> I stand, today, in the unenviable position of being unsure of the ultimate cause of the current global warming. The warming, I am fairly sure of, but the ultimate modelled results of human produced CO2 as the main cause is where my uncertainty lies.
You can rest assured that it is not the fault of us humans. Or else, there would have been no concurrent rise on other planets in the solar system. Not to mention, non-human sources (volcanoes, oceans) provide more than 95% of the CO2 they falsely blame.
And second, their models are poor. Which is amply demonstrated by the fact that these models failed to "predict" bygone climate episodes from known data.
One reason is, the models totally ignore any contribution by the sun beyond the visible light range and some narrow adjacent bands. But the results have to fit the political narrative, or you might not call yourself a "scientist" any longer ...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As you can probably deduce, from my articles, I too have serious doubt of human caused warming as the key mechanism for the current warming cycle. I have read about the concurrent warming of the planets, however, I have not delved into the subject sufficiently to have an opinion. Perhaps your replay will spur me toward greater efforts.
The percentage of CO2 produced by humans is low compared to other parts of the CO2 cycle. The argument, from the other side, I have read about, suggests the cycle was balanced (very doubtful, in my mind) and any small perturbation will knock it off its current quasi-stable (again, speculation, as I see it) drive us into hell-fire on earth. The current CO2 level is actually quite low in the geological record, and through much of the time, punctuated by a handful of die-offs (extinction events), were mostly times of abundant diversity. The colder periods were less friendly but quite survivable, as expected. So for me , even without extra-terrestrial evidence, am on the side, that this is fear-mongering. As you indicated, this is a political emergency imposed on us under the cover of "scientism".
As to the modelling efforts, that is greatly approved by the elitists, are plagued by so much complexity (as discussed in my article, talking about chaos) and rich in variables, that anyone who knows how to goal seek for the proper "variables" to achieve "desirable" outcomes, can produce any prediction they want. The sad thing is, these modellers for sale have many bamboozled, few check their accuracy over time (spoiler, not a very good track record). So for me, the modellers of fame, have a very low grade.
However, your idea of not using the entire bandwidth of the sun's radiation, sounds less convincing to me (but, I am willing to be proven wrong). The physics of radiative heating is fairly well understood, The main ideas of amount of the radiation absorbed and reflected is also understood for the majority of the frequencies. I am sure neutrino induce heating is generally ignored (a bad joke). The excitation modes of most of the common atmospheric molecules are known, so, the scattering effects are quantifiable. The means, to me, the green-house mechanics are reasonably solid. The problem is not this basic physics issues, it is the models that badly represent this small scale phenomenon on the global scale. They cannot even get the cloud cover effects worked out (not surprising as, it seems to me, a highly complex system) which is a major driver to the actual earth system.
Anyway, even with all this, I admit that given the warming is real in human industrial time scale (though not without geological comparison, not matter the rhetoric about, it is acceleration that is important, since the ancient historical record does not have an accelerometer attached and most inferences a probably quite smoothed) I will keep skeptical of most hypothesis today and acknowledge my current state of ignorance. That does not mean I am looking for the "truth" from people who claim they are the science either.
Again, thanks for your comment. I do enjoy exercising my grey matter once in awhile.
> However, your idea of not using the entire bandwidth of the sun's radiation, sounds less convincing to me (but, I am willing to be proven wrong).
A large part of induced energy are more of less ohmic heating, i.e. charged particles entering the atmosphere. As a side note, such charged particles also control the amount of ozone created/destroyed in the stratosphere - not SUVs or leaky fridges.
> The percentage of CO2 produced by humans is low compared to other parts of the CO2 cycle.
Not to mention, there is no scientific explanation why CO2 should have such an impact on climate. Water vapor has an order of magnitude higher heat capacity than CO2, and the atmosphere contains oders of magnitudes more. But humans don't "destroy" water, so they can't be blamed and taxed ...
> Anyway, even with all this, I admit that given the warming is real in human industrial time scale ...
Yes, there was definitely an uptick in global temperature during the last century. Albeit nothing dramatic in a historical perspective.
I would recommend the Suspicious0bserver YT site (and subsequently the "electric universe" theory) as alternative explanation for recent events. Although having an electrical engineering education, I might be somewhat biased in this regard ... ;-)
Thanks again for the ideas you share, and, bias due to knowledge (even strong suspicion) is certainly welcome here.
