Global Warming – Climate Change

[Traveler]

I have done a search for threads directly targeting global warming and climate change and found nothing – so I have decided to start one.  I will begin with the suggestion that even with beginners’ effort to study history one will discover that global warming (or cooling) and climate change are the long-term norm for our planet earth.  Science has also revealed that global warming (or cooling) and climate change are also the natural evolution of all the occupants of our solar system, including the sun that is the primary source of energy and engine of climate in our solar system.  The intent of this thread is to discuss the logic and merits of various arguments surrounding what ought to be done concerning global warming and climate change.

I will start this discussion with one target of what I believe is part of a hoax in the somewhat chaotic climate change discussion.  For clarity, it is my personal opinion (which can be changed with viable scientific and empirical evidence) that most of the political narrative concerning climate change (global warming) is nonsense.  I have a bias.

There is a following within the global warming alarmist community, that the cattle industry is a significant contributor to global warming and must be dismantled, even removed from human cultivation and food chain.  The reason for this aggression against the bovine industry is that bovines flatulate methine gas which is a known greenhouse gas. 

The scientific truth is that bovines are not the root cause of methine gas.  The actual cause is that bovines (along with several other species) eat foliage that naturally grows on our planet.  But in order to obtain the nutrients necessary to survive bovines employ specialized microscopic bacteria to break down the foliage.  The truth is that the natural cycle of our green planet – all the foliage that grows will eventually die and be recycled by specialized microscopic bacteria which will produce the same aggregate amount of methine gas as the foliage consumed by bovines.  

The one actual way or method to end this cycle of methine gas production would be to eliminate all the microscopic bacteria on our planet that breaks down foliage into methine gas.  The problem is that if such an effort was successful it is likely that in the process, all life that exist on the surface of this planet would eventually become extinct which is worse than having bovines flatulating in the first place.  Also eliminating bovines from our ecosystem would also eliminate a major source of natural organic fertilizer that is touted by our political environmentalists as the only long-term viable means to feed our human society.

 

The Traveler

Edited June 6, 2023 by Traveler

[zil2]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But in order to obtain the nutrients necessary to survive bovines employ specialized microscopic bacteria to break down the foliage.

Clearly, if we just eliminate all foliage, that will solve all of our problems.  Who's up for a bonfire this weekend?

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The scientific truth is that bovines are not the root cause of methine gas.  The actual cause is that bovines (along with several other species) eat foliage that naturally grows on our planet.  But in order to obtain the nutrients necessary to survive bovines employ specialized microscopic bacteria to break down the foliage.  The truth is that the natural cycle of our green planet – all the foliage that grows will eventually die and be recycled by specialized microscopic bacteria which will produce the same aggregate amount of methine gas as the foliage consumed by bovines.  

You're mostly right, here.  And I'm actually on your side.  But we need to be specific about the actual process.  

The reason why bovine breakdown is considered more harmful is the rate at which it happens.  Left alone in nature, a leaf (for example) will break down via bacterial action at a specific rate.  But in the Cow's stomach, additional biological action occurs causing the breakdown to occur more quickly.  So, that will mean that the natural processes of the breakdown of methane in the atmosphere will not be able to keep up.  This assumes that the uptake of feed will increase with the number of bovine on the planet.  Or, more specifically, the amount of manure they produce per year will increase the methane production on the planet.

There are arguments that can be made about that.

• This could be an excellent way of generating a renewable energy source.  Bio-methane.  We already do this on small scale farms all over the world.  But if there were a way to do this on a large scale, it would be much more efficient.  And it would be a net zero emitter of CO2.
• The mechanism of methane breakdown in the atmosphere is the hyroxyl radical OH- in the atmosphere.  Recently (2018) NASA discovered that the OH- radical regenerates spontaneously in the atmosphere.  While they do breakdown, they tend to be recycled so that the level of OH- throughout history and through all types of atmospheric conditions, the concentration has remained pretty stable regardless of what greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere.  This is yet another self-correcting mechanism that the earth has of preserving itself.
• In order for the cows to eat in the first place, they have to allow vegetation to grow.  That will tend to reduce greenhouse gases to begin with.  So, we can look at this all as a great recycling process... or the circle of life.

