The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Paul R]

On 6/6/2019 at 1:54 AM, PeterSt said:

 

We shouldn't continue on this forever, but fact is - as Paul also said - that it is mighty easy to talk passed each other, just because of a bit of language difference.

 

If you read back on my small print and I add to this today that I started out with explaining that it is dangerous to mis-use that "saying" only the slightest (because of possible mis-interpretation), throughout the post I thought "wait, Dennis surely knows and it is for the purpose of it". I left all the text be because I thought it was funny and also honest. But the one who was actually wrong in the interpretation, was me. Until I got it throughout my posting.

 

But who will understand if he doesn't know the strict prerequisite of "freedom" in the first place ? Any American will understand. A common tourist maybe not even, except when some explicit matters happen and then still it is hard to understand.

6

 

Well, in part it is difficult to understand because most of us don’t actually understand the freedoms, rights, and duties granted to us under the constitution. We all understand bits of it, but sometimes, it is different bits. 

 

For example, in elementary school, my friends and I had lots of heroes. Paul Revere, John Adams, George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Lincoln, Truman, Kennedy, Davy Crocket, Daniel Boone, and many others. People today are willing to tear down those men because they were men of their times, and had faults like everyone else. In fact they are sometimes presented as evil people now. 

 

In my time, the bad guys were always the Nazis. An assumption that was reinforced forever in my memory by French films of what went on in the concentration camps. The sight of starved bodies being pushed into ditches by dozers is a horror burned into my memory forever.  Half of my French class vomited, and the rest were in tears. We were not supposed to see that particular movie, but the librarian had made a small mistake. We got the un-edited un-censored version. 

 

Today it is “cool” to say that never happened and Hilter would have saved the world. That, of course, became popular when the Berlin Wall came down, as East German kids had really been taught, and believed that. It is also more than a half-century removed from our memory. 

 

On 6/6/2019 at 1:54 AM, PeterSt said:

I suppose this is also how Trump got the power. Maybe in aftermath no 50 and a bit percent will agree with him/herself, but I can tell you that over here (and probably the rest of the world) 0% understand a. his motives and b. how any single American could like his doings.

Ad a.: OK, motives become more clear when the motives of the American are understood (which of course partly is loaded because of the promise of jobs (and mines )). And you know what ? I personally could agree with it. I am not that "save our world" guy at all. All should be in balance, and jobs are super important.

 

But 0%. That is really not much. It is infinitely smaller than what half of America thinks. The difference is thus also infinite.

I'm sure my math is off, but you get the idea.

 

This is exactly how Trump came to power here. Lies, half-truths, ruthless disregard for the poor and middle class, and an unshakable determination to win at any cost. The ends justify the means. 

 

Lies that sound true, because most of the baby boomer generation - people like me - have been absolutely horrified, and even a bit scared by the “crazy” people out there who are tearing down all our heroes. These folks are continuously shouting obvious lies so many times that people begin to wonder if there is some truth in them.

 

Lies that people want to believe.

 

And other factors also come into play – like these vicious unbelievably violent video games. The younger generation has been so de-sensitized to crazy, truly insane violence, that even the insensate school shootings are no longer really horrifying. They seem more like a horror movie. The people are not “real” – so the horrors of the past are viewed with more detachment than my generation can muster. 

 

Then you hit entitlement – another hot button.  I was having lunch the other day with some people and one of the younger people was talking about how they had to burn down the place to even get noticed. I reacted mildly, saying that burning down my house was not an option. She responded that she was XXX and I could not tell her she could not burn down any damn house she pleased. 

 

I suggested she start with her's and her neighbor's. She didn’t like that idea very much. She felt that she should only burn down houses of rich old white men.  (grin) I told her thank-you because I was safe then. Not rich. Still unclear why that made her so angry. 

 

It thought it was funny, but it literally scared other people. After the young folks left, the conversation turned to what kind of firearms one should keep for defending one’s self and property. I found that conversation a bit comical too, but it is exactly why people object to gun control. AK-47s on full automatic are powerful tools to defend one’s self with. 

