As I have said before, you are wholly unprincipled. You are what you pretend to abhor. You are a tool of the establishment. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.
Originally posted by ray b: your BS is moral ? I am righteous and amoral as most morals are fairytale based and [I am] in favor of high fuel prices if it makes income for me and means a bit less burned
And—because of this market incentive created by higher pricing for oil—steering the energy market towards the preferencing and prioritization of lower carbon energy sources, and thereby advantaging Climate Mitigation—the benevolent nemesis of Global Warming—and so creating an economic braking effect on the upwards temperature trending of the Greenhouse Effect, and in effect, contributing to more affordable prices for everything else, from food to lodging to health care, and even for art, such as representations of cans of Campbell's tomato soup.
I call it a Win-Win-Win..!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2023).]
The sun has risen today on a veritable plethora of new reports from the renewable energy and climate mitigation sectors—of course, there's nothing new about that. Much of this reporting is focused on China. But how about this, from Reuters?
"Inside the race to remake lithium extraction for EV batteries"
quote
A [plethora] of direct lithium extraction (DLE) technologies are on the verge of tapping salty brine deposits across Europe, Asia, North America and elsewhere that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates are filled with roughly 70% of the world's reserves of [lithium.]
At stake is influence over an industry expected to grow to more than $10 billion in annual revenue within the next decade as the successful DLE companies will supply lithium for electric vehicle batteries in hours or days, not months or longer as with existing large, water-intensive evaporation ponds and open-pit mines.
I am righteous and amoral as most morals are fairytale based
and in favor of high fuel prices if it makes income for me and means a bit less burned
Please tell us what vehicles or other oil based 'olde world' devices you own that are all electric. Oh that's right, neither of you have any because you're waiting for big gov (forced taxes on everyone) to pay for them for you so you can obtain your new energy efficient/carbon friendly "peoples car".
We all know your both hypocrites and don't practice the BS you preach. Same with the elitists. All money making. That is all. Beach front property, fed and edu grants. $₪$₪
Like the commies that infiltrated our country last century from commie countries. Take advantage of the freedoms by hiding behind free speech and assembly, build wealth and get connected, take down the system. Damn, I remember when Romney was running: "his group buys these companies and liquidates them, he's bad bad bad." I see no difference.
Probably have $₪$₪ invested in the war machine and Fentanyl Inc. Fuzzy logic.
And—because of this market incentive created by higher pricing for oil—steering the energy market towards the preferencing and prioritization of lower carbon energy sources, and thereby advantaging Climate Mitigation—the benevolent nemesis of Global Warming—and so creating an economic braking effect on the upwards temperature trending of the Greenhouse Effect, and in effect, contributing to more affordable prices for everything else, from food to lodging to health care, and even for art, such as representations of cans of Campbell's tomato soup.
I call it a Win-Win-Win..!
That's not the job of government... But yeah, Frankfurter Schule Marxipadism Win-Win-Win.
Seriously, your type just love play Forge of Empires/SimCity. It's all a game and the lives of lemmings mean nothing.
Originally posted by WonderBoy: Please tell us what vehicles or other oil based 'olde world' devices you own that are all electric.
I have an electric induction cooktop that accommodates a modestly sized skillet or frypan, or stock pot.
I use it frequently, instead of the old fashioned thermal or electrical resistance cooktop (with four heating elements) and oven that's adjacent to it.
Every time I use it, the entire world benefits from about a 10 percent reduction in electricity consumption, compared to the alternative of my using any of the burners on the old fashioned electrical resistance cooktop that's adjacent to it.
Given the complexity of California's power grid in my area, the electricity could be from wind, or it could be from a gas-fired power plant... I think these are the most likely, or at least the first two that come to mind, without actual research on my part. I estimate that every time I use my electric induction cooktop in this way, the savings in carbon emissions and the concomitant reduction in solar radiation forcing translates to a climate mitigation of global warming of approximately 1.47×10-19 °C.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2023).]
Ah, your the one. The one VP Harris mentioned had climate anxiety.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have an electric induction cooktop that accommodates a modestly sized skillet or frypan, or stock pot.
I use it frequently, instead of the old fashioned thermal or electrical resistance cooktop (with four heating elements) and oven that's adjacent to it.