[person0]

I believe we should care for our environment as proper stewards.  To followers of the Restored Gospel, the temporal lifetime of the world is limited, and is known to God.  Outside of general and obvious measures to treat God's creations with respect, any extreme level of environmentalism (such as modern climate-change proposals) are entirely beyond the mark and unnecessary.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

 

[Traveler]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:13 AM, Carborendum said:

 

The reason why bovine breakdown is considered more harmful is the rate at which it happens. 

The reason I referenced aggregate methane is for the “steady state” condition – which is, as I believe, the condition that is said to be causing concern.

A few other things about the cattle industry.  I helped to automate a slaughter facility in northern Nebraska.  It is interesting that there is no waste at a slaughter facility.  No waste means recycling environmentally friendly.  Because the food industry is the primary engine of the cattle industry many people do not realize other industries that depend on the slaughter of cattle.  Of course, there is the leather industry, but many do not know that the cosmetic, personal care, medical, pharmaceutical, chicken feed, pet foods and parts of the high-end fertilizer industries are all very dependent on the cattle recycle (slaughter) industry.

I seriously doubt anyone that lives in a society advanced to use the internet can go even a day without the use of something directly or indirectly associated with the current cattle industry and the mining of petroleum.

 

Tlhe Traveler

[Traveler]

I would deal with the science of another issue that is associated with CO2 in our atmosphere.  We can also argue that CO (though not a greenhouse gas) is a problem as well because the flora of this planet the conversion of CO to CO2 is enhanced.  The reason is that CO is unstable and any extra oxygen floating around will convert CO to CO2 which is necessary for the enrichment of the planet’s flora.

At this point I would like to use some science to point out some important things about life on this planet.  Any actual outdoor person knows about something called the tree line that exists at altitude of our mountains.  Why is there a tree line?  This is because trees are highly dependent on CO2 and because trees are large living structures, they require a lot of CO2.  CO2 is a molecule that is heavier than oxygen, which the fauna of the planet needs.

Because the earth is rotating on its axis the atmosphere is thicker and heavier at the equator than at the polls.  This means that CO2 will become less abundant at the polls, which causes the attitude of the tree line to come down the further one is from the equator.  Now ask yourself the question – why is global warming worse at the polls?  It cannot be because of CO2 at the polls because very little is produced there from any source nor does CO2 collect at the polls.

I would submit that if someone is honestly concerned about global warming and wants to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that the number one item on their list ought to be more trees, especially at the equator.  I submit that the tropical rain forests near the equator ought to be of highest concern and the number 1 concern – not the petroleum industry.  In fact, the best way to safely and environmentally sound way to deal with CO2 emissions are the forests.   That the greatest environmental disaster of today is the burning of forests in Canada – and that this disaster will negate any human efforts to reduce CO2 from human caused emissions.

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I think it is the height of arrogance to think that we can do anything that will destroy the environment in the long run.

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would deal with the science of another issue that is associated with CO2 in our atmosphere.  We can also argue that CO (though not a greenhouse gas) is a problem as well because the flora of this planet the conversion of CO to CO2 is enhanced.  The reason is that CO is unstable and any extra oxygen floating around will convert CO to CO2 which is necessary for the enrichment of the planet’s flora.

At this point I would like to use some science to point out some important things about life on this planet.  Any actual outdoor person knows about something called the tree line that exists at altitude of our mountains.  Why is there a tree line?  This is because trees are highly dependent on CO2 and because trees are large living structures, they require a lot of CO2.  CO2 is a molecule that is heavier than oxygen, which the fauna of the planet needs.

Because the earth is rotating on its axis the atmosphere is thicker and heavier at the equator than at the polls.  This means that CO2 will become less abundant at the polls, which causes the attitude of the tree line to come down the further one is from the equator.  Now ask yourself the question – why is global warming worse at the polls?  It cannot be because of CO2 at the polls because very little is produced there from any source nor does CO2 collect at the polls.

I would submit that if someone is honestly concerned about global warming and wants to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that the number one item on their list ought to be more trees, especially at the equator.  I submit that the tropical rain forests near the equator ought to be of highest concern and the number 1 concern – not the petroleum industry.  In fact, the best way to safely and environmentally sound way to deal with CO2 emissions are the forests.   That the greatest environmental disaster of today is the burning of forests in Canada – and that this disaster will negate any human efforts to reduce CO2 from human caused emissions.

 

The Traveler

I like your analysis and I find a lot of truth in it. I also find tremendous dishonesty and open politicking in the so-called green movement, so am predisposed to question the assertions that come from that direction.

