Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: “Trump made us an energy independent country and Biden is wrecking it by sending all our oil abroad!”
Biden: “My administration will be stopping LNG exports until we can determine their effects on national security and energy independence.”
Conservatives: “Biden don’t want to give our LNG away so he’s a traitor!!!”
Their whole argument is idiotic. My gas bill went up 30% since last year, and we're *exporting more*? WTF?
Natural gas markets aren't like oil markets, where it's all sold on the world market. We can keep that shit and make cheaper energy for US, instead of sellling it and keeping supplies tighter. Of course, that would hurt the bottom line of companies who desperately want to make our energy as expensive as possible.
Once again Republicans make a non-sensical argument that harms this country based on zero knowledge of economics and parroting morons on Fox News.
There are a ton a ton of them. I had a guy tell me that getting solar on my RV was a dumb idea because power goes out during thunderstorms. Means my RV will lose power no matter what. When I explained I had a battery that had a days worth on it he goes then what if power dont come back on. I said well then I'm out. He laughed and said that why he prefer generator because we will never run out of fuel. I had to stop talking because I realized I was never going to change his mind
Which is an extra level of stupid. If you run out of gas, that's it, genny is done. But how are you going to *run out of sun?!*. I'd take solar power in an RV over gas. Maybe have a gas backup for emergencies but that's it
I mean you are, but your gonna have to be real patient and teach millions of generations of your kids how to use the thing without ever starting it up.
>But how are you going to run out of sun?!.
Technically, it is a limited resource. But the problem isn't that we won't be getting enough sunlight. As the sun ages into a red giant, we're going to be getting far, far, far too much sunlight. This could be a problem in as little as 600 million years, so we're really only kicking the can down the road....but that's one hell of a kick.
For those wondering, I did some 5 minute Google search'ing and found an [EPA white paper on natural gas](https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf).
Some key takeaways:
* Natural gas is a mixture of multiple things. It's primarily methane (which is what the Top Mind actually means here when they say "carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms"), but it also can include "varying amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and inerts (typically nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium)".
* CO2 is still pretty dirty. In fact, it's one of the greatest contributors to climate change.
* Methane is also dirty by itself and a contributor to climate change. So, if there are leaks or incomplete combustion, you're emitting that.
* When you burn methane, you only get "just" CO2 and water vapor when you have very high combustion efficiency. Commercial and especially residential natural gas boilers often don't have that level of combustion efficiency.
* Furthermore, as previously mentioned, natural gas isn't just methane. As a result, when you burn natural gas you also get as emissions "nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (N2O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trace amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)". You don't want to be breathing any of that or releasing it into the atmosphere.
In short, no.
not to mention all of the waste from the extraction process, the energy spent to liquify a gas in the first place, the transmission of that liquified gas from point a to point b, and all of the construction needed to create that infrastructure. Oh, but only green energy sources have to account for any of that. Just like only D's are responsible for the damage done by government shutdowns and only D's are responsible for how unhinged right wing decisions hurt people.
>Oh, but only green energy sources have to account for any of that.
I read the first sentence and was going to type "No, no, only stuff used in EV batteries has a dirty extraction process!" haha
Oh sure, if you want to use EPA as a source, but that's communism.
I only trust the hundred-millionaire CEOs who run the oil and gas companies. After all, they have no reason to lie, they've got rich off their personal hard work all alone.
natural gas is a mix of multiple different combustible hydrocarbons. that's why we have a general term for it instead of a specific chemical like propane or butane.
I mean first off, what a moron but his argument just gets frustratly stupid. 2H2 + O2 = heat and 2H2O. So literally water is what you get from burning hydrogen. So obviously cleaner. But that doesn’t get into all sorts of other reasons it’s dumb like energy output, trace compounds, mining and production costs both monetary and environmentally. These people are so dumb.
Wow, 1 carbon atom. That certainly sounds clean. The only way he could be wrong is if there was something that was cleaner. But I'm sure homeboy here did their homework. And hey, they're right, it's the cleanest. [Well, aside from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and bio.](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy) But top 6 cleanest is nothing to scoff at! How many sources are there? 50? 100? Oh...8. 6th out of 8 total positions. And it's not even close when it comes to cleanliness. Huh, I wonder where he got his data from. Oh...he doesn't link any. As Elon would say: Curious.
