« prev   random   next »

2
0

Truth Comes Out About 'Planet of the Humans' Censorship

By TrumpingTits follow TrumpingTits   2020 Sep 23, 10:26am 281 views   21 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


This is NOT to promote Michael Moore. I can't stand him, usually. But for whatever reason, like a broken clock, he's hit it right. Calling the 2016 election for Trump was one of those.

Well, back in April he released a film on Youtube that was critical of the corruption of the environmental movement. Titled 'Planet of the Humans', it rips into the environmental damage renewables cause, the takeover of the movement by the wealthy, etc. He didn't direct it.

Even before it was released, they started getting pressure not to...by the powerful people in 'the movement' who get skewered in the film.

This controversy died when COVID came on the scene, but the damage was done. But now it is coming back in the limelight, starting with an investigative report on it was released last week: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/07/green-billionaires-planet-of-the-humans/

And then Moore responds to what was revealed here:
1   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 10:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Until there is a serious discussion about using nuclear power and transitioning to a hydrogen based economy, all talk about the environment/climate change is a joke.

Entropy is a bitch and does not care about your feelings. You will either accept it and work within the limits available or you will increase entropy even faster as you try to fight it.

A real environmentalist would buy a 15 to 20 year old economy car with a 4 banger engine (Hondas are perfect here) and drive it until it can't be serviced instead of buying a Tesla. The amount of oil used to produce the Tesla is enormous! A real environmentalist would be pushing to develop very efficient breeder fission reactors to produce H2 and electricity. The H2 would then be used to make synthetic fossil fuel or power cheap fuel cells once the technology is better refined.
2   rocketjoe79   ignore (1)   2020 Sep 23, 11:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hydrogen? Serious issues with making hydrogen work as a fuel. Static Fuel cells with solar probably the best solution.

I'd say nuclear to electric is a much more affordable solution. Infrastructure is already there.
4   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 11:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
rocketjoe79 says
Hydrogen

BOOM!


Ever used gasoline? It is far more dangerous. H2 can be used as a feed stock to make synthetic fossil fuels. The Germans did it in WW2 when they were cut off from their oil supplies. With "cheap" oil being more and more difficult to sell, synthetic gasoline may make economic sense. The alternative is to use sand tar.
5   Dbr6   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 12:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thenuttyneutron says
Ever used gasoline? It is far more dangerous. H2 can be used as a feed stock to make synthetic fossil fuels. The Germans did it in WW2 when they were cut off from their oil supplies. With "cheap" oil being more and more difficult to sell, synthetic gasoline may make economic sense. The alternative is to use sand tar

H2 is substantially more dangerous than gasoline wrt to combustion.

Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704's highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because it is flammable when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; ignition can occur at a volumetric ratio of hydrogen to air as low as 4% due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation. Liquid hydrogen poses additional challenges due to its increased density and the extremely low temperatures needed to keep it in liquid form.

Additionally, compressing it to liquid form requires a yuuge pressure AND low temperature; density of even liquid hydrogen is very small (ca. 0.07 g/mL) which is a yuuge problem. Basically, if you drive in an H2-car, you are driving around with a bomb due to high compression that is needed, and high flammability/gaseous properties of H2. For gasoline, nearly all these problems are either non-existent or present at lower levels.

Alternative is so-called "methanol economy", advocated by Noble prize winner Olah. A summary is here: http://www.f.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~kanai/seminar/pdf/Lit_T_Matsumoto_B4.pdf please read 1.3.2 on page 10 and later.

Olah book review: http://www.metzger.chemie.uni-oldenburg.de/Archiv/aktuelles/aktuelles2006/AngewChemOlah_e.pdf
6   TrumpingTits   ignore (4)   2020 Sep 23, 12:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thenuttyneutron says
Until there is a serious discussion about using nuclear power and transitioning to a hydrogen based economy, all talk about the environment/climate change is a joke.


I haven't seen the documentary yet. But from the controversy back in April, I recall that it was claimed that that point was made in it (as an 'other side' view). But again, take that as a grain of salt.

rocketjoe79 says
Hydrogen? Serious issues with making hydrogen work as a fuel. Static Fuel cells with solar probably the best solution.