What is an electric induction cook top ?. You can only cook one thing at a time ?. Do you also have an electric induction oven.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Every time I use it, the entire world benefits from about a 10 percent reduction in electricity consumption, compared to the alternative of my using any of the burners on the old fashioned electrical resistance cooktop that's adjacent to it.
Did someone tell you using an electric induction cook top benefits the planet 10% ?. Did you not know that a salesman will tell you any thing to get a sale ?
What happens if you use four electric induction cook tops ?. You say one saves the Earth a 10% reduction in electricity consumption. Does four provide a 40% reduction in electricity consumption. ?.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and graphs. What does 40% equate to ?. Are you saying a regular stove costs four times as much to operate than you Faraday contraption ? Screw the planet. Save the wallet. Why are induction cook tops not the gold standard ?.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Given the complexity of California's power grid in my area, the electricity could be from wind, or it could be from a gas-fired power plant ...
I guess you didn't get the memo. Gas powered stoves and gas powered electrical generators are not safe for the planet. They will be banned.
California is notorious for power outages.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-18-2023).]
That's just small talk. I hope you, "cliffw", have had a chance to see this. Because you've expressed concern about the sourcing of lithium for EV batteries. A reverse scroll or scroll back to what I posted before that one about the induction cooktop. I'm not saying you need to use the link that I included with it, because I used the modern day miracle of Copy & Paste to summarize the much longer article that's at the link.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I hope you, "cliffw", have had a chance to see this. Because you've expressed concern about the sourcing of lithium for EV batteries.
Why would I have a concern about the sourcing of lithium batteries. I don't need an electric car. Don't want one.
No, I didn't look at your link.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-18-2023).]
Why would I have a concern about the sourcing of lithium batteries. I don't need an electric car. Don't want one.
No, I didn't look at your link.
You have expressed skepticism about the viability of large-scale adoption of EVs in the U.S. and other countries, because of the lithium requirement of EV batteries. If memory serves me, you've said things like China, as a major exporter of lithium, is going to be economically and strategically advantaged (and the U.S. disadvantaged, relative to China) by large-scale adoption of EVs. You've said very clearly (or at least implied) that China is going to have the U.S. "over a barrel" in terms of the sourcing of lithium for EV batteries.
I just wanted to highlight that message, in case it was overlooked.
Message #763 includes a link to a "longish" report on lithium, but I only wanted to have Message #763 itself highlighted, because it provides an encapsulation of what is in this newly published (and "longish") report on lithium.
It's "ta ta" carbon emissions... if Tata Steel UK can reach an agreement with the United Kingdom for government subsidies to help the steel maker decarbonize its Port Talbot steelworks.
Tata Steel UK's chairman has said that European competitors were receiving "billions of pounds" from European governments to transition to greener operations.
The chairman is saying that Tata needs to see more "green" (subsidies) to be more green.
Originally posted by rinselberg: You have expressed skepticism about the viability of large-scale adoption of EVs in the U.S. and other countries, because of the lithium requirement of EV batteries. If memory serves me, you've said things like China, as a major exporter of lithium, is going to be economically and strategically advantaged (and the U.S. disadvantaged, relative to China) by large-scale adoption of EVs. You've said very clearly (or at least implied) that China is going to have the U.S. "over a barrel" in terms of the sourcing of lithium for EV batteries.
I just wanted to highlight that message, in case it was overlooked.
Do you think I feel differently ? I did not overlook it. Your memory seems foggy. China is a major exporter of lithium batteries. Who else exports them ?
China is a major importer of lithium. Because they own 90+ percent of the World's lithium. They do have us a disadvantage and not just in lithium. What can we give them an advantage on next ?
We won WW II because we ran the Nazis out of fuel.
The Electric Viking is enthused about what will soon be the world's largest iron-air grid storage battery. It's being created by a Jeff Bezos-backed startup, Form Energy. Here's their "pitch" for the iron-air battery technology:
quote
To run the grid reliably and affordably, we need new cost-effective technologies capable of storing electricity for multiple days. In pursuit of this, we have reinvented and optimized the iron-air battery for the electric grid. The active components of our iron-air battery system are some of the safest, cheapest, and most abundant materials on the planet—low-cost iron, water, and air. Iron-air batteries are the best solution to balance the multi-day variability of renewable energy due to their extremely low cost, safety, durability, and global scalability.