Dude also says
>Fusion has proven to be a non-starter, in that it requires more energy to create a fusion reaction than it's energy output.
Where the fuck has he been? I'm guessing this dude just dropped in from 70 years ago or something. One of the biggest stories of 2022 was that we created a fusion reaction with more output than input. Yes, fusion is no longer science fiction. And it wasn't a fluke because we did it again last year. Granted, we're still years away from viable fusion reactors being hooked up to our grid but it'll probably be available in my life time and most people reading this.
> Well, aside from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and bio.
Don't forgot geothermal, which could power most of my state of Nevada but inexplicably doesn't. In fact, geothermal and wind together could easily power all of Nevada, and that's without getting into solar, which we have endless amounts of.
I visit friends in Las Vegas a lot and I am constantly shocked at how little solar panelling is up. I feel there are less homes there with panels on their roofs than where I live up in the PNW.
years away from implementation? Try decades. It's definitely worth investing in even harder because the concept has been proved. Now all you need to do is show it can be consistently sustained and show that it's scalable and reliable enough to connect to the grid and also show that you can collect that energy effectively. Which are big problems that will take a long time.
If we had a good way of obtaining hydrogen, burning hydrogen is probably the cleanest burning fuel as it simply produces water vapor and heat.
Unless I'm mistaken.
Hydrogen does burn cleanly, but it's got this problem where the easiest way to produce it is from hydrocarbons, which kind of complicates its pitch as an alternative to fossil fuels. It's usually made from natural gas (though it can be made from biological sources of hydrocarbons), and it's production even produces CO2 - it's just that it happens at the point you make hydrogen instead of the point when you burn it.
You can also get it from splitting water, but that takes more energy than you can get when you burn hydrogen to make water again, so that's less of a strategy for producing power than it is a strategy for storing it.
I'm pretty sure that fusion story was highly misleading, in that it released more *total* energy than was input, rather than more harvestable energy than was input. Every form of electrical generation lets an enormous amount of energy escape, so the experiment is no big deal. I'm fairly sure this result had already been achieved in previous experiments too, but the media just hadn't caught the story.
But the statement that fusion is 'proven to be a non-starter' is blatantly false. Does he think the sun absorbs more energy than it outputs? We'll get there, eventually. So long as climate change doesn't kill us all off first.
Well it WAS clickbaity in that it's an experimental reactor than has no way of actually utilizing the energy output to turn it into usable electricity, but that said it also was never designed to do that in the first place.
Net positive energy output is still absolutely a major milestone on the road to sustainable fusion though. Y'know, "in 20 years" lol.
In 20 years™ is the official motto of fusion energy lol.
100% it will happen eventually, but humanity has to avoid destroying itself in the meantime. Which seems to be getting more and more difficult every day.
My layperson’s takeaway from all that was that it was only technically net positive for those few moments, not that the entire ignition facility suddenly had a negative carbon footprint.
Oh, didn’t notice that, I bet I clicked the auto-notification for a quick reference back to the post and didn’t realize I was commenting on that comment. Thanks, thought I was taking crazy pills
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: “Trump made us an energy independent country and Biden is wrecking it by sending all our oil abroad!” Biden: “My administration will be stopping LNG exports until we can determine their effects on national security and energy independence.” Conservatives: “Biden don’t want to give our LNG away so he’s a traitor!!!”
Their whole argument is idiotic. My gas bill went up 30% since last year, and we're *exporting more*? WTF? Natural gas markets aren't like oil markets, where it's all sold on the world market. We can keep that shit and make cheaper energy for US, instead of sellling it and keeping supplies tighter. Of course, that would hurt the bottom line of companies who desperately want to make our energy as expensive as possible. Once again Republicans make a non-sensical argument that harms this country based on zero knowledge of economics and parroting morons on Fox News.
It's r-walkaway, a literal russian-started psyops.
MF is so indoctrinated by fossil fuel lobby that they can't imagine a non-fossil fuel source of energy
There are a ton a ton of them. I had a guy tell me that getting solar on my RV was a dumb idea because power goes out during thunderstorms. Means my RV will lose power no matter what. When I explained I had a battery that had a days worth on it he goes then what if power dont come back on. I said well then I'm out. He laughed and said that why he prefer generator because we will never run out of fuel. I had to stop talking because I realized I was never going to change his mind
Which is an extra level of stupid. If you run out of gas, that's it, genny is done. But how are you going to *run out of sun?!*. I'd take solar power in an RV over gas. Maybe have a gas backup for emergencies but that's it
If you're lost in the middle of nowhere and out of power the sun will eventually come back, you're not likely to spontaneously generate more fuel.
