patrick.net

I'm pretty sure that gas is far cleaner than coal, so Bidet's boneheaded move of blowing up Nordstream is resulting in more pollution, not to mention the massive gas spill from the pipeline itself.

Are we having a panic attack about GLOBAL WARMING now? LOL

RWSGFY says

Are we having a panic attack about GLOBAL WARMING now? LOL

Not just about "Global Warming." A coal fired plant pollutes the area around it with heavy metals, including the rivers and streams.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/electricity-from-thin-air-enzyme-clean-energy-b2297860.html?utm_term=Autofeed#Echobox=1678437931

Scientists have discovered an enzyme that converts air into electricity, potentially unlocking a near-limitless source of clean energy.

A team from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, found that a hydrogen-consuming enzyme from a common soil bacterium was able to generate an electrical current using the atmosphere as an energy source.

“We’ve known for some time that bacteria can use the trace hydrogen in the air as a source of energy to help them grow and survive, including in Antarctic soils, volcanic craters, and deep in the ocean,” said Professor Chris Greening from Monash University’s Biomedicine Discovery Institute.

“But we didn’t know how they did this, until now.”

The discovery was detailed in a paper, titled ‘Structural basis for bacterial energy extraction from atmospheric hydrogen’, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday.

OK, but how much energy? There isn't a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere.

Patrick says

OK, but how much energy? There isn't a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere.

True, any hydrogen in the air would float up to the stratosphere.

but i'm helping balance this out by using LED light bulbs

The only reason Hydro is at 14% is the Three Gorges Dam in China. But, hey, it takes real socialism to do these big slave projects.

Natural Gas is a common byproduct of Oil Production. They used to just flare it off, but satellites can see that shit from orbit now.

Patrick says

OK, but how much energy? There isn't a lot of hydrogen in the atmosphere.

That's right, but it is possible it could be used as a battery using hydrogen.

There's nearly no hydrogen in the atmosphere. The stuff is so light, that if you produce it, the solar winds blow it into deep space. Helium does the same thing.

Nooooooooooo!

Doomberg’s Postulate™: “Every molecule of fossil fuel produced worldwide will be burned by somebody somewhere, and local efforts to restrict consumption merely relocate the enjoyment of that privilege.”

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/got-milk#:~:text=Doomberg%E2%80%99s%20Postulate%E2%84%A2%3A%20%E2%80%9CEvery%20molecule%20of%20fossil%20fuel%20produced%20worldwide%20will%20be%20burned%20by%20somebody%20somewhere%2C%20and%20local%20efforts%20to%20restrict%20consumption%20merely%20relocate%20the%20enjoyment%20of%20that%20privilege.

"Fossil fuel" is a misnomer, as the origin of carbonaceous fuel has little to do with fossils of either animal or plants. Carbonaceous fuel (hydrocarbon) is regenerated in the earth's mantel when limestone is subducted into the high heat and high pressure environment along with water at the ocean bottoms; the limestone comes from CO2 dissolved in ocean waters (reacting with calcium often facilitated by biological processes such as shellfish); in other words, carbonaceous fuel / hydrocarbon is only a transportation mechanism for transferring the energy from Uranium and Thorium decay inside the earth, and the earth-moon gravitational tidal force below the earth's crust, upwards to the surface. If that energy is not released via drilling for oil and natural gas, eventually it will come out in the form of volcano eruptions and earthquakes. High heat, high pressure, limestone (CaCO3) and water produce CH4 (Methane, the main component of Natural Gas); Oil (hydrocarbon chains longer than 5-carbon) and coal are result of bacterial digestion of CH4 (methane), stripping away hydrogen atom and concatenating the rest into longer and longer chains, eventually stripping away (almost) all hydrogen atoms and resulting in coal.

Solar panels and windmills actually increase global warming: solar panels due to their much darker color than the green grass or yellow bare soil, so the much darker color alternative ends up trapping much more solar heat on earth; typical panels converts only less than 20% of solar energy hitting the panel to electricity, so trapping the other 80+% as heat on the planet. Windmills get in the way of the earth's convection process sending surface heat up into space. So the solar panel and windmill (and EV) nonsense is really about artificially causing global warming! so as to justify more looting of the public.