That said: We are burning hydrocarbons at the rate of roughly a cubic mile per year. That's one cubic MILE. Per YEAR. Assuming each molecule of gas occupies 1000 times the space of each underlying molecule of same-structure liquid, and assuming that the oil is basically octane and that each octane molecule produces eight CO₂ molecules, we can roughly estimate that each year, we are putting EIGHT THOUSAND CUBIC MILES OF CO₂ into the atmosphere. And we have been doing so for, like, eighty years now.

The earth's ecosystems are obviously heavily buffered by various physical and chemical processes, such as ice formation/melting and microorganism blooms. I have no doubt that most of the CO₂ increase has been handled by such buffers. But we should realize that our present deposits of oil and coal were laid down maybe 300 million years ago. In other words, the carbon dioxide being released by burning oil is restoring the atmosphere to a condition last seen long, long before the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The earth literally had a chemically different atmosphere at that time. Immense, gigantic amounts of carbon were sequestered from the atmosphere, resulting in an atmospheric composition that developed into what we breathe today.

It is not at all clear that restoring a substantial portion of that ancient carbon sequestering will be buffered by today's processes.

As much as I despise the ecowienies that condescendingly lecture everyone on how evil they all are for daring to drive cars (yes, Greta, I mean you), there is an underlying point that they are not missing by too far and that must be considered by any rational person: What is the potential detrimental effect of restoring very large amounts of carbon that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years? It's not a stupid point, even if the hysteria caused in the last two generations is.

I see few to no negative side effects from replacing so-called fossil fuels with presumably less problematic substitutes, such as nuclear power, solar, and yes, even wind. I see some potential problems, ranging from trivial to catastrophic, in continuing on our present course. So while I always stand in opposition to the ecoworshippers and shamers of modern conveniences, I think we should actively pursue a non-oil-based economy.

[NeuroTypical]

34 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I think it is the height of arrogance to think that we can do anything that will destroy the environment in the long run.

Ahh, memories.  I hearken back to the good old days of the early '90's usenet groups.  There was alt.save.the.earth, full of environmentalists talking about pollution.  And it's snarky sister group, alt.pave.the.earth, full of people comparing and contrasting the various methods of ending all life on the planet earth.   Back then, the only people online were bankers, eggheads, Star Trek nerds, and pr0n users.  Both of these groups were totally egghead-based.

If I recall, the general consensus from the 2nd group agreed with you @Emmanuel Goldstein.  The worst humans could accomplish with our best shot (full-scale nuclear war), would only remove 80-90% of the humans.  Ramping up unregulated pollution-spewing coal and wood-burning power plants was way down the list.  It simply rains too often for humans to blanket the earth in enough toxic horribleness to end all the humans.  If we succeed enough to cause death on a large scale, there won't be enough humans left to keep the pollution-spewing machines working, and the earth would be pristine again in 20-50 years, with life (including human life) flourishing again. 

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I like your analysis and I find a lot of truth in it. I also find tremendous dishonesty and open politicking in the so-called green movement, so am predisposed to question the assertions that come from that direction.

That said: We are burning hydrocarbons at the rate of roughly a cubic mile per year. That's one cubic MILE. Per YEAR. Assuming each molecule of gas occupies 1000 times the space of each underlying molecule of same-structure liquid, and assuming that the oil is basically octane and that each octane molecule produces eight CO₂ molecules, we can roughly estimate that each year, we are putting EIGHT THOUSAND CUBIC MILES OF CO₂ into the atmosphere. And we have been doing so for, like, eighty years now.

The earth's ecosystems are obviously heavily buffered by various physical and chemical processes, such as ice formation/melting and microorganism blooms. I have no doubt that most of the CO₂ increase has been handled by such buffers. But we should realize that our present deposits of oil and coal were laid down maybe 300 million years ago. In other words, the carbon dioxide being released by burning oil is restoring the atmosphere to a condition last seen long, long before the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The earth literally had a chemically different atmosphere at that time. Immense, gigantic amounts of carbon were sequestered from the atmosphere, resulting in an atmospheric composition that developed into what we breathe today.

It is not at all clear that restoring a substantial portion of that ancient carbon sequestering will be buffered by today's processes.

As much as I despise the ecowienies that condescendingly lecture everyone on how evil they all are for daring to drive cars (yes, Greta, I mean you), there is an underlying point that they are not missing by too far and that must be considered by any rational person: What is the potential detrimental effect of restoring very large amounts of carbon that has been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years? It's not a stupid point, even if the hysteria caused in the last two generations is.