 

So Trump plays on all these fears, and my friend, people are a little weak. Most Americans just want to be left alone by the government to go their own way. Most of us have paid enough of earnings into the system to want to have social security and medicare as well, and yet we do not really believe we will ever see those benefits. 

 

And of course, Trump wants to just sweep climate change / global warming under the rug, which is something most Americans would like to do as well.

 

Nobody has a sensible, affordable plan to  deter climate change, at least one that would not land 80% of the population in poverty. So? Just ignore it. What a hell of a logic, but it is what some people use. 

 

Of course, that is just my opinion. There are probably ten times as many unnamed factors as those I named. Some may be more important, some less. 

 

Most of the nonsense will eventually blow over, as it seems to do each generation. However, with a few things, like climate change, there are hard physcial limits to how long things can be left as they are. We know there are limits. But either they have not been adequately explained, or are not backed up with enough research to be compelling. Or they suggest draconian measures that people will simply not accept. 

 

[elcorso]

About Hydrogen

 

 

 

Roch

 

 

[elcorso]

A brand new answer:

 

 

"Global warming is due to the excess of sinful souls being burned in hell, since being flat earth and hell being under it, there is a pan effect." 😉

 

 

Roch

[Ralf11]

Pessimism:

https://phys.org/earth-news/environment/

 

Optimism:

https://phys.org/technology-news/energy-green-tech/

[Confused]

5 hours ago, elcorso said:

A brand new answer:

 

"Global warming is due to the excess of sinful souls being burned in hell, since being flat earth and hell being under it, there is a pan effect." 😉

 

 

Roch

Wouldn't that be diskal warming? 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Pessimism:

https://phys.org/earth-news/environment/

 

Optimism:

https://phys.org/technology-news/energy-green-tech/

I certainly support the switch over to LP gas in place of diesel.  Diesels stink, and the fuel is so messy.  Yuck. 

 

If only people in the US has listened to T Boone Pickens we could have already swapped over all the semi trucks to it 20 years ago.  

[PeterSt]

49 minutes ago, esldude said:

I certainly support the switch over to LP gas in place of diesel.

 

As far as I know, the only country where LPG  is really widespread (like in close to 100% of gas stations), is Holland. Otherwise you may find a gas station "here or there" but never within reach when the tank runs empty.

Btw, not advised for, say, high torque motors (think 600nm) because the tank pressure would not be sufficient to "deliver". And if at all, not half way.

 

After a couple of petrol cars, I think I owned 10 or so with LPG. I was able to destroy all of them after 60K or so miles (LPG is way more hot). Then I started with diesel, and I love it.

My latest is from prior to dieselgate.

[esldude]

UPS has for years run many of their trucks on LPG or CNG including their semi trucks.  They announced late last year they'll greatly expand that fuel use.  I've read reports in the past about how such engines last longer than diesel or gasoline engines. One of the reasons is the oil had much lower levels of contamination with such fuel.

[PeterSt]

45 minutes ago, esldude said:

UPS has for years run many of their trucks on LPG or CNG including their semi trucks. 

 

For the record, CNG is very different from LPG. I don't think we can get CNG widely spread here (although a couple of city buses hop around on it and theoretically we should be able to get it from the home feed (filling takes many hours in that case)).

 

Btw, LPG is a byproduct from refine oil (or even natural gas exploitation).

 

I don't think that UPS (or anything) will make a chance in using CNG now it will be banned from the homes in near future (as I told about earlier on).

[esldude]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

For the record, CNG is very different from LPG. I don't think we can get CNG widely spread here (although a couple of city buses hop around on it and theoretically we should be able to get it from the home feed (filling takes many hours in that case)).

 

Btw, LPG is a byproduct from refine oil (or even natural gas exploitation).

 

I don't think that UPS (or anything) will make a chance in using CNG now it will be banned from the homes in near future (as I told about earlier on).

You are mistaken. 