That's because it isn't a fuel. It is just an energy carrier. While all fuels (that can be used with our technology) are energy carriers, not all energy carriers are fuels.
An energy carrier does not produce energy; it simply contains energy imbued by another system. With fuels, that was energy imbued for us by natural processes. Artificially produced hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a fuel. We had to generate energy to imbue into extracting that hydrogen, instead of just refining an existing substance (fuel) that already has 'free' energy' in it to make it an existing energy carrier that only requires some refining (gasoline, diesel, uranium) or none (methane) in order to be used to produce power.

So yes, solar or wind energy would be the best deal to produce hydrogen. Or if we ever get nuclear fusion working, that would be a such cheaper cost as a percentage of energy put into creating the carrier (hydrogen) than refining a fuel like gasoline does, I bet.
7   Shaman   ignore (2)   2020 Sep 23, 12:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Electric vehicles with fusion or fission powered reactors make the most sense for long term sustainability.
8   TrumpingTits   ignore (4)   2020 Sep 23, 12:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
Alternative is so-called "methanol economy", advocated by Noble prize winner Olah. A summary is here: http://www.f.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~kanai/seminar/pdf/Lit_T_Matsumoto_B4.pdf please read 1.3.2 on page 10 and later.


Yes. There are fuel cell designs that can strip the hydrogen out of methane, methanol, butanol, ethanol, gasoline and diesel that would be more ideal vis a vis the safety and infrastructure advantages (mainly, existing fuel distribution and supply infrastructure can be used).

Personally, I am a fan of butanol (because it can be made from non-food plants, is pipelineable and has 80% of the energy content that gasoline has), gasoline and diesel being our main fuels. There can be gasoline/butanol blends, also. (Farming lobby will be against that)

Robert Zubrin wrote a book how only a $500 sensor in the exhaust pipe can be used by the engines control systems to regulate the burn rate of the fuel based upon its hydrocarbon content, so that all ICE engine cars can be flexible fuel vehicles, like they are are in Brazil.
9   EBGuy   ignore (1)   2020 Sep 23, 12:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Long Greenland...
10   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2020 Sep 23, 1:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Shaman says
Electric vehicles with fusion or fission powered reactors make the most sense for long term sustainability.


Yes, internal combustion engines still take in atmospheric air. And with all that nitrogen, the heat in the combustion chamber produces nitrates that goes out with the exhaust.

Controlled nuke fusion is still a long way off, but since we are looking ahead, let me mention room temp superconductors. If you smart guys can get that superconductor tech going, the existing hydroelectric power with no transmission losses would be enough to meet our energy needs, even electric vehicles.
11   Al_Sharpton_for_President   ignore (6)   2020 Sep 23, 1:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thenuttyneutron says
Until there is a serious discussion about using nuclear power


NO!

12   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
thenuttyneutron says
Ever used gasoline? It is far more dangerous. H2 can be used as a feed stock to make synthetic fossil fuels. The Germans did it in WW2 when they were cut off from their oil supplies. With "cheap" oil being more and more difficult to sell, synthetic gasoline may make economic sense. The alternative is to use sand tar

H2 is substantially more dangerous than gasoline wrt to combustion.

Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704's highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because it is flammable when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; ignition can occur at a volumetric ratio of hydrogen to air as low as 4% due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy...


Have you ever worked with H2 or trained to be a fire fighter for an industrial facility? I have put out fire caused by both. I maintain that gasoline is far more dangerous. H2 has a LEL of 4% and this is bad but a H2 fire can be managed a lot more easily than gasoline. H2 also tends to dissipate a lot easier. Gasoline not so much. Gasoline is nasty stuff because it sticks around and is a lot more difficult to fight and contain.

H2 fires can be stopped by usually turning a valve. If that does not work, you clam it up in two monitor nozzles with a fog pattern and wait.
13   Dbr6   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:38pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

HeadSet says
superconductor tech

They work up to about liquid N2 temperature which may be kinda enough, but these materials are difficult to make into wires if I recall correctly. There is stuff that works at higher T, but only under very high pressure.
14   Dbr6   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thenuttyneutron says
Have you ever worked with H2 or trained to be a fire fighter for an industrial facility? I have and maintain that gasoline is far more dangerous. H2 has a LEL of 4% and this is bad but a H2 fire can be managed a lot more easily than gasoline. H2 also tends to dissipate a lot easier. Gasoline not so much. Gasoline is nasty stuff because it sticks around and is a lot more difficult to fight.