I have my bias as well, my undergraduate degree is in physics while I studied, during my work years, to earn degrees (M.Sc, Ph.D.) in geophysics, so, you can see I also have a slanted viewpoint on this subject. My view is even more slanted because I worked in the oil and gas industry. Certainly, my studies have not made me certain, or even comfortable, about any of the models we are currently being bombarded with. However, I contend that there has been an honest effort, in the past, to determine the entire spectrum of incoming radiation (the spectrum does not mean, only classical wave phenomenon, I am referring to the spectrum in the quantum-mechanical framework)
I would like to make the distinction between the microscopic understanding and the macroscopic misunderstanding. Though, I believe the microscopic understanding is on quite strong footing (radiation (whether: waves, particles or waveicles) , or, scattering (whether from: atomic(even in certain scales sub-atomic), molecular, small aggregates) has a long and illuminating history. I think that my understanding there is at a limit of my humble (mental and physical) resources. However, when we talk about the macro interaction of these, a few interactions, a few choices of particles, a few non-closed systems, all under an extremely non-linear, chaotic system makes for a situation that is ripe for strong statement of no predictive value.
The people giving life to these assertions are, unfortunately, ones with more money and power than brains or morals. They do understand that complexity gives them a chance of saying stupid things that cannot be immediately refuted, which in turn, engenders fear and a handle to control the masses for their own ends.
I am almost to to point, where I want to say, these people have lied all their lives. They have seen how these lies have given them more and more power and wealth. They have seen how a lie repeated becomes a holy writ among their followers and ass kissers. Now, they are just expanding the lies to non-sovereign countries and the world. A simple extension for them, I guess. But, I must say, this would not work if there was enough of a moral compass among us, but, that seems to be in short supply. I guess we/I am a part of the problem.
Anyway, enough ranting. I will look at your suggested sites for further education. I am currently busy with other avenues of investigation, but, I will not forget, and thanks again for sharing.
Now, just to get ridiculous with my feedback, per the next chart China's increase in energy consumption seems to be an outlier going out of control? I mean seriously, that chart can't last.
Seriously, China cannot maintain its momentum in energy consumption especially being they are the largest consumer. This is evident and I suspect Russia knows this and other places are gonna come around and figure it out soon enough.
Of course, with that said, if the US tried to antagonize China one step too far, my guess being I got no standing on this, is that most of the folks in the US get a hard lesson bout how much their privilidge stems from goods made in China if you know what I mean. So much so, that it won't take long for everybody to know - we can't make crap in this country lately, so probably makes sense to start making things local - what you think?
Whenever, I see exponential increases, I always look toward where the failure points are. There is something a little strange about the China case. If you will notice the energy consumption of the world has been almost linear since the 1960's, lets say. During this time almost all the manufacturing of the empire was exported and China was the main manufacturer for the world. The fact that the exponential rise is not mirrored in the world consumption curve, makes me feel, this is more of a function of transfer of energy use due to the shortsighted out sourcing for a quite buck. I totally agree with you about making things locally. However, the predatory capitalists will not allow small businesses to cut into their extra money from offshoring. You need a war that will force them to make their own things. But, if you could locally support each other and forego some of the benefits of cheap stuff from China, you will have done something wonderful for your community.
Per the Energy in Food Production Chart at the top of this article, when food production is local the energy consumption to get the food on the table diminishes.
Yup, that is why, "the elite" has and will make it hard to do just that. The attack on farming around the world is furious, even if we don't hear about it from mainstream news. As the old war criminal said "control the food control the people".
OK, so this was the nuance, the European refineries are fine tuned to Ural Oil from Russia and that is not easy to change efficiently....in fact, tis very messy indeed and likely to lead to safety accidents you want my opinion. Stupid basically from the get-go of the EU leaders to think they could cancel Russia.
That is the sad thing. I don't think the EU leaders are doing the thinking. There is something very amorphous about why many of the current batch of WEF sanctioned leaders are not concerned about being reelected? It almost make one think there is an invisible wall ahead we are running headlong into.
I don't waste my time trying to comprehend the incentives of others.