Reality says

"Fossil fuel" is a misnomer, as the origin of carbonaceous fuel has little to do with fossils of either animal or plants. Carbonaceous fuel (hydrocarbon) is regenerated in the earth's mantel when limestone is subducted

Limestone is fossilized seashells. You are making a case for calling such hydrocarbons "fossil fuels."

HeadSet says

Limestone is fossilized seashells.

Well it's thought to be both biological and non biological so you're both wrong and both right.

Reality says

Solar panels and windmills actually increase global warming

No. The light energy has already arrived in Earth so the "heat" is here whether absorbed by solar panel or any other surface. Wind is already formed and will generate "heat" whether though turning a blade or friction with other air and land. Now nuke power does create "heat" from matter, so that really would add to warming. All academic though, as the combined energy from nukes, fuel burning, wind and solar are so infinitesimally small as to be irrelevant when compared to the Sun's influence.

Patrick says

I'm pretty sure that gas is far cleaner than coal, so Bidet's boneheaded move of blowing up Nordstream is resulting in more pollution, not to mention the massive gas spill from the pipeline itself.

this was never about clean anything, just an elaborate scam.

richwicks says

Well it's thought to be both biological and non biological so you're both wrong and both right.

Limestone is overwhelmingly biological in formation.

HeadSet says

No. The light energy has already arrived in Earth so the "heat" is here whether absorbed by solar panel or any other surface.

This I'm going to take issue with.

Our Earth is a blue ball from space. A good deal of the light is reflected and just becomes heat energy somewhere a trillion miles away. A solar panel absorbs like 90% of the light and either converts it to electricity (which becomes heat) or it just becomes heat straight out.

If a solar panel is 20% effective at converting light to electricity, just remember, that a power plant is about 40% efficient.

Solar panels COULD be a viable energy source.

HeadSet says

Reality says

"Fossil fuel" is a misnomer, as the origin of carbonaceous fuel has little to do with fossils of either animal or plants. Carbonaceous fuel (hydrocarbon) is regenerated in the earth's mantel when limestone is subducted

Limestone is fossilized seashells. You are making a case for calling such hydrocarbons "fossil fuels."

Limestone is not fossilized seashells. Fossil refers to space/mold/impression originally created by dead animal or plant bodies subsequently filled with minerals (usually silicates, not even carbon material). Limestone at the bottom of the ocean is Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) deposit, regardless whether it came from waves and rocks and shells themselves grinding up sea shells or from some other non-biological process (such as Calcium Chloride CaCL2 meeting Sodium Carbonate NA2CO3). The term "fossil fuel" was invented by the Rockerfeller oil monopoly to pretend that oil came from animals that died tens of millions of years ago therefore not regenerating therefore scarce. The process I described as the origin of oil (limestone subduction into the high temperature high pressure upper mantel along with water) is an ongoing process (and takes down more CO2 from the air through oceanic water absorption of CO2 as CO2 rises); limestone (and natural gas/oil derived from limestone and water via the upper mantel heat and pressure process) is no more fossil or fossil-fuel than corn-derived ethanol can be considered fossil or fossil-fuel (it's neither).

HeadSet says

Reality says

Solar panels and windmills actually increase global warming

No. The light energy has already arrived in Earth so the "heat" is here whether absorbed by solar panel or any other surface.

Incorrect. Albedo (i.e. the ability of surfaces to reflect sunlight (heat from the sun)) makes a huge difference, and is cited as the reason for the massive fluctuations during ice-age vs. interglacial cycles, due snow/ice pack albedo reflect sunlight into space. As I noted in my previous post, the surface reflectance (Albedo) of solar panels is much much lower than green grass and bare yellow soil/sand that they usually cover/replace in solar panel farms.

Wind is already formed and will generate "heat" whether though turning a blade or friction with other air and land.

Please re-read my previous post. The problem is not heat from friction, but windmill blades taking energy out of wind thereby slowing down convection, which is a process for the earth/atomosphere to send surface heat into space and get rid of the heat.