Millions of cars on roads will be very different from a well-managed and centralized industrial facility.
15   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
thenuttyneutron says
Have you ever worked with H2 or trained to be a fire fighter for an industrial facility? I have and maintain that gasoline is far more dangerous. H2 has a LEL of 4% and this is bad but a H2 fire can be managed a lot more easily than gasoline. H2 also tends to dissipate a lot easier. Gasoline not so much. Gasoline is nasty stuff because it sticks around and is a lot more difficult to fight.

Millions of cars on roads will be very different from a well-managed and centralized industrial facility.


Gasoline is a risk that we manage. H2 is no different and easier to deal with.

https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/ pictures are worth a thousand words. I loved fighting H2 or propane fires because you simply aimed the monitor nozzle at the flames with a wide pattern and it was always above the tank. Gasoline splashes around and can be washed into areas you don't want it.
16   Dbr6   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:54pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Will read the link - thanks.
Seems kinda counter-intuitive that something which is more flammable and kept under very high pressure than gasoline would be less problematic. We have to be quite careful in lab with H2. A few times back in day I managed to set stuff on fire while working with H2 (ignited because of presence of precious metal catalysts), running reactions under high pressures of H2 (lower than ones needed in tanks) required special, explosion-protected rooms, while flammable solvents never caused much problems on our relatively small (up to tens of liters) volume.
17   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 1:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
Will read the link - thanks.
Seems kinda counter-intuitive that something which is more flammable and kept under very high pressure than gasoline would be less problematic. We have to be quite careful in lab with H2. A few times back in day I managed to set stuff on fire while working with H2 (ignited because of presence of precious metal catalysts), running reactions under high pressures of H2 (lower than ones needed in tanks) required special, explosion-protected rooms, while flammable solvents never caused much problems on our relatively small (up to tens of liters) volume.


In the lab or enclosed area yes. That is where the H2 explosions are a concern. Why do you think there is an emergency vent line to the roof for a H2 cooled generator at a large power plant? H2 is used by most large generators at nukes or natural gas units.
18   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Sep 23, 2:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Hydrogen is the most reactive element in all reality. Keeping it separate from combining chemically requires super duper infrastructure and of course it's super explosive.

It's also not found in pure form in any quantity on earth; separating from Methane/Ethane, which would be one of the easiest ways to do so, takes more energy to split than just burning the Methane/Ethane itself.
19   thenuttyneutron   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 2:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

NoCoupForYou says
Hydrogen is the most reactive element in all reality. Keeping it separate from combining chemically requires super duper infrastructure and of course it's super explosive.

It's also not found in pure form in any quantity on earth; separating from Methane/Ethane, which would be one of the easiest ways to do so, takes more energy to split than just burning the Methane/Ethane itself.


Kyocera and a few other companies are developing solid oxide fuel cells that will burn CH4, natural gas (mostly CH4), propane or H2. They use common and cheap materials. I am sure they can also be designed to be used in a car. I am not sure how good they are at handling the huge current fluctuations. Only time will tell. I am very interested in putting a solid oxide fuel cell system in my next house and not even being connected to grid power.
20   Dbr6   ignore (0)   2020 Sep 23, 2:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thenuttyneutron says
In the lab or enclosed area yes. That is where the H2 explosions are a concern. Why do you think there is an emergency vent line to the roof for a H2 cooled generator at a large power plant? H2 is used by most large generators at nukes or natural gas units.

You are probably right re. safety - https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safe-use-hydrogen, at least if one does not store his hydrogen car in garage, or does not live near hydrogen fueling stations: https://insideevs.com/news/354223/hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes/
The energetics of hydrogen cars though does not make sense apparently: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage-challenges and https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
21   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2020 Sep 24, 6:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Brd6 says
HeadSet says
superconductor tech

They work up to about liquid N2 temperature which may be kinda enough, but these materials are difficult to make into wires if I recall correctly. There is stuff that works at higher T, but only under very high pressure.


So, not much progress since the 1980s.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions