On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:

> On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> snip
>
>>>
>>> About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
>
> 9% of Urban households.
>
>>> https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-still-a-pipe-dream-for-20-of-russian-households-reports-say-a65049
>>>
>>> vs 0.1% to 0.5% in the US, depending who you believe.
>>
>> I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
>> her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where missing
>> from the houses.
>>
>> The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent back
>> to their home villages in russia.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>
> Next time you are drunk, ask her if they took the plumbing and piping as
> well.
>

I wasn't drunk, and they did not take plumbing and piping. Any other
questions?

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I perceive that your "natural gas"
> is fossil reserves of methane.
> Which is worse to let into the
> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
> on a human lifespan scale.

This applies to cow farts.

When people dig natural gas out of
the ground, it is done with the intent
of burning it, producing some
carbon dioxide, and some water
vapor. While most hydrocarbons
have about half as many carbon atoms
as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
of methane is one carbon atom to four
hydrogen atoms.

Of course, methane production and use
is not absolutely without a small percentage
of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
make natural gas worse than other
hydrocarbons.

John Savard

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 1:24:18 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> As far as sea water, unlimited definitely applies in this case.

No, not really. The Earth has a diameter of 7,937 miles, so its total
volume is finite. However, the supply of seawater is much *less*
limited than the supply of natural gas. But it is not, in the literal
sense, not limited at all. There _is_ a limit, even if that limit far
exceeds any practical need we are likely to have for it for the
production of plastics.

John Savard

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 7:00:57 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> From Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet:

> If we tried to get
> all 18 TW from this uranium supply, it would last less than 4 years! This
> does not sound like a salvation.
>
> He then goes on to a discussion about breeder reactors,

Since they exist, the fact that U-235 reserves would only last
four years is irrelevant.

> The downsides of course are proliferation risks.

As the United States *already has* nuclear weapons, there is
no risk of nuclear proliferation if the United States gets its
electricity from breeder reactors.

Also, if Donald Trump becomes the next President, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to Canada, Australia, and
most especially Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
and Poland doesn't actually sound like a bad thing to me.
Instead, it sounds like a *necessity* to maintain the stability
of the current global situation. Pity Ukraine did not have a
full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent; the current conflict
there would simply never have happened, and it would have
remained as peacefully independent of Russia as, say, France
currently is.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:52:56 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> From a technical standpoint this makes perfect sense. The problem is
> that those transuranics are greatly desired by people who want to make
> bombs. You don't need a lot of security to transport reactor-grade
> uranium rods because nobody sane really wants to steal them. But stuff
> containing even relatively small amounts of plutonium have to be kept
> under pretty tight security because the difficulty of refining it to make
> a bomb is not anywhere near as great.

This is true; however, I see no reason to believe that the United States
is not capable of providing adequate security to shipments of nuclear
materials for its power plants.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:39:41 AM UTC-7, D wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> > Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

> Undiscovered is not wishful thinking. As economics change new areas and
> ways will become profitable to exploit. This has happend with oil and
> will happen with any material that is traded on a free market.

I suppose that hypothetically, all future attempts to find either oil or
uranium in places that we haven't already detected them could suddenly
start to consistently fail.

The likelihood of this, however, can be estimated by a simple technique.

What are the geological characteristics of existing known oil and uranium
reserves? Of the land that has been explored for oil and/or uranium, what
proportion of the land with those characteristics has actually had oil
and/or uranium?

And how much land with those same characteristics has _not_ yet
been explored to look for those resources?

This is how estimates of unknown mineral resources are made, and it
is quite a reasonable technique.

John Savard

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:08:43 AM UTC-7, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

> > Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
> > really care about the environment, and aren't just using
> > it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.

> What 'other agenda' are you proposing?

While it would be unfair to generalize about _all_ environmentalists,
many of whom definitely do genuinely care about the environment,
some, at least, have made no secret of having another agenda.

They assume that if converting to limited sources of energy like
wind and solar means there isn't enough energy to run the heavy
industry needed to turn out tanks and ships and planes for waging
war... the result will be world peace, not world conquest by
countries more concerned with world domination than the environment.

I am not sure that naivete is a strong enough word to describe
this reasoning.

John Savard

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:10:02 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
> will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
> be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.

And that is quite a reasonable position. However, when I look
at the rate at which we are currently addressing global warming,
I think we have to do *much* better.