I see few to no negative side effects from replacing so-called fossil fuels with presumably less problematic substitutes, such as nuclear power, solar, and yes, even wind. I see some potential problems, ranging from trivial to catastrophic, in continuing on our present course. So while I always stand in opposition to the ecoworshippers and shamers of modern conveniences, I think we should actively pursue a non-oil-based economy.

To be sure, I am not a fan of gasoline.   For 40 years I commuted up to 25 miles one way to work via bicycle.  Because the foundational cost of gasoline is outside practically all local economies – if just 15 percent of commuters traveled by bicycle there would be a boom in any local economy.

If we are going to have public transportation the public must be able to rely on the local governments to ensure that public transportation is safe – as safe or more so than any other transportation possibility.   

I do not believe electric cars are a viable option.  Currently there are taxes on gasoline to cover infrastructure (and other government expenditures).  Taxing electrical utilities would be regressive and difficult for the poorest of our citizens – especially those that cannot afford to travel.  In addition, the current known supplies for lithium needed for batteries cannot replace even half of the gasoline powered vehicles.

There may be one possibility that many believed that Nicola Tesla was able to achieve.  Our sun provides a great deal of ambient electrical power.   If anyone could figure out how to utilize that power directly, we would not need batteries and would have plenty for all our needs and wants.  There is one set back in developing the technology; there would be a lot of development cost and no return because there would be no way to prevent anyone tapping into the electrical energy that is in essence free.

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

To be sure, I am not a fan of gasoline.   For 40 years I commuted up to 25 miles one way to work via bicycle.  Because the foundational cost of gasoline is outside practically all local economies – if just 15 percent of commuters traveled by bicycle there would be a boom in any local economy.

If we are going to have public transportation the public must be able to rely on the local governments to ensure that public transportation is safe – as safe or more so than any other transportation possibility.   

I do not believe electric cars are a viable option.  Currently there are taxes on gasoline to cover infrastructure (and other government expenditures).  Taxing electrical utilities would be regressive and difficult for the poorest of our citizens – especially those that cannot afford to travel.  In addition, the current known supplies for lithium needed for batteries cannot replace even half of the gasoline powered vehicles.

There may be one possibility that many believed that Nicola Tesla was able to achieve.  Our sun provides a great deal of ambient electrical power.   If anyone could figure out how to utilize that power directly, we would not need batteries and would have plenty for all our needs and wants.  There is one set back in developing the technology; there would be a lot of development cost and no return because there would be no way to prevent anyone tapping into the electrical energy that is in essence free.

 

The Traveler

If they really cared about emissions they would build an engine that can burn hydrogen, not a fuel cell, actual burning. Cummings may have just created one, but we shall see. Batteries cause more environmental damage than they are worth, both in the creation and disposing of lithium. I personally think their is not a solution in any available technology. Some level of pollution is going to be part of our lives for the time being.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

If they really cared about emissions they would build an engine that can burn hydrogen, not a fuel cell, actual burning. Cummings may have just created one, but we shall see. Batteries cause more environmental damage than they are worth, both in the creation and disposing of lithium. I personally think their is not a solution in any available technology. Some level of pollution is going to be part of our lives for the time being.

Oh my.  It was over 50 years ago I became involved with Roger Billings and hydrogen engines at BYU.  He started out with a lawnmower as a science project.  Roger went on and has made hydrogen his life’s work – he also fell of the deep end of religion.  The last contact I had with him he had become involved with a polygamous group.  I do not know his current religious standing.

The problem with hydrogen is storing the fuel – especially in summer heat.  Hydrogen as a gas in a tank is not going to take anyone very far and as a liquid must be kept super cold.  Roger had the cleaver idea of using hydrides for fuel storage – thus the reason for fuel cells.  But you are correct fuel cells have their own problems.

Hydrogen is a great fuel if only someone could solve the storage problem.  I moved on to other things but have wondered from time to time when there would be a breakthrough.  One of the current technologies being touted are nanotubes in particular single wall carbon nanotubes or SWNT.  Like nuclear fusion nanotubes are often touted but upscaling for industrial production operations is a whole different matter.  Proof of concept does not seem to be a problem, but industrial production of nanotubes never seems to happen.  If industrialization of nanotubes happens it will open a great many energy doors – especially for solar power.  I guess we shall see.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

To be sure, I am not a fan of gasoline.   For 40 years I commuted up to 25 miles one way to work via bicycle.  Because the foundational cost of gasoline is outside practically all local economies – if just 15 percent of commuters traveled by bicycle there would be a boom in any local economy.

