese have very bad air pollution from burning coal. They are developing a Molten Salt Reactor to get away from the need to burn fossil fuels.

India is also looking at Molten Salt, as well as pebble bed for the same reason.

China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate coal.

About 93 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced within U.S. borders; much of the rest about 5 Bcf per day (7 percent) comes from Canada, which also has a substantial natural gas supply base.

Biden has cancelled recent leases on oil exploration.

Keystone XL, which was proposed in 2008 to bring oil from Canada's Western tar sands to U.S. refiners, was halted by owner TC Energy Corp (TRP.TO) after U.S. President Joe Biden this year revoked a key permit needed for a U.S. stretch of the 1,200-mile project. The fossil fuel industry has tremendous inertia and cannot stop on a dime. But change is happening.

Why? How can they buy things if they have no money?

Your solution? Put Trump back in power?

Yes. And roses, orchids, tomatoes, ferns, all sorts of stuff. Plants seem to like roughly 1100 PPM CO2 best.

No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production. Running out of metals. Population collapse. All wrong.

Food. Water. Housing. Electricity. Transport. Education. Medical care. Things we have and other people want.

Think about it.

Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.

Oil and gas production certainly IS limited; why would you think Club of Rome is wrong on that?

Where's the beef? Where's the numbers?

Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?

It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3). The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

What John Larkin may imagine to be arguably or absolutely true can be so obviously wrong that one doesn't need to go to go to google to point out the error.

John Larkin's habit of re-posting the same climate change denial propaganda, year after year does make this easy. He does seem to think that mindlessly making the same mistake over and over again is "fun".

Jojhn Larkin seems to think that a link to Anthony Watts climate change denial site is a link to a solid source. The English term "thick as brick" does come to mind.

Their first report was published in 1972. We do have much bigger computers now, not to mention much larger hard drives and a lot more data to put into those hard drives.

Most of it is that there is a power station close by, so the CO2 is cheap. In a greenhouse you give plants all the water and fertiliser they need, so that can take advantage of extra CO2.

Because they are also given all the water and fertiliser they can use. Extra CO2 is less helpful in less benign environments - plants mainly exploit it by having smaller stomata so that they can get all the CO2 they need while losing less water

John Larkin confuses weather, local micro-climate and climate.

OK, don't think.

It has been like that for the past few million years. On a geological time scale, this doesn't happen all that often

The current CO2 level - 412 ppm - is higher than it has been for some 20 million years. For the last couple of million years the atmospheric CO2 level has flutuated between about 180 ppm (glacial period) and 270 ppm (interglacial).

There are lots of ways of doing that. Burning fossil carbon was cheap and easy, but fossil carbon is a finite resource. Getting more immediate access to the energy coming in form the sun does have lots of advantages but you need fairly high technology to get the amount of energy we seem to need at the moment.

Jan certainly doesn't seem to.

Odd how the lemmings staged massive anti-Vietnam war protests. I even showed up in one of them.

Nobody died evading the draft in the US. Dubbya and Trump both did it.

According to Jan who is a sucker for particularly silly propaganda.

Venezuala got destablished by oil industry profit-taking. It is now a mess. Cuba isn't any kind of mess. It's not a rich country, but it does have universal health, and its life expectancy is marginally better than the USA (79.18 versus 79.11)

But the people who sell them make billions.

More so in the US where primary and secondary education are paid for by tiny school districts, and consequently mostly under-funded.

But you do need professional to craft the kind of illusions that people will believe in. The largely under-educated American public is remarkably gullible, and doesn't gag at the most implausible delusions - look at John Larkin.

Empires keep on doing what used to work for them. Their competitors are obliged to think up new ways of competing. Somebody eventually finds an empire-beating trick, and goes on to make the same mistake.

Are a huge crowd of distinct individuals, some of whom can think for themselves. Jan doesn't seem to be one of those.

James Arthur ignores lots of stuff that he shouldn't.

John Larkin has a funny idea of what might constitute thinking. This isn't entirely surprising. He doesn't seem to be able to think for himself at all, and doesn't seem to have clue about what might be involved in doing it for himself.

In this context, he seems to think that "thinking" is agreeing with the nonsense that he has posted, and doesn't seem to realise that anybody who actually can think knows that he's a gullible twit.

That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.

Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 18:54:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote in snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yea, was a bit tired and in a hurry posting last night after coding for a whole day again to find things were screwed up by kids changing old good stuff.. Better write your own libraries, I did for many things. Again sigh,

So, as to glowball CO2 changes over the history versus temperature:

What we will see is mass-migration (already much of affrica is moving here it seems, and US has invaded themselves, quite possible affrica will become more livable and then all blacks will say they are hostage... all that crap).

If Netherlands actually flooded due to sea level rise where would people go? Siberia? Some DNA tinkerer could bring a dino or two back alive.. World would be interesting. Eventually sun will engulf earth and we will have to get out of here before that. Will it happen? We need political will to settle on other planets. Or maybe some insects will win, and migrate on one of our spacecraft and feel fine on some planet where we will not persist... Humming Species.. There must a a trillion variants across the universe, I know, I am one.

Hard to tell, only 500 years ago nobody could have imagined your paintings alive in color and everybody looking at those every day, speaking into a small box and others seeing and hearing you thousands of miles away, electric lights, microwave cooking, planes, cars.. exponential! Followed by nuclear W3 of course and a ... years setback? but then again exponential is an almost magical thing. But tangents have this eeehh well mamaticians will know what I mean, 'destructive property in electronics'. :-)

But what more is there to discover? We know s*it yet.

Flies are

I've seen many people skiing in bikinis. No problem until they fall down or the sun goes in.

Doesn't change points about /climate/.