On 9/09/2024 1:41 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:34:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:45:22 -0700) it happened john larkin
<jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <stsodj1etjq4bnfbea9gqlbeefbf40p4pr@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 05:24:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

Achieving a supercapacitor through the 'molecular coating' approach
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240905121043.htm

I doubt that supercaps will ever achieve the energy density of
batteries, and if they get close they will be equally explosive.

People are inventing super "capacitors" that sound awfully
electrochemical to me.

The threshold for a press release seems to be to make something that
will light an LED, which takes about a microwatt.

Yes, new batteries are invented every week it seems.
Now super capacitors too
We will have to wait for it to be in the shops.

Methane has half the carbon of a long-chain liquid hydrocarbon. In
most situations, a 2:1 improvement is considered to be pretty good.

But in the current situation a 2:1 improvement isn't good enough.

We have to cut our carbon emissions right back to stop global warming -
the aim is to get the atmospheric CO2 level back to the regular
inter-glacial 270ppm.

CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane.

For good reason.

As they hate nukes and hydro power.

For very different reasons.

They aren't enthusiastic about nukes - we still haven't got an
acceptable way of dealing with nuclear waste. It does stay dangerous for
abut 100,000 years.

The aren't all that enthusiastic about flooding valleys to create hydro-electric reservoirs. It does mess up the local environment, and
always seems to drive some species or other to extinction.

They hate energy.

They don't. They just have reservations about some of the ways we
generate it.

This is good example of you expressing yourself clearly, but expressing unfortunate opinions you have picked up from climate change denial
propaganda, which you should have been able to recognise as fatuous
nonsense but have swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sun, 08 Sep 2024 08:41:59 -0700) it happened john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <j5hrdjd6jnctnbfenh074cgjjfe0koq5k4@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:34:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:45:22 -0700) it happened john larkin >><jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <stsodj1etjq4bnfbea9gqlbeefbf40p4pr@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 05:24:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> >>>wrote:

Achieving a supercapacitor through the 'molecular coating' approach
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240905121043.htm

I doubt that supercaps will ever achieve the energy density of
batteries, and if they get close they will be equally explosive.

People are inventing super "capacitors" that sound awfully >>>electrochemical to me.

The threshold for a press release seems to be to make something that
will light an LED, which takes about a microwatt.

Yes, new batteries are invented every week it seems.
Now super capacitors too
We will have to wait for it to be in the shops.

Methane has half the carbon of a long-chain liquid hydrocarbon. In
most situations, a 2:1 improvement is considered to be pretty good.
CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane. As they hate nukes and
hydro power.

They hate energy.

Those greens should be sent to re-eduction camps
None of them would be around if it was not for technology.

There was an other bunch of greens chaining themselves to a museum entrance in Amsterdam last week.
They had to be cut lose...
I think their argument was that ING bank had something to do with CO2 and financed the museum?
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/09/extinction-rebellions-anti-ing-protest-closes-rijksmuseum/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/09/2024 4:36 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 08 Sep 2024 08:41:59 -0700) it happened john larkin <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <j5hrdjd6jnctnbfenh074cgjjfe0koq5k4@4ax.com>:

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:34:27 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:45:22 -0700) it happened john larkin >>> <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in <stsodj1etjq4bnfbea9gqlbeefbf40p4pr@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 05:24:50 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

Achieving a supercapacitor through the 'molecular coating' approach
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240905121043.htm

I doubt that supercaps will ever achieve the energy density of
batteries, and if they get close they will be equally explosive.

People are inventing super "capacitors" that sound awfully
electrochemical to me.

The threshold for a press release seems to be to make something that
will light an LED, which takes about a microwatt.

Yes, new batteries are invented every week it seems.
Now super capacitors too
We will have to wait for it to be in the shops.

Methane has half the carbon of a long-chain liquid hydrocarbon. In
most situations, a 2:1 improvement is considered to be pretty good.
CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane. As they hate nukes and
hydro power.

They hate energy.

Those greens should be sent to re-education camps.

The "greenies" that John Larkin fulminates about don't actually exist.
They are an invention of the climate change denial propaganda machine.

If John Larkin had ever had a proper education he might be able to
distinguish truth from concocted stories. Perhaps not - he doesn't seem
to be able to learn much at all.

None of them would be around if it was not for technology.

A fact which is well known to actual greenies.

There was an other bunch of greens chaining themselves to a museum entrance in Amsterdam last week.
They had to be cut lose...
I think their argument was that ING bank had something to do with CO2 and financed the museum?
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/09/extinction-rebellions-anti-ing-protest-closes-rijksmuseum/

It's a pretty silly thing to complain about, but the ING Bank does lend
money to people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it to be burnt as
fuel, which is an activity which we are giving up quite rapidly - if not
quite as fast as we should. The side effects are nasty, and getting nastier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

[...]

We have to cut our carbon emissions right back to stop global warming -
the aim is to get the atmospheric CO2 level back to the regular
inter-glacial 270ppm.

That would only stop man-made global warming, which is a tiny fraction
of the overall effect. Volcanos, forest fires and decomposing
vegetation have far more effect than mankind has.

What mankind has done to apparently increase 'global warming' is to skew
the data collection and statistics, supported by (and supporting) a
growing industry of self-appointed environmentalists.

CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane.

For good reason.

Then why don't they oppose tree planting and support the clearance of
forests, which are the biggest source of methane when the trees and
other plants die and decompose?


I definitely think we should be less profligate with our natural
resources, but we should not be treating it as a religion and proposing feel-good knee-jerk 'solutions' which haven't been properly thought
through.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/09/2024 6:18 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

[...]

We have to cut our carbon emissions right back to stop global warming -
the aim is to get the atmospheric CO2 level back to the regular
inter-glacial 270ppm.

That would only stop man-made global warming, which is a tiny fraction
of the overall effect. Volcanos, forest fires and decomposing
vegetation have far more effect than mankind has.

Rubbish. The natural CO2 cycle does dump 790 gigatons pf CO2 into the atmosphere every year, but it also takes it out again.

About 60% human generated 29 gigatons per year stays in the atmosphere,
while 40% dissolves in the oceans.

https://www.che-project.eu/news/how-do-human-co2-emissions-compare-natural-co2-emissions

The human generated CO2 is low on C-14, and that started messing up
carbon dating around 1945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

What mankind has done to apparently increase 'global warming' is to skew
the data collection and statistics, supported by (and supporting) a
growing industry of self-appointed environmentalists.

CNG cars work. But the greenies hate methane.

For good reason.

Then why don't they oppose tree planting and support the clearance of forests, which are the biggest source of methane when the trees and
other plants die and decompose?

Not really.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/?intent=121

NASA blames natural processes for 40% of the current emissions and human activities for the other 60%, which is why atmospheric methane levels
have more than doubled over the past 200 years - you can get that number
from ice core data.

I definitely think we should be less profligate with our natural
resources, but we should not be treating it as a religion and proposing feel-good knee-jerk 'solutions' which haven't been properly thought
through.

Since you didn't check your claim before you posted it, you don't seem
to have done a proper job of thinking about what you posted.

And John Larkin's claims about what greenies think come from climate
change denial propaganda. I've not heard any real greenie say anything
anything like that stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)