 

See these links which are from last year.   They've had propane for some of their trucks near where I live for 30 years.  And used LP gas for maybe a decade or more.  They have an order for 125 of the Tesla semi trucks as well.  

 

https://www.pressroom.ups.com/pressroom/ContentDetailsViewer.page?ConceptType=PressReleases&id=1529343847549-316

 

https://www.ccjdigital.com/ups-ordering-400-cng-trucks-from-freightliner-kenworth/

 

https://www.joc.com/technology/ups-order-shows-cng-powered-rigs-still-trucking-electric-age_20180706.html

 

“We’d like to see electric business cases drive this forward,” he said. “We need to quantify the value [EVs] bring to a business. My expectation is that electric will take the same role internal combustion engines did in the 1930s and 1940s, but we make decisions based on bottom-line impact, based on economics.” And currently, the economics for UPS favor CNG.

 

Here is a report from UPS from back in 2002.  They already had hundreds of vehicles using propane, LNG and more than 1000 using CNG.  So they have the experience to know whether it makes sense (and cents) to be ordering more at this point in time. 

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/31227.pdf

[PeterSt]

56 minutes ago, esldude said:

I don't think that UPS (or anything) will make a chance in using CNG now it will be banned from the homes in near future (as I told about earlier on).

 

I was talking about Holland. No-way CNG will be promoted from now (yesterday) on.

If you meant something else I am mistaken on, then I fail to see what that is. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

I was talking about Holland. No-way CNG will be promoted from now (yesterday) on.

If you meant something else I am mistaken on, then I fail to see what that is. 

Obviously you don't read my posts carefully.  You reflexively replied to them.

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Obviously you don't read my posts carefully.  You reflexively replied to them.

 

Nope. read it twice (not the links, tbh). Now for the third time. Help me out ...

[esldude]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nope. read it twice (not the links, tbh). Now for the third time. Help me out ...

Well, I was speaking of the USA.  You of Holland.  You then wrote how natural gas powered engines didn't last long and weren't going to be practical for large transport trucks.  And that UPS wouldn't be going in that direction. 

 

My links indicate all of that to be incorrect.  UPS has used those options for a long time now, and are going further in that direction.  Such natural gas powered vehicles even though the NG is derived from petroleum products or coming from fracking petroleum wells represent a sizable reduction in greenhouse gas emission vs gasoline or diesel powered engines.  UPS being United Parcel Service if there is any misunderstanding.  

 

I suppose this all goes back to a relatively recent post about how T Boone Pickens wanted to move the USA trucking industry to using some form of natural gas rather than diesel about 20 years ago.  And that such a move would have been a good thing environmentally, and economically.  Which you appeared to disagree with in various ways.  

 

In addition, US electric generation has moved substantially toward using natural gas in the last 20 years.  That is the main reason coal powered plants are being phased out.  It is cheaper, cleaner, and natural gas does the job just fine. 

 

Here is another link for you to ignore. 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ups-buy-huge-amount-renewable-natural-gas-power-its-truck-fleet

 

It describes how UPS is going to use a much larger amount of renewable Natural Gas.  Renewable natural gas is basically methane from waste products being used for methane digestion.  If you have the infrastructure and equipment already in place that uses natural gas it is economically viable.  UPS has that and is taking advantage of it.  For trucks like this as well as their local delivery vans. 

 

 

[Ralf11]

the push by the NG co. here is to use NG derived from cattle/pig feeding operations & landfills 

 

- at least they are putting up ads on doing it; the city and likely the state, has them worried

 

I expect delivery vehicles to be EVs pretty soon; UPS, FedEx, & USPS have a consortium they founded to design/select a std. vehicle

 

over the highway/long-haul trucks - as in your pic - will take longer

[esldude]

59 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the push by the NG co. here is to use NG derived from cattle/pig feeding operations & landfills 

 

- at least they are putting up ads on doing it; the city and likely the state, has them worried

 

I expect delivery vehicles to be EVs pretty soon; UPS, FedEx, & USPS have a consortium they founded to design/select a std. vehicle

 

over the highway/long-haul trucks - as in your pic - will take longer

Yes, but UPS has orders in for the Tesla long haul trucks.  125 of them. 