Our first commercial product using our iron-air technology is optimized to store electricity for 100 hours at system costs competitive with legacy power plants. This product is our first step to tackling the biggest barrier to deep decarbonization: making renewable energy available when and where it’s needed, even during multiple days of extreme weather, grid outages, or periods of low renewable generation.
Form’s internal analytics predict that over the next decade, achieving Form’s cost and performance targets will unlock tens of gigawatts of demand for multi-day storage in the U.S. and accelerate the country’s trajectory towards a fully decarbonized and more reliable and resilient grid. At such levels of deployment, Form’s technology will catalyze billions of dollars in savings to American electricity consumers.
Can't get enough of the "Viking" himself? Here he is, touting this new iron-air battery project for the grid storage application: https://youtu.be/-tZJyW3HPyc
It just "hit" me... The Electric Viking... "EV"... I don't know if I'd ever realized that before.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-23-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Even though it is not proven workable or feasible.
There's a smaller version of it that's already in the planned installation pipeline, ahead of this larger project that has the Electric Viking so enthused.
Even though it is not proven workable or feasible.
NATTERING NABOB OF NEGATIVITY
ANY PROOF ?
or just the usual BS ''we say so but we do not have a clue ''
iron air battery is heavy has a low charge rate and discharge rate only useful in huge amounts in fix places but very long lasting and CHEAP AS NO EXOTIC BITS AIR AND IRON
I've been "all over this", but there's one part of it that I have not made clear enough in my previous explanations. It's highlighted (below) using this same text color.
The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme:
The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds.
They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice.
There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska.
The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole.
Think of the differences in science and technology between today and 100 years ago. With another 200 or 300 years of continued climate stability to work with, all of the various "boffins", from climate researchers and other scientists, to engineers, architects, city planners, rural and agriculture experts, economists and other public policy gurus, should be able to put their heads together (so to speak) and figure out ways to better safeguard humanity against what Mother Earth could still have in store for us.
What's not to like about that?
This is why the susceptibility of large glaciers to human caused global warming is such a "big deal", in terms of sea level rise.
There are huge amounts of water that's been locked up as ice in these glaciers for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even a million or more years.
That's water that hasn't been part of the world's oceans since the dawn of human civilization, and even long before.
The large scale melting of these glaciers would be like activating a Time Machine, taking our planet and our descendants' planet backwards in time, with larger expanses of ocean, and concomitantly, a diminution of land areas, that would be "epic" on the human scale. Epic—and disruptive.
Climate Mitigation says "Mother Nature may well have plans to drown us in maybe a couple of thousand years from now. But there's no good reason to allow human greenhouse gas emissions to put that schedule on a Fast Track and make it happen in just a couple of hundred more years."
* * *
Say "Hello" to Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier. It may be saying "Hello" to the youngest among us, and our immediate descendants and their immediate descendants, even as the current century unfolds.
Originally posted by cliffw: What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The water content of all of the ice that is already floating in all of the oceans as icebergs and sea ice—that's ice that forms in the polar regions when sea water at the ocean's' surface freezes during the polar winters—is already accounted for in the current sea levels. The current sea levels as of today. As of whatever day it is now. That's because of Archimedes principle of buoyancy. There is no contribution to any further rise in sea levels, regardless of whether the current "inventory" of icebergs and sea ice melts or remains frozen. That's the "genius" of this cartoon or meme:
Ah. Now you like memes.
Can you ever answer a question ?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: What is the difference ? Frozen water is frozen. How were glaciers created ? How were icebergs created ? What was each made of ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The STUPIDITY of this cartoon or meme is that it's not icebergs and sea ice that climate researchers and well informed climate activists are thinking about when they consider the connections between carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse-elevated land, ocean and air temperatures, the elevated temperatures-driven melting of glaciers and ice packs on land, and what that melting will contribute to higher sea levels as the current century unfolds.