If they say something that resonates then it does - if it don't, it don't.
At the end of the day, possession is 9/10ths of the law for a reason and whatever the plans of psychopaths may be, I give give them no heed and refute them if they cause harm. I don't think any of that is complicated, but energy usage and refining petroleum is complicated for one not trained in reactors, storage tanks, and environmental permitting, and you get the drift I reckon.
I don't believe in invisible walls and whether anybody believes in them or not makes no difference because they are imaginary and really - why trouble yourself with the future uncertain?
OK, I already know I have other comments to put forth after I put forth this one. The only purpose of this one is to say I have spoke my mind on coal used for fast-oxygen combustion purposes is coal wasted. So, I hope coal gets recognized for the value it has and it has much.
Thanks for you enthusiastic responses. I will give my opinion on the different types of sources of energy in my future post. I will say that internationally coal is certainly a significant part of the energy mix. Nothing is going to displace its place in the near future. All the bad press given to it has reduced the percentage of its dominance only by a few percent, however if you look at the raw contribution to energy of the world it went up significantly in around 2010 and any slide backwards is insignificant.
I know the politicians are making noise as if coal is imminently going to disappear of the face of the earth. The facts are quite different. If they remove coal from the equation today, there will be an instant depression coming in response. The US and other vassal states can say how green they are and they are not supporting coal, the reality is coal is being used and will continue to be used in the foreseeable future. They may have farmed out the coal mining elsewhere but it has not become insignificant in terms of energy supply for the world.
The best coal is coal kept close to home. In the Hills, by the river, in the forest, this is what I think and I suspect my neighbors share that opinion.
The author, Jorge Vilches has several articles there that I have found interesting especially since my undergraduate degree is in Chemical Engineering and I have worked in the chemical industry (mainly as an ESHA professional) for my whole career (besides a stint as a "handyman"...which is a whole nether story....). Anyhow, Jorge has some nuance that spoke to raw materials used in refineries that I was not aware of, but, given my background, I could tell were most important.
Thanks for the article. I too read the saker. I think the cartoon of the shotgun aimed at the foot, in this case should have EU's head in between as well, they will shoot their heads of as well as shooting themselves in the foot. They are doing a PR stunt at the behest of their handlers that is going to bring hell to their people. It will not just be an economic fiasco, it will literally mean human lives, in my opinion.
I'm thinking the smart countries already realize Russia is a good country to be a friend with, or at a minimum, not on the unfriendly list.....What do you think?
At one time, I was a firm believer in fuel cell potential, but I learned my lesson on that as well as my lesson regarding the micro-turbine the old company Capstone (CPST - no more) offered up. What a shame that technology was not furthered.
You and I share some technical overlap. I was a geophysicist, and in my very biased opinion, a fairly good one. You are in the engineering part of the game which makes you probably more practical than I was.
In terms of Russia, I must say, I was quite propagandized in my youth and had the substantial bigotry, seeing Russia, China and any non-empired aligned country or any country the empire wanted to bad mouth as barbaric relics of dying ideas full of corruption and tyranny. I grew to realize, I was ignorant, ill informed and a useful tool for a mean, corrupt, thieving and untrustworthy empire. When I realized that, I started to look towards more and more non-official sources. I now see the shame, the empire foisted onto Russia, during the drunken Yeltsen years, the shameless plunder by empire backed oligarchs was legend, the helpless anger of the abused Russians still makes me upset. I actually housed a couple of visiting scholars from Russia during that shameful period. They were excellent scientists but were so poor the food for their families was hard to come by. Then came the unassuming Putin who over time limited the damage from a lot of the oligarchs (a dangerous job) put Russia back on the world stage as a voice of reason. He never wavered from his commitment to the Russian people. Their country for Russians, the countries resources to benefit Russia, the culture is undeniably Russian, the main belief is known and unapologetically practised, diversity is subordinate to the Russian culture.
As you can probably tell, I think that Russia is one of the least conflicted countries in the world. They have been straight with their dealings with other countries even at times to their own detriment. They sometimes seem slow to act, but, I use to think that of Canada, where I live, and that was always a good thing in my mind. But when they do act, there is no people on earth right now that is as unified as Russia, not even China. So in a long round about way, I am with you 100%, that is is a very good idea to be a friend with Russia.