 

I worked at a place that started using NG from a closed down landfill nearly 30 years ago.  It continued to produce quite useful amounts of such gas for about 20 years.  Production tapered off and effectively stopped by 25 years.  I've also worked manning several large methane digesters.  I don't think such things are the answer for the future, but every little bit helps. They use waste we've no other use for so why not.  Otherwise the methane or another gas increases carbon in the atmosphere. 

[Ralf11]

methane is CH4 so it increases "carbon" in the atmosphere, but methane, while a powerful GHG, doesn't last in the atmosphere like CO2 does

 

it's good to keep it out of the atmosphere of course

 

yes, UPS has a test program with Tesla (& others) - my point is that a delivery truck is nearly an ideal use for an EV as vs. long-haul

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

You then wrote how natural gas powered engines didn't last long and weren't going to be practical for large transport trucks.

 

I did not say that at all ...

 

13 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

For the record, CNG is very different from LPG.

 

Remember that I said that ?

What I scratched from that post I better had left in for your understanding: that I never have seen a LPG filling station in the US. But that doesn't tell much, because I wouldn't run into that in Germany either (while it surely exists).

 

So by now there are a 100 reasons we talk passed each other.

 

It appears that you obviously know the difference, but somehow you think CNG (natural gas in compressed form) only. Not sure why that is. Possibly you have LPG filling stations in the US as well. But not really important.

 

Over here, we may have a handful of CNG filling stations. No cars drive around running on it (too few to ever spot). Say the same as hydrogen. This could be different in adjacent countries.

 

You seem to think that natural gas (that's what Compressed Natural Gas is, after all), is infinitely available to you and to us.

I told that we exploit it (btw, 25b kubic meters or so per year) but also that within a couple of years we are not allowed to use it for the homes any more because we can't exploit it any more (earth collapses - earth quakes, destroyed houses).

I don't know about the whole of the US, but over here close to 100% of houses run on NG, hence not oil or something. Only a (growing) handful of green, like 100% electricity (like you, if I got that right). Some are 100% green because they generate there own electricity (on average, throughout the year (solar panels)).

We *will* stop using Natural Gas.

 

And somehow you are telling me that UPS is going to use that for their trucks, over here, although you recognize the difference in countries we talk about.

I told nothing new in this post, so far.

 

Over here, there is no discussion required about yes or no NG for transportation, because we don't use it anyway. Except for those couple of city buses.

 

We do have "millions" of cars running on LPG (a mixture of propane and butane). I did not hear discussions about it but in my view that should decrease too, just because the exploitation of NG will stop and we are not going to import it either. Regarding the import/export balance, it can well be (I did not look it up) that we export way more of NG than we use ourselves. IOW, it is relatively crazy expensive to stop exploiting it in the first place, let alone that we are going to import it. We won't.

FYI (but I already said that too) the connection between NG and LPG is that LPG is a byproduct from refining NG (and/or oil). You know that, but the relation to less LPG because of less NG may not be 100% obvious.

And oil is hardly exploited these days (we about ran out of it). Do we import that ? I don't think so. There is no reason to (apart from some plastics production here and there).

 

Sort of related:

 

Although it is possible (I have seen it at times) no large trucks run on LPG to begin with (as far as I know 100% of large trucks run on diesel, and that is incompatible with any sort of gas - petrol motors are).

No big trucks run on NG.

Try to see through that you drive through all of this country in a couple of hours (queues left alone) and that you'll end up in Germany or Belgium and France and more (UK as long as it exists ;-), and that there is no common sense about the fuel except for petrol and diesel. So trucks coming in don't have NG/LPG and trucks going out would run out when they would depend on it (but each LPG provided car will run on petrol in parallel (systems). Not possible with CNG, I'd say.