And if nuclear plays a much larger role, one that dwarfs renewables
like wind and solar (but not hydroelectric), _then_ the current
major political objection (the visible one, not hidden ones like
environmentalists having a hidden agenda and conservatives
being shills for the oil companies) vanishes - that renewables
won't supply the vast amounts of energy (felt to be?) required
for the desired level of economic activity, and the heavy
industry needed for national defense.

So presumably it ought to be possible to find the right conservatives
to make support for adequately addressing global warming
bipartisan.

John Savard

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 13:07:37 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> On 2/8/2024 9:36 AM, James Nicoll wrote:

>> It's a self-limiting problem, though. Once climate change begins
>> to significantly affect agriculture, the human population should
>> decline and with it demand. In the long run, no more serious than
>> the effects of the Siberian traps.
>
> Yup, only 70-90% of life dies, and only a few million years to recover.

From that point of view, it's easy to see why some would prefer
letting Russia or China conquer the world. There, it would only
be a thousand years or so to recover.

John Savard

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Quadibloc wrote:

> Also, if Donald Trump becomes the next President, the
> proliferation of nuclear weapons to Canada, Australia, and
> most especially Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
> and Poland doesn't actually sound like a bad thing to me.
> Instead, it sounds like a *necessity* to maintain the stability

I agree.

> of the current global situation. Pity Ukraine did not have a
> full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent; the current conflict

Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
soil when they became free or was it that they had to promise to destroy
the nukes?

> there would simply never have happened, and it would have
> remained as peacefully independent of Russia as, say, France
> currently is.

True.

>
> John Savard
>

On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
> soil when they became free

It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security
assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
weapons it had inherited on its territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> I perceive that your "natural gas"
>> is fossil reserves of methane.
>> Which is worse to let into the
>> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
>> on a human lifespan scale.
>
> This applies to cow farts.
>
> When people dig natural gas out of
> the ground, it is done with the intent
> of burning it, producing some
> carbon dioxide, and some water
> vapor. While most hydrocarbons
> have about half as many carbon atoms
> as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
> of methane is one carbon atom to four
> hydrogen atoms.
>
> Of course, methane production and use
> is not absolutely without a small percentage
> of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
> make natural gas worse than other
> hydrocarbons.
>
> John Savard

Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.

Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
years.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> I perceive that your "natural gas"
>>> is fossil reserves of methane.
>>> Which is worse to let into the
>>> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
>>> on a human lifespan scale.
>>
>> This applies to cow farts.
>>
>> When people dig natural gas out of
>> the ground, it is done with the intent
>> of burning it, producing some
>> carbon dioxide, and some water
>> vapor. While most hydrocarbons
>> have about half as many carbon atoms
>> as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
>> of methane is one carbon atom to four
>> hydrogen atoms.
>>
>> Of course, methane production and use
>> is not absolutely without a small percentage
>> of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
>> make natural gas worse than other
>> hydrocarbons.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
>weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
>
>Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
>years.
[7 to 12 years]

And all three are potent greenhouse gasses, so the decomposition of
CH4 in a decade doesn't really matter in that context.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
>> soil when they became free
>
> It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security
> assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
> weapons it had inherited on its territory.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Ahhh... thank you for refreshing my memory!

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

>On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
>> soil when they became free
>
>It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security
>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
>weapons it had inherited on its territory.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 02:46:25 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29?AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> I perceive that your "natural gas"
>> is fossil reserves of methane.
>> Which is worse to let into the
>> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
>> on a human lifespan scale.
>
>This applies to cow farts.
>
>When people dig natural gas out of
>the ground, it is done with the intent
>of burning it, producing some
>carbon dioxide, and some water
>vapor. While most hydrocarbons
>have about half as many carbon atoms
>as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
>of methane is one carbon atom to four
>hydrogen atoms.
>
>Of course, methane production and use
>is not absolutely without a small percentage
>of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
>make natural gas worse than other
>hydrocarbons.
>
Some people have checked around fracking and other natural gas
extraction areas and found much higher leakage levels than the
industry claims.
If those figures are accurate then it puts natural gas at about the
same level of greenhouse emissions as coal generators for produced
energy
I think it's something that needs independent, reputable investigation
rather than depending on the industry or environment groups figures
but it's a concern.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:44:31 -0000 (UTC), Quadibloc
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:10:02 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
>> will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
>> be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.
>
>And that is quite a reasonable position. However, when I look
>at the rate at which we are currently addressing global warming,
>I think we have to do *much* better.