I had great hopes in my undergraduate days for fusion energy, as time went on, I still held out hope but it was something in the distant future. Fuel cells were of interest but I never really looked deeply into it. I know nothing about micro-turbines. I might just look it up. My big hope, based on very little, was for cold fusion to be something real. I was wrong. There are still people interested in that.
Cold fusion could be, but if we can't appreciate coal for what it has to offer I doubt we will ever figure out cold fusion assuming it could be figured out. Micro-turbines appeal to me because I am an advocate of distributed energy from the standpoint of rigorous local systems. But, if I have learned anything I have learned this - investing in energy is tricky business and alternative energy is mostly pipe dreams, but some pipes are laid with precisions and it is evident which county is ahead of the curve presently......but, with that said I have some ideas about better batteries and many other things. I think China needs to cool down the increase in energy consumption because it is not sustainable. India seems to have a steady plan.
This is a tremendous article and I have enjoyed are discourse today and learned. I'm interested about "traditional biomass" as per the last chart not so long ago it was the main supplier of energy per the chart and I suspect there is some wisdom in traditional biomass that the big time coal consumers would be advised to study. Some trees grow rapidly, some don't. Take that thought and apply it out and better times are just around the corner is what I think.
Traditional biomass I suspect (I have not looked it up) is basically local fuel used in the old days....if you lived near the bogs, the fuel could be plenty. If you lived in the forest, fuel was of no concern assuming you didn't cut down all the trees. Other energy comes from under sand, but every oil deposit has its own nuance. Natural Gas is easy.
The correlation between GDP and energy consumption is amazing. The fact they are so close makes me suspect ("in doubt" sort of suspecting thinking.....not "suspect" as if concluding) that GDP is an accurate metric, but energy consumption is easily measured.
> I stand, today, in the unenviable position of being unsure of the ultimate cause of the current global warming. The warming, I am fairly sure of, but the ultimate modelled results of human produced CO2 as the main cause is where my uncertainty lies.
You can rest assured that it is not the fault of us humans. Or else, there would have been no concurrent rise on other planets in the solar system. Not to mention, non-human sources (volcanoes, oceans) provide more than 95% of the CO2 they falsely blame.
And second, their models are poor. Which is amply demonstrated by the fact that these models failed to "predict" bygone climate episodes from known data.
One reason is, the models totally ignore any contribution by the sun beyond the visible light range and some narrow adjacent bands. But the results have to fit the political narrative, or you might not call yourself a "scientist" any longer ...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As you can probably deduce, from my articles, I too have serious doubt of human caused warming as the key mechanism for the current warming cycle. I have read about the concurrent warming of the planets, however, I have not delved into the subject sufficiently to have an opinion. Perhaps your replay will spur me toward greater efforts.
The percentage of CO2 produced by humans is low compared to other parts of the CO2 cycle. The argument, from the other side, I have read about, suggests the cycle was balanced (very doubtful, in my mind) and any small perturbation will knock it off its current quasi-stable (again, speculation, as I see it) drive us into hell-fire on earth. The current CO2 level is actually quite low in the geological record, and through much of the time, punctuated by a handful of die-offs (extinction events), were mostly times of abundant diversity. The colder periods were less friendly but quite survivable, as expected. So for me , even without extra-terrestrial evidence, am on the side, that this is fear-mongering. As you indicated, this is a political emergency imposed on us under the cover of "scientism".
As to the modelling efforts, that is greatly approved by the elitists, are plagued by so much complexity (as discussed in my article, talking about chaos) and rich in variables, that anyone who knows how to goal seek for the proper "variables" to achieve "desirable" outcomes, can produce any prediction they want. The sad thing is, these modellers for sale have many bamboozled, few check their accuracy over time (spoiler, not a very good track record). So for me, the modellers of fame, have a very low grade.
However, your idea of not using the entire bandwidth of the sun's radiation, sounds less convincing to me (but, I am willing to be proven wrong). The physics of radiative heating is fairly well understood, The main ideas of amount of the radiation absorbed and reflected is also understood for the majority of the frequencies. I am sure neutrino induce heating is generally ignored (a bad joke). The excitation modes of most of the common atmospheric molecules are known, so, the scattering effects are quantifiable. The means, to me, the green-house mechanics are reasonably solid. The problem is not this basic physics issues, it is the models that badly represent this small scale phenomenon on the global scale. They cannot even get the cloud cover effects worked out (not surprising as, it seems to me, a highly complex system) which is a major driver to the actual earth system.