This doesn't seem to align with the fact that a huge portion of previous commuters are now working remotely with NO commute.  The economy has not had a boom because of it.  We've gone into a recession.

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

If we are going to have public transportation the public must be able to rely on the local governments to ensure that public transportation is safe – as safe or more so than any other transportation possibility.

The reason public transportation will not work for the US is that there are too many people going in completely different directions.  We all have completely different schedules.  And there are more demands on our time.  

If we go back to the time before remote work, we had people who could get to work earlier and stay later precisely because they didn't spend so much time commuting.  Because of that extra time, productivity goes up.  You want us to spend more time commuting and less time working?  

And you believe this will boost the conomy?

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

There may be one possibility that many believed that Nicola Tesla was able to achieve.  Our sun provides a great deal of ambient electrical power.   If anyone could figure out how to utilize that power directly, we would not need batteries and would have plenty for all our needs and wants.  There is one set back in developing the technology; there would be a lot of development cost and no return because there would be no way to prevent anyone tapping into the electrical energy that is in essence free.

No, Tesla did not achieve it.  In fact, he didn't achieve even a 10th of the things he's rumored to have achieved.  This isn't to say that he was a failure.  He actually achieved phenomenal things.  And it was about his ability to think outside the box that allowed him to achieve as much as he did. And with that much outside the box thinking, he was bound to have a lot of ideas that didn't pan out.

But there was so much mystique about him that people thought he was super-human, almost a mystic.  So, myths and legends were spread about all of his failures being successful that it began to be difficult to separate his real successes from his dreams (my kind word for his failures).

STORY TIME:

I happened to be an engineer on a particular project in (edited location) that was very hush-hush.  After ensuring our non-disclosure status, they began a slide-show of artist's renderings, etc.  

10 seconds into it, I said, "You're designing a Tesla tower?" (This is not the secret part of it.  It was the overall technology that was the secret part).

Client: A what tower?

Me: A Tesla Tower.  You know, Nikola Tesla?

Client: What's a Tesla tower?

Me: It's that (pointing to the screen).

I went further to describe what it functionally did.  Apparently the project managers were quite distinct from the technical team who developed the technology.  They had no idea what I was talking about.

As we concluded, they explained what role this tower would be playing in the overall system.  I thought their plan was quite ambitious.  I pointed to several weaknesses in the design.  And several hurdles we'd have to overcome in order for it to be functional.  They were happy to find that they found an engineering company with someone who would understand the project.  Several other companies failed.

After the meeting, my boss came to me and asked if this was something that was real or if it was science fiction.  I told him that as far as I know it is just science fiction because there were some assumptions that Tesla made about electricity that were not known at the time.  But in recent decades we've found that many of his assumptions were just wishful thinking on his part.  That's why he was not able to make it work. And no one has ever been able to make it work and still be energy efficient.  But I admitted that maybe their team might have come up with a way to put real theoretical backing to these pie-in-the-sky assumptions.  But if they have, it is not widely known.  I'd love to be a part of this just to see if they can make it work.

They took my comments back to their technical team.  They made several changes.  Then they found out that the changes almost doubled construction costs (not including real estate).  

I left the company after we completed our initial design scope.  I left the junior engineer to deal with follow-up questions.  After I left the company, they asked me back as a contractor to do a couple of change orders.  Apparently the jr engineer didn't fully understand everything about our part of the design.  They also added another scope item which no one at the company was qualified to do.

They built it.  They ran it.  I have no idea what the resulting data was.  But they received no more money from investors.  They went bankrupt.  That kinda hints at how successful it was.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

Wireless cell phone charging, huh?

[zil2]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Wireless cell phone...

Is there a wired cell phone...? 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Is there a wired cell phone...? 

Sure. I can plug my Android into any USB-C cable connected to a computer or outlet to charge it. Still, you're right, wireless chargers are ubiquitous. But you need to make physical contact or at least be very, very close to the charger for it to work. I remember a few years ago someone saying something about charging a phone while it's in your pocket using magnetic coupling. Not the stupidest idea ever, but certainly not workable unless you build the charger into your chair or something like that.