 

The UPS trucks you showed, do not exist over here. For the size they do exist for DHL and FedEx, but not for UPS. Only the small mid-sized trucks. They would be able to run on LPG all right, but they don't (I'll ask the driver next time).

Only these.

 

All 'n all we could be the first country which is forced to go much greener than anywhere, because of the coincidental complicated situation of a. exploiting gas at first even with export value and b. the necessity to stop this and the crazy amount of money involved, relatively (we won't import it because of that).

And then we are the by far worst on windmills (except the typical Dutch ones but they are useless and only a relative hand full) (e.g. Germany may have a 1000 times more windmills per square km) so at least we have a lot of catching up to do. The amount of solar panels is growing, but I don't see them in sufficient amounts soon. This is also related to it being too expensive and like someone from the UK told, at times of over production you only get 20% or so of what you need to pay to the grid provider when obtaining it. Add to that that 99% of houses do not have the space for solar panels anyway and that most of the remaining will not have the space to be fully self providing.

 

The government is talking about heatpumps but in my view this is a hoax because they consume about more energy to circulate the water (to dozens of meters into the earth) than that heat can be stored and retained for profitable energy. Btw, a heatpump is not a pump for the heating system, but a device/installation that hydrates warmth from water (like creating 60C from 20C, the 20C cooling down to freezing). It requires a normal (very high power) pump to circulate the water.

 

On a last side note, my house has been built to be as green as possible and it contains 100s of sensors and valves to do so. Here is a very small part of it (under ground):

with 5 miles of that red tubing (no typo there).

I only show this to testify sort of that I am quite involved.

 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Here is another link for you to ignore. 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ups-buy-huge-amount-renewable-natural-gas-power-its-truck-fleet

 

Yes. But by the time that happens over here ...

No.

 

The Tesla trucks would be more of a viable solution (methinks). 

[esldude]

I never was speaking about Holland or even the world in regards to natural gas. The USA.  There is a station near me, that has propane, CNG, and LNG at different pumps.  UPS is just up the road.  The local gas company uses it for many of their trucks and a few others.  Also this is for delivery and cargo transportation trucks.  Not cars.  

 

The links I provided were for USA UPS operations.  Perhaps skipping them wasn't helpful in understanding the context of my posts.  

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

Perhaps skipping them wasn't helpful in understanding the context of my posts.  

 

Nice. But it was obvious to me that you talked about the USA situation. Point is that you were responding to my post. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you missed the several "over here" in the first place. Maybe the world is about the USA.

But who cares. Let's stop this. 

[PeterSt]

 

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

There is a station near me, that has propane

 

Just a question: Would that be the same as LPG in the US (or your opinion) ?

Over here it is not;

Both propane and butane can be bought all right, but this is for camping like stuff (from small pots to 40L or so small vessels). For sure it can't be obtained for filling up. Thus, not on its own (while LPG is a mixture of both).

[PeterSt]

Here you have one, connected to the 950F capable pizza oven :

 

 

Nothing uncommon, I suppose.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Just a question: Would that be the same as LPG in the US (or your opinion) ?

Over here it is not;

Both propane and butane can be bought all right, but this is for camping like stuff (from small pots to 40L or so small vessels). For sure it can't be obtained for filling up. Thus, not on its own (while LPG is a mixture of both).

No LPG, liquified petroleum gas is propane and some butane.  LNG is liquified natural gas in the USA has to be at least 85% methane.  It isn't available to fill up here except at outlets where companies use it in trucks.  It isn't widespread.  It could be and could have been.  Still mostly the effort so far is in fleet trucks.  The majority of trucking in the USA uses diesel.  

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, esldude said:

LNG is liquified natural gas in the USA has to be at least 85% methane.

 

OK, so you have LNG besides CNG.

As far as I know over here we only have (a bit of) CNG (just the most normal natural gas but in compressed form). Not sure about transport/storage (which would/could be in CNG form).

 

Now I am going to hunt down a methanol filling station. Catch up some time on the road ...