Interesting Times

[Hurricane77]

Looking around, I see where some refinery conversions are supposedly under way to make biofuels, most of them to make biodiesel. I see where Shell also plans to make some biojet.

What I don't see is where any of them involve any plans to make any biofuel to replace gasoline.

Or to replace natural gas, come to think of it.

There's a difference in terminology here that I think is relevant. There are 'sustainable' or 'renewable' fuels. Things like corn or sugar based Ethanol would be considered sustainable. There's really no limit to the amount we can produce, we just need to grow more corn - for example.

And then there are the so-called 'carbon-neutral' fuels. To me, Ethanol is not carbon-neutral. One needs to expend large amounts of carbon to produce the fuel and then even more when it's consumed. But something like methane capture from livestock feed yards used to produce say something like methanol. In the first step, you're capturing carbon emission that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere, but them releasing upon combustion. So the net is zero compared to if you have not used that particular fuel.

I don't disagree with you that the major influence on what is researched and viable vs what gets deployed comes down to nothing but $$$

 

[ck80]

The "breakthrough" was on the order of a billionth of a second -- hardly a sustained reaction -- and the researchers DON'T KNOW WHY even that much happened, have been UNABLE TO REPRODUCE it since and DON'T HAVE A CLUE why.

I don't call that actual progress.

Of course, lots of things don't make sense outside theoretical physics.

Try explaining to a layman why time has been proven via atomic clock experiments to move faster at higher elevations than lower ones all due to gravitational distortions.

So, if you're up at altitude like Supercharged111 or DRIVEN you live shorter than if you'd been able to survive where Clutch chooses to live. Sure were talking fractions of a second per year, but the point remains that time isn't the same everywhere.

As for all the rest... it's going to go on like it always has.

 

[Built6spdMCSS]

 

[86LK]

View attachment 206720

yep......https://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/

 

[jiho]

Of course, lots of things don't make sense outside theoretical physics.

Try explaining to a layman why time has been proven via atomic clock experiments to move faster at higher elevations than lower ones all due to gravitational distortions.

So, if you're up at altitude like Supercharged111 or DRIVEN you live shorter than if you'd been able to survive where Clutch chooses to live. Sure were talking fractions of a second per year, but the point remains that time isn't the same everywhere.

As for all the rest... it's going to go on like it always has.

I guess that makes holding your breath just that much dicier, depending on where you live.

 

[jiho]

yep......https://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/autos.ceo.jets/

And then of course they got all that money and more, anyway.

 

[jiho]

Korean's have achieved a sustained reaction with temps of 100 million degrees for 20 seconds recently. China (if you can/want to believe them) have claimed a reaction of 70 million degrees for 20 minutes.

It's still many many years away. Getting something working under very controlled lab conditions is one thing. Commercialization is something else completely. Much like all the new battery tech 'breakthroughs'. Lab conditions are one thing, mass production is something else entirely.

Blah blah.

 

[jiho]

There's a difference in terminology here that I think is relevant. There are 'sustainable' or 'renewable' fuels. Things like corn or sugar based Ethanol would be considered sustainable. There's really no limit to the amount we can produce, we just need to grow more corn - for example.

And then there are the so-called 'carbon-neutral' fuels. To me, Ethanol is not carbon-neutral. One needs to expend large amounts of carbon to produce the fuel and then even more when it's consumed. But something like methane capture from livestock feed yards used to produce say something like methanol. In the first step, you're capturing carbon emission that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere, but them releasing upon combustion. So the net is zero compared to if you have not used that particular fuel.

I don't disagree with you that the major influence on what is researched and viable vs what gets deployed comes down to nothing but $$$

More blah blah, but closer to hand.

 

[jiho]

The one common theme that emerges from all of this: Nothing realistic is happening to address the issues at hand.

 

[John Canon]

There's always been cross-ownership between car and oil companies. So how is it they're on opposite sides now? They aren't, really. As long as everyone obsesses with EVs, oil company profits are a safe bet.

Question: does an EV actually have a dipstick? Answer: ... it depends on who is driving it.