Anyway, even with all this, I admit that given the warming is real in human industrial time scale (though not without geological comparison, not matter the rhetoric about, it is acceleration that is important, since the ancient historical record does not have an accelerometer attached and most inferences a probably quite smoothed) I will keep skeptical of most hypothesis today and acknowledge my current state of ignorance. That does not mean I am looking for the "truth" from people who claim they are the science either.
Again, thanks for your comment. I do enjoy exercising my grey matter once in awhile.
> However, your idea of not using the entire bandwidth of the sun's radiation, sounds less convincing to me (but, I am willing to be proven wrong).
A large part of induced energy are more of less ohmic heating, i.e. charged particles entering the atmosphere. As a side note, such charged particles also control the amount of ozone created/destroyed in the stratosphere - not SUVs or leaky fridges.
> The percentage of CO2 produced by humans is low compared to other parts of the CO2 cycle.
Not to mention, there is no scientific explanation why CO2 should have such an impact on climate. Water vapor has an order of magnitude higher heat capacity than CO2, and the atmosphere contains oders of magnitudes more. But humans don't "destroy" water, so they can't be blamed and taxed ...
> Anyway, even with all this, I admit that given the warming is real in human industrial time scale ...
Yes, there was definitely an uptick in global temperature during the last century. Albeit nothing dramatic in a historical perspective.
I would recommend the Suspicious0bserver YT site (and subsequently the "electric universe" theory) as alternative explanation for recent events. Although having an electrical engineering education, I might be somewhat biased in this regard ... ;-)
Thanks again for the ideas you share, and, bias due to knowledge (even strong suspicion) is certainly welcome here.
I have my bias as well, my undergraduate degree is in physics while I studied, during my work years, to earn degrees (M.Sc, Ph.D.) in geophysics, so, you can see I also have a slanted viewpoint on this subject. My view is even more slanted because I worked in the oil and gas industry. Certainly, my studies have not made me certain, or even comfortable, about any of the models we are currently being bombarded with. However, I contend that there has been an honest effort, in the past, to determine the entire spectrum of incoming radiation (the spectrum does not mean, only classical wave phenomenon, I am referring to the spectrum in the quantum-mechanical framework)
I would like to make the distinction between the microscopic understanding and the macroscopic misunderstanding. Though, I believe the microscopic understanding is on quite strong footing (radiation (whether: waves, particles or waveicles) , or, scattering (whether from: atomic(even in certain scales sub-atomic), molecular, small aggregates) has a long and illuminating history. I think that my understanding there is at a limit of my humble (mental and physical) resources. However, when we talk about the macro interaction of these, a few interactions, a few choices of particles, a few non-closed systems, all under an extremely non-linear, chaotic system makes for a situation that is ripe for strong statement of no predictive value.
The people giving life to these assertions are, unfortunately, ones with more money and power than brains or morals. They do understand that complexity gives them a chance of saying stupid things that cannot be immediately refuted, which in turn, engenders fear and a handle to control the masses for their own ends.
I am almost to to point, where I want to say, these people have lied all their lives. They have seen how these lies have given them more and more power and wealth. They have seen how a lie repeated becomes a holy writ among their followers and ass kissers. Now, they are just expanding the lies to non-sovereign countries and the world. A simple extension for them, I guess. But, I must say, this would not work if there was enough of a moral compass among us, but, that seems to be in short supply. I guess we/I am a part of the problem.
Anyway, enough ranting. I will look at your suggested sites for further education. I am currently busy with other avenues of investigation, but, I will not forget, and thanks again for sharing.
Now, just to get ridiculous with my feedback, per the next chart China's increase in energy consumption seems to be an outlier going out of control? I mean seriously, that chart can't last.
No, it's not going out of control.
It just shows us where the actual production of goods happens in our world.
And, if you look closer at this chart, why India faded somewhat in the background, to be replaced by (oil-rich) Iran in importance.