Now nuke power does create "heat" from matter, so that really would add to warming. All academic though, as the combined energy from nukes, fuel burning, wind and solar are so infinitesimally small as to be irrelevant when compared to the Sun's influence.

Agree with you that the earth surface temperature is primarily influenced by the changes in the Sun's intensity. However, with more and more solar panel farms and wind farms put into action, their influences are likely getting greater than man-made CO2 (which is offset by plant photosynthesis and oceanic absorption, whereas albedo change and convection disruption are not naturally offset by anything but sets off a positive-feedback chain that make things worse as heat from solar farms may induce more snow melting nearby, further reducing albedo in the area and resulting in more trapping of solar energy on the planet).

HeadSet says

richwicks says

Well it's thought to be both biological and non biological so you're both wrong and both right.

Limestone is overwhelmingly biological in formation.

Corn derived ethanol is 100% biological-origin but it is not "fossil-fuel." The Abiogenic origin of oil (and natural gas) refers to the organic compound (molecules) in the oil and gas not being directly from animal or plant organic molecules, but a geological (but fast) process that turn inorganic limestone CaCO3 and water (H2O) under high temperature and high pressure into organic CH4 (Methane) and subsequently longer chains of hydrocarbon. Although cow farts can also produce methane, the overwhelming majority of methane on the planet are from extremely deep bore holes and bring zero or almost zero "biological signature." The "biological signature" cited for longer chains of hydrocarbon is usually result of contamination, as bacteria eat Methane stripping away Hydrogen atoms and the resulting substance concatenate into longer hydrocarbon chains such as C2H6 (Ethane), C3H8, C4H10 . . . C8H18 (Octane, the main component of gasoline), etc..

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-iron-law-of-electricity-strikes

Reality says

Corn derived ethanol is 100% biological-origin but it is not "fossil-fuel." The Abiogenic origin of oil (and natural gas) refers to the organic compound (molecules) in the oil and gas not being directly from animal or plant organic molecules, but a geological (but fast) process that turn inorganic limestone CaCO3 and water (H2O) under high temperature and high pressure into organic CH4 (Methane) and subsequently longer chains of hydrocarbon. Although cow farts can also produce methane, the overwhelming majority of methane on the planet are from extremely deep bore holes and bring zero or almost zero "biological signature." The "biological signature" cited for longer chains of hydrocarbon is usually result of contamination, as bacteria eat Methane stripping away Hydrogen atoms and the resulting substance concatenate into longer hydrocarbon chains such as C2H6 (Ethane), C3H8, C4H10 . . . C8H18 (Octane, the main component of gasoline), etc..

This is essentially an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Pray tell, what is an acceptably low bacterial contamination rate that verifies abiogenic origin? In physics, it's usually 6-sigma for irreputable proof, compared to the "liberal arts," where it's 2-sigma at best.

stereotomy says

This is essentially an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Pray tell, what is an acceptably low bacterial contamination rate that verifies abiogenic origin? In physics, it's usually 6-sigma for irreputable proof, compared to the "liberal arts," where it's 2-sigma at best.

If natural gas were largely resulting from biological process (like cow fart), why is the overwhelming majority of natural gas coming from well / bore holes at depths deeper than oil wells (often directly below oil wells, as drilling deeper into existing oil wells usually results in natural gas only), and complete lack of bacteria (unlike cow fart, which contains a high bacteria content)? or even any other sign of biological-origin molecules like specific chirality? It is only at the shallower levels of the same column that both longer carbon chains (including oil, which are carbon chains so long that they are liquid at room temperature instead of gas) and more bacteria are found.

6 sigma is a manufacturing quality-control standard, and has little to do with the study of physics or physical theory proving, or even mining. In physics, how many sigma you can have is dependent on the precision of your instrumentation. In the case of drilling multiple miles into the earth, the drill itself and lubricants for the drilling bring contamination. So the real evidence here is not how many sigma as an absolute number, but the relative quantity of bacteria at different levels in the same drill column at different depths.