Which is not achieved by delaying the rapid building of renewables in
order to have yet another decades long debate on maybe in the future
building some nuclear power plants with decade long construction time
and massive construction costs.
>
>And if nuclear plays a much larger role, one that dwarfs renewables
>like wind and solar (but not hydroelectric), _then_ the current
>major political objection (the visible one, not hidden ones like
>environmentalists having a hidden agenda and conservatives
>being shills for the oil companies) vanishes - that renewables
>won't supply the vast amounts of energy (felt to be?) required
>for the desired level of economic activity, and the heavy
>industry needed for national defense.
>
>So presumably it ought to be possible to find the right conservatives
>to make support for adequately addressing global warming
>bipartisan.

fossil fuel companies donate a lot more to politicians than nuclear
does.

On 2/13/2024 3:47 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>>> I perceive that your "natural gas"
>>>> is fossil reserves of methane.
>>>> Which is worse to let into the
>>>> atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
>>>> on a human lifespan scale.
>>>
>>> This applies to cow farts.
>>>
>>> When people dig natural gas out of
>>> the ground, it is done with the intent
>>> of burning it, producing some
>>> carbon dioxide, and some water
>>> vapor. While most hydrocarbons
>>> have about half as many carbon atoms
>>> as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
>>> of methane is one carbon atom to four
>>> hydrogen atoms.
>>>
>>> Of course, methane production and use
>>> is not absolutely without a small percentage
>>> of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
>>> make natural gas worse than other
>>> hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
>> weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
>>
>> Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
>> years.
> [7 to 12 years]
>
> And all three are potent greenhouse gasses, so the decomposition of
> CH4 in a decade doesn't really matter in that context.

Well, it does, actually.

https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalents/

Methane is a far more powerful GHG than CO2, about 28x, molecule for
molecule. So, the decay of methane removes a lot of greenhouse effect.
Water vapor is not considered to be a cause of man-made global warming
because it does not persist in the atmosphere for more than a few days.

In the Permian basin, its estimated that about 3.7% percent of extracted
natural gas leaks. (I suspect that's a floor value and the actual
number, from fracked rock to BBQ, is quite a bit higher).

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

Of course, the Permian basin is probably one of the better run fields,
and leakage in places like Turkmenistan are probably a lot higher.

pt

In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
>> really care about the environment, and aren't just using
>> it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
>
>What 'other agenda' are you proposing?

Who knows? Whatever it is, it isn't CO2 if they oppose
nuclear power. "Back to Nature" seems to be a big
part of it. I suspect those would be shocked to find
that to be "red in tooth and claw". But reality
doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

In article <uqeof0$1ud4r$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>>>
>>> About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
>
>9% of Urban households.

To be honest, the second fact is far more alarming than the first. The
county adjacent to mine here in Virginia has something like 200 homes
with outdoor toilets but... living without a flush toilet in a city has
got to be a horror.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...

It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.

What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
aspire to do in the future.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>As the United States *already has* nuclear weapons, there is
>no risk of nuclear proliferation if the United States gets its
>electricity from breeder reactors.

It's alarming enough that the US government has nuclear weapons. I am much
more worried about Google, Wells Fargo, AT&T, or MS13 having them. The
more transuranics are out there, the greater that chance of them getting
diverted. It's not difficult to make a bomb once you have either
uranium that has been enriched to weapons grade, or low grade plutonium
alloy which can be enriched with a comparatively simple chemical process.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <uq3fp6$24lb7$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.

Realizing that this comment might have been intended
to be somewhat flippant...

The energy requirement to throw something into the Sun
is considerably higher than to eject it from the Solar
System entirely. Orbital mechanics be weird. Or, at
least, non-intuitive.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>Some people have checked around fracking and other natural gas
>extraction areas and found much higher leakage levels than the
>industry claims.

It is pretty clear that the leakage is very, very high. This is a bad
thing for the gas industry not only because it gets them terrible
publicity what with people's wells getting contaminated and flammable
gas coming out of their water taps, but ALSO because the gas industry
is in the business of selling gas. Gas that escapes into the atmosphere
is gas that cannot be sold.

>If those figures are accurate then it puts natural gas at about the
>same level of greenhouse emissions as coal generators for produced
>energy

I can believe that.

>I think it's something that needs independent, reputable investigation
>rather than depending on the industry or environment groups figures
>but it's a concern.

It is a concern but I think if it can be presented to the industry as
a source of financial loss they might actually be able to investigate
ways to stop it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It's alarming enough that the US government has nuclear weapons. I am much
> more worried about Google, Wells Fargo, AT&T, or MS13 having them.

In that case, panic! Because General Electric already has them!

John Savard