Seriously, China cannot maintain its momentum in energy consumption especially being they are the largest consumer. This is evident and I suspect Russia knows this and other places are gonna come around and figure it out soon enough.
Of course, with that said, if the US tried to antagonize China one step too far, my guess being I got no standing on this, is that most of the folks in the US get a hard lesson bout how much their privilidge stems from goods made in China if you know what I mean. So much so, that it won't take long for everybody to know - we can't make crap in this country lately, so probably makes sense to start making things local - what you think?
Whenever, I see exponential increases, I always look toward where the failure points are. There is something a little strange about the China case. If you will notice the energy consumption of the world has been almost linear since the 1960's, lets say. During this time almost all the manufacturing of the empire was exported and China was the main manufacturer for the world. The fact that the exponential rise is not mirrored in the world consumption curve, makes me feel, this is more of a function of transfer of energy use due to the shortsighted out sourcing for a quite buck. I totally agree with you about making things locally. However, the predatory capitalists will not allow small businesses to cut into their extra money from offshoring. You need a war that will force them to make their own things. But, if you could locally support each other and forego some of the benefits of cheap stuff from China, you will have done something wonderful for your community.
Per the Energy in Food Production Chart at the top of this article, when food production is local the energy consumption to get the food on the table diminishes.
Yup, that is why, "the elite" has and will make it hard to do just that. The attack on farming around the world is furious, even if we don't hear about it from mainstream news. As the old war criminal said "control the food control the people".
OK, so this was the nuance, the European refineries are fine tuned to Ural Oil from Russia and that is not easy to change efficiently....in fact, tis very messy indeed and likely to lead to safety accidents you want my opinion. Stupid basically from the get-go of the EU leaders to think they could cancel Russia.
DUH
That is the sad thing. I don't think the EU leaders are doing the thinking. There is something very amorphous about why many of the current batch of WEF sanctioned leaders are not concerned about being reelected? It almost make one think there is an invisible wall ahead we are running headlong into.
I don't believe in invisible walls.
I don't waste my time trying to comprehend the incentives of others.
If they say something that resonates then it does - if it don't, it don't.
At the end of the day, possession is 9/10ths of the law for a reason and whatever the plans of psychopaths may be, I give give them no heed and refute them if they cause harm. I don't think any of that is complicated, but energy usage and refining petroleum is complicated for one not trained in reactors, storage tanks, and environmental permitting, and you get the drift I reckon.
I don't believe in invisible walls and whether anybody believes in them or not makes no difference because they are imaginary and really - why trouble yourself with the future uncertain?
OK, I already know I have other comments to put forth after I put forth this one. The only purpose of this one is to say I have spoke my mind on coal used for fast-oxygen combustion purposes is coal wasted. So, I hope coal gets recognized for the value it has and it has much.
Thanks for you enthusiastic responses. I will give my opinion on the different types of sources of energy in my future post. I will say that internationally coal is certainly a significant part of the energy mix. Nothing is going to displace its place in the near future. All the bad press given to it has reduced the percentage of its dominance only by a few percent, however if you look at the raw contribution to energy of the world it went up significantly in around 2010 and any slide backwards is insignificant.
I know the politicians are making noise as if coal is imminently going to disappear of the face of the earth. The facts are quite different. If they remove coal from the equation today, there will be an instant depression coming in response. The US and other vassal states can say how green they are and they are not supporting coal, the reality is coal is being used and will continue to be used in the foreseeable future. They may have farmed out the coal mining elsewhere but it has not become insignificant in terms of energy supply for the world.
The best coal is coal kept close to home. In the Hills, by the river, in the forest, this is what I think and I suspect my neighbors share that opinion.
This is good stuff - I will read it closely when I have some time. Have you seen this article:
https://thesaker.is/anatomy-of-the-eu-gas-crisis/
The author, Jorge Vilches has several articles there that I have found interesting especially since my undergraduate degree is in Chemical Engineering and I have worked in the chemical industry (mainly as an ESHA professional) for my whole career (besides a stint as a "handyman"...which is a whole nether story....). Anyhow, Jorge has some nuance that spoke to raw materials used in refineries that I was not aware of, but, given my background, I could tell were most important.