[zil2]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. I can plug my Android into any USB-C cable connected to a computer or outlet to charge it. Still, you're right, wireless chargers are ubiquitous. But you need to make physical contact or at least be very, very close to the charger for it to work. I remember a few years ago someone saying something about charging a phone while it's in your pocket using magnetic coupling. Not the stupidest idea ever, but certainly not workable unless you build the charger into your chair or something like that.

"Whoosh," said zil's comment as it whizzed over @Vort's head.

I was making a joke with ambiguous adjectives: "[wireless cell phone] charging" vs "[wireless charging] of a cell phone".

Edited June 9, 2023 by zil2

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

"Whoosh," said zil's comment as it whizzed over @Vort's head.

I was making a joke with ambiguous adjectives: "[wireless cell phone] charging" vs "[wireless charging] of a cell phone".

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Wireless cell phone charging, huh?

LOL!  Pretty good guess.

I believe you may have some idea of what the project was about.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 6/8/2023 at 8:38 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

If they really cared about emissions they would build an engine that can burn hydrogen, not a fuel cell, actual burning. Cummings may have just created one, but we shall see. Batteries cause more environmental damage than they are worth, both in the creation and disposing of lithium. I personally think their is not a solution in any available technology. Some level of pollution is going to be part of our lives for the time being.

Actual hydrogen gas will be virtually impossible to make economical with current technology.  Pressure and hydrogen embrittlement are the biggest obstacles.

For cars in the US economy, the best solution is an upgrade to a system that is already in place in select locations.  They use solar and wind to generate methane out of CO2 and water.  This allows the use of solar and wind energy while not requiring batteries.  We could think of the methane as the battery.  But it is a battery that can be pumped into a storage tank in a vehicle.

This method has a disadvantage.  Methane requires a LOT of pressure to store it in a tank in liquid form.  And anything that is a gas at room temperature is pretty dangerous.  If an accident occurs, the tank may rupture and a gas under pressure is just a disaster waiting to happen.  Liquid gasoline is bad enough. But methane will be orders of magnitude more dangerous.

Additionally, the energy (MPG) is a LOT less than octane (gasoline).  So, you're going to need to refill much more frequently.

But if we could upgrade the technology to form octane instead of methane, that would be the ideal to get all the benefits of gasoline that we have come to love.  But it will be cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels.  It would essentially be green gasoline.

[Vort]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This method has a disadvantage.  Methane requires a LOT of pressure to store it in a tank in liquid form.  And anything that is a gas at room temperature is pretty dangerous.  If an accident occurs, the tank may rupture and a gas under pressure is just a disaster waiting to happen.  Liquid gasoline is bad enough. But methane will be orders of magnitude more dangerous.

Additionally, the energy (MPG) is a LOT less than octane (gasoline).  So, you're going to need to refill much more frequently.

We could make ethane instead of methane. Better yet, we could make that into ethanol, which while not as energy dense as gasoline is not all that far off. But the ATF would never go for that.

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

We could make ethane instead of methane. Better yet, we could make that into ethanol, which while not as energy dense as gasoline is not all that far off. But the ATF would never go for that.

This is a possible solution.  But I would only support it if it is synthesized by wind or solar directly from the air.  Growing crops to create alcohol as a fuel will create a famine like we've never known.

But the bottom line for me is cost.  And the cost per mile is undetermined -- but it would be very high.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

On 6/8/2023 at 5:21 PM, Carborendum said:

This doesn't seem to align with the fact that a huge portion of previous commuters are now working remotely with NO commute.  The economy has not had a boom because of it.  We've gone into a recession.

The reason public transportation will not work for the US is that there are too many people going in completely different directions.  We all have completely different schedules.  And there are more demands on our time.  

If we go back to the time before remote work, we had people who could get to work earlier and stay later precisely because they didn't spend so much time commuting.  Because of that extra time, productivity goes up.  You want us to spend more time commuting and less time working?  

And you believe this will boost the conomy?

No, Tesla did not achieve it.  In fact, he didn't achieve even a 10th of the things he's rumored to have achieved.  This isn't to say that he was a failure.  He actually achieved phenomenal things.  And it was about his ability to think outside the box that allowed him to achieve as much as he did. And with that much outside the box thinking, he was bound to have a lot of ideas that didn't pan out.

But there was so much mystique about him that people thought he was super-human, almost a mystic.  So, myths and legends were spread about all of his failures being successful that it began to be difficult to separate his real successes from his dreams (my kind word for his failures).