Ah, honesty. Kudos. Are you a well informed activist ? NOT ! Or a well informed researcher ? NOT ? The Planet survived while the sea levels fell, making the the sea level drop.
The Archimedes principle of buoyancy. I don't think you understand it. Does that principle say sea level is constant and equal all over the Planet ? Does it say the SE Gulf of Mexico water level can be more than sea level ? By the way, the water volume on the Planet is constant. You said the SE Gulf of Mexico sea level is rising. Some one had to lose water for that to happen. Who was it ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: They're thinking about water content that is not accounted for in current sea levels because it's ice that is still supported by the land underneath it, in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, Norway, the Alps and the Himalayas... anywhere and everywhere where there's a significant amount of ice on land, that is not currently displacing seawater in the oceans like icebergs and sea ice.
Where were all the Wackos when the sea levels dropped ?
What are you trying to say, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There's water that's been sequestered from the hydrologic cycle by remaining frozen for more than the past million years in Antarctica's glaciers... more than the past 100,000 years in Greenland... for the past 30,000 years in Alaska.
It's not being sequestered any longer.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The whole climate mitigation "thing" is not about locking in the current climate and sea levels for an unlimited future. Scientists do not have all the knowledge and engineers do not have all of the tools to accomplish that. But another two or three hundred years of continued climate stability—achieved by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and/or otherwise neutralizing or countering the greenhouse effect—would be no small boon to humanity, as a whole.
Originally posted by cliffw: The Archimedes principle of buoyancy. I don't think you understand it. Does that principle say sea level is constant and equal all over the Planet? Does it say the SE Gulf of Mexico water level can be more than sea level? By the way, the water volume on the Planet is constant. You said the SE Gulf of Mexico sea level is rising. Some one had to lose water for that to happen. Who was it?
Originally posted by rinselberg: And the Prophet Mohammed said: "Whoever speaks about the Qur'an without knowledge should await his seat in the Fire." ~ Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 44 Hadith 2950
What are you trying to say ?
Your a Global Warming Climate Prophet ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-27-2023).]
This is Reply message #793. In #775, I "gave it up" for the Electric Viking, who was giving it up for an iron-air grid storage battery project from the Jeff Bezos-backed startup, Form Energy.
The "Viking" is back at the same old stand, but this time he's putting his hands together for a grid storage battery installation using Tesla's lithium phosphate battery technology.
These grid storage battery installations can store surplus electricity from wind and solar power generators and release the electricity later, to fill in during intervals of peak power demand, and/or intervals when wind and/or solar capacity is diminished because of unfavorable time of day conditions and weather. They provide the same utility as gas-fired "peaker" power plants, but with lower carbon emissions—that's the theory, at least, and I think the climate mitigation boffins have the research to confirm it.
Most "Viking" videos are on the high side of 5 minutes, but this one is just 4 minutes and "change".
"Enabling high energy lithium metal batteries via single-crystal Ni-rich [nickel-enriched] cathode material co-doping strategy"
quote
High-capacity Ni-rich layered oxides are promising cathode materials for secondary lithium-based battery systems. However, their structural instability detrimentally affects the battery performance during cell cycling. Here, we report an Al/Zr co-doped single-crystalline LiNi0.88Co0.09Mn0.03O2 (SNCM) cathode material to circumvent the instability issue.
We found that soluble Al ions are adequately incorporated in the SNCM lattice while the less soluble Zr ions are prone to aggregate in the outer SNCM surface layer. The synergistic effect of Al/Zr co-doping in SNCM lattice improve the Li-ion mobility, relief the internal strain, and suppress the Li/Ni cation mixing upon cycling at high cut-off voltage. These features improve the cathode rate capability and structural stabilization during prolonged cell cycling.
In particular, the Zr-rich surface enables the formation of stable cathode-electrolyte interphase, which prevent SNCM from unwanted reactions with the non-aqueous fluorinated liquid electrolyte solution and avoid Ni dissolution. To prove the practical application of the Al/Zr co-doped SNCM, we assembled a 10.8 Ah pouch cell (using a 100 μm thick Li metal anode) capable of delivering initial specific energy of 504.5 Wh kg−1 at 0.1 C and 25 °C.
Now dat's what I'm talkin' 'bout..!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-03-2023).]
?