Regards,
Ken
Thanks for the article. I too read the saker. I think the cartoon of the shotgun aimed at the foot, in this case should have EU's head in between as well, they will shoot their heads of as well as shooting themselves in the foot. They are doing a PR stunt at the behest of their handlers that is going to bring hell to their people. It will not just be an economic fiasco, it will literally mean human lives, in my opinion.
Let me tell you, in my career as an ESHA professional, this sort of technical reading was par for the course. Link: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch05/final/c05s02.pdf
I'm thinking the smart countries already realize Russia is a good country to be a friend with, or at a minimum, not on the unfriendly list.....What do you think?
At one time, I was a firm believer in fuel cell potential, but I learned my lesson on that as well as my lesson regarding the micro-turbine the old company Capstone (CPST - no more) offered up. What a shame that technology was not furthered.
You and I share some technical overlap. I was a geophysicist, and in my very biased opinion, a fairly good one. You are in the engineering part of the game which makes you probably more practical than I was.
In terms of Russia, I must say, I was quite propagandized in my youth and had the substantial bigotry, seeing Russia, China and any non-empired aligned country or any country the empire wanted to bad mouth as barbaric relics of dying ideas full of corruption and tyranny. I grew to realize, I was ignorant, ill informed and a useful tool for a mean, corrupt, thieving and untrustworthy empire. When I realized that, I started to look towards more and more non-official sources. I now see the shame, the empire foisted onto Russia, during the drunken Yeltsen years, the shameless plunder by empire backed oligarchs was legend, the helpless anger of the abused Russians still makes me upset. I actually housed a couple of visiting scholars from Russia during that shameful period. They were excellent scientists but were so poor the food for their families was hard to come by. Then came the unassuming Putin who over time limited the damage from a lot of the oligarchs (a dangerous job) put Russia back on the world stage as a voice of reason. He never wavered from his commitment to the Russian people. Their country for Russians, the countries resources to benefit Russia, the culture is undeniably Russian, the main belief is known and unapologetically practised, diversity is subordinate to the Russian culture.
As you can probably tell, I think that Russia is one of the least conflicted countries in the world. They have been straight with their dealings with other countries even at times to their own detriment. They sometimes seem slow to act, but, I use to think that of Canada, where I live, and that was always a good thing in my mind. But when they do act, there is no people on earth right now that is as unified as Russia, not even China. So in a long round about way, I am with you 100%, that is is a very good idea to be a friend with Russia.
I had great hopes in my undergraduate days for fusion energy, as time went on, I still held out hope but it was something in the distant future. Fuel cells were of interest but I never really looked deeply into it. I know nothing about micro-turbines. I might just look it up. My big hope, based on very little, was for cold fusion to be something real. I was wrong. There are still people interested in that.
Cold fusion could be, but if we can't appreciate coal for what it has to offer I doubt we will ever figure out cold fusion assuming it could be figured out. Micro-turbines appeal to me because I am an advocate of distributed energy from the standpoint of rigorous local systems. But, if I have learned anything I have learned this - investing in energy is tricky business and alternative energy is mostly pipe dreams, but some pipes are laid with precisions and it is evident which county is ahead of the curve presently......but, with that said I have some ideas about better batteries and many other things. I think China needs to cool down the increase in energy consumption because it is not sustainable. India seems to have a steady plan.
Can't argue with that.
This is a tremendous article and I have enjoyed are discourse today and learned. I'm interested about "traditional biomass" as per the last chart not so long ago it was the main supplier of energy per the chart and I suspect there is some wisdom in traditional biomass that the big time coal consumers would be advised to study. Some trees grow rapidly, some don't. Take that thought and apply it out and better times are just around the corner is what I think.
Thank you and talk to you later,
Ken Hausle
Traditional biomass I suspect (I have not looked it up) is basically local fuel used in the old days....if you lived near the bogs, the fuel could be plenty. If you lived in the forest, fuel was of no concern assuming you didn't cut down all the trees. Other energy comes from under sand, but every oil deposit has its own nuance. Natural Gas is easy.
BK
The correlation between GDP and energy consumption is amazing. The fact they are so close makes me suspect ("in doubt" sort of suspecting thinking.....not "suspect" as if concluding) that GDP is an accurate metric, but energy consumption is easily measured.
(Edit Made - 83022 1735 - BK)