......

A quick and simple explanation concerning localized economic structures.   There is a possible multiplication factor in local economies when a dollar is allowed to circulate and be spent several times, similar to a nation’s trade balance.  But dollars spent on gasoline are exported immediately from local communities preventing any local circulation of that part of the economy.

Circulation of economy happens when dollars are spent at a local bakery, then those that earn those dollars working at the bakery take their dollars to spend on local produce from farmers.  As long as the local dollars are re-spent within the community the local community can thrive.  The more a community relies on outside goods and services without providing goods and services (only dollars) the more of a downward economic pressure will be applied and loss of available trading dollars.

This is not a difficult concept.  Examples of economic stagnation when not spending petrol dollars only means that dollars are not circulating for other reasons.

 

Another quick lesson:  Solar winds are charged particles and will align themselves when approaching the earth towards the polls.  This alignment brings about a naturally charged differential at the polls that cause electrical currents to flow between the polls like rivers flowing from mountains to the oceans.  If this electrical energy was harnessed, it would provide much more electrical energy than what is currently being produced by all other means currently providing electrical energy.  I believe the factor is somewhere around 600 times, but it has been years since I was involved in these earth current studies.  Trying to charge money for this energy would be like trying to tax someone for the rain that falls on them.  Tesla was well known for not keeping accurate records and notes.  As a result, very little is understood concerning what he knew unless his ideas were completed and a product brough to market.

I like to compare Telsa to Edison.  Edison attempted over 100 models for a light bulb before he successfully had a workable light bulb.  Since Edison’s initial invention the light bulb has changed dramatically.  On the other hand, and about the same time, Tesla invented the first brushless electrical motor from a singular initial model.  Since his initial invention there has not been a single technical improvement to his initial rendering.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

A quick and simple explanation concerning localized economic structures.   There is a possible multiplication factor in local economies when a dollar is allowed to circulate and be spent several times, similar to a nation’s trade balance.  But dollars spent on gasoline are exported immediately from local communities preventing any local circulation of that part of the economy.

Circulation of economy happens when dollars are spent at a local bakery, then those that earn those dollars working at the bakery take their dollars to spend on local produce from farmers.  As long as the local dollars are re-spent within the community the local community can thrive.  The more a community relies on outside goods and services without providing goods and services (only dollars) the more of a downward economic pressure will be applied and loss of available trading dollars.

The principle you are describing is indeed correct.  But I have some objections to the application.

The phenomenon of dollars going out happens everywhere.  But it is exaggerated in smaller communities because less money comes into the community.  At least this has been the historical norm.  But your application to transportation/commuting is still misplaced.

1. Smaller communities which have no money coming in automatically means that they would not be commuting.  If one commutes, they are going to sell their goods/services to someone in the city.  They then bring money into the community.  But if they're not commuting, then your utopian idea of bicycling doesn't help.

2. Virtually all commerce nowadays causes money to drain out of a community.  Gasoline is one such commodity.  Other things like food, clothing, home maintenance, bicycles, home furnishings, etc. are no different.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Another quick lesson:  Solar winds are charged particles and will align themselves when approaching the earth towards the polls.  This alignment brings about a naturally charged differential at the polls that cause electrical currents to flow between the polls like rivers flowing from mountains to the oceans.  If this electrical energy was harnessed, it would provide much more electrical energy than what is currently being produced by all other means currently providing electrical energy. 

The issue here is collecting that power.

Tesla didn't have a dependable way of measuring it with the technology available to him at the time.  So, he made an educated guess based on what was available at the time.  Since then we've developed the technology to measure it more accurately.

It turns out that the reality was quite disappointing. The total energy is, indeed, quite significant.  But that energy is spread out over so much of the earth that you'd have to cover hundreds of square miles to generate the energy at a rate required to light up a 100W light bulb. 

It's even worse at the poles.  The magnetic field lines are up and down.  Electric field would necessarily be bent to the horizontal.   And then the direction varies throughout the day because the magnetic lines change orientation as the earth rotates.

But let's say that we can get past all that.  Forget cost.  Forget technology.  The sheer size of such an installation would be impossible to secure.  It would be too easy for terrorists or other bad actors to cripple the infrastructure of an entire nation.

There are many reasons why Tesla could never get it to work, even when his overall theory was correct.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Carborendum