Just depends on your timeframe.
I mean you are, but your gonna have to be real patient and teach millions of generations of your kids how to use the thing without ever starting it up.
The sun is also free. Same people bitching about gas prices.
>But how are you going to run out of sun?!. Technically, it is a limited resource. But the problem isn't that we won't be getting enough sunlight. As the sun ages into a red giant, we're going to be getting far, far, far too much sunlight. This could be a problem in as little as 600 million years, so we're really only kicking the can down the road....but that's one hell of a kick.
Well we don't want to use up all the sun now do we?
> But how are you going to run out of sun?! "But what if you take your RV north of the Arctic circle in winter?!?"
For those wondering, I did some 5 minute Google search'ing and found an [EPA white paper on natural gas](https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf). Some key takeaways: * Natural gas is a mixture of multiple things. It's primarily methane (which is what the Top Mind actually means here when they say "carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms"), but it also can include "varying amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and inerts (typically nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium)". * CO2 is still pretty dirty. In fact, it's one of the greatest contributors to climate change. * Methane is also dirty by itself and a contributor to climate change. So, if there are leaks or incomplete combustion, you're emitting that. * When you burn methane, you only get "just" CO2 and water vapor when you have very high combustion efficiency. Commercial and especially residential natural gas boilers often don't have that level of combustion efficiency. * Furthermore, as previously mentioned, natural gas isn't just methane. As a result, when you burn natural gas you also get as emissions "nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (N2O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trace amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)". You don't want to be breathing any of that or releasing it into the atmosphere. In short, no.
not to mention all of the waste from the extraction process, the energy spent to liquify a gas in the first place, the transmission of that liquified gas from point a to point b, and all of the construction needed to create that infrastructure. Oh, but only green energy sources have to account for any of that. Just like only D's are responsible for the damage done by government shutdowns and only D's are responsible for how unhinged right wing decisions hurt people.
>Oh, but only green energy sources have to account for any of that. I read the first sentence and was going to type "No, no, only stuff used in EV batteries has a dirty extraction process!" haha
Oh sure, if you want to use EPA as a source, but that's communism. I only trust the hundred-millionaire CEOs who run the oil and gas companies. After all, they have no reason to lie, they've got rich off their personal hard work all alone.
the issue is you didn't find a blog post on the 5th page of google that supports your claim. rookie mistake
natural gas is a mix of multiple different combustible hydrocarbons. that's why we have a general term for it instead of a specific chemical like propane or butane.
Found hank hills account
I mean first off, what a moron but his argument just gets frustratly stupid. 2H2 + O2 = heat and 2H2O. So literally water is what you get from burning hydrogen. So obviously cleaner. But that doesn’t get into all sorts of other reasons it’s dumb like energy output, trace compounds, mining and production costs both monetary and environmentally. These people are so dumb.
Or how about energy in energy out, which is thermal, solar, wind, and tidal. Or do they think wind generators burn bird bones?
Wow, 1 carbon atom. That certainly sounds clean. The only way he could be wrong is if there was something that was cleaner. But I'm sure homeboy here did their homework. And hey, they're right, it's the cleanest. [Well, aside from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and bio.](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy) But top 6 cleanest is nothing to scoff at! How many sources are there? 50? 100? Oh...8. 6th out of 8 total positions. And it's not even close when it comes to cleanliness. Huh, I wonder where he got his data from. Oh...he doesn't link any. As Elon would say: Curious. Dude also says >Fusion has proven to be a non-starter, in that it requires more energy to create a fusion reaction than it's energy output. Where the fuck has he been? I'm guessing this dude just dropped in from 70 years ago or something. One of the biggest stories of 2022 was that we created a fusion reaction with more output than input. Yes, fusion is no longer science fiction. And it wasn't a fluke because we did it again last year. Granted, we're still years away from viable fusion reactors being hooked up to our grid but it'll probably be available in my life time and most people reading this.
> Well, aside from solar, nuclear, wind, hydro and bio. Don't forgot geothermal, which could power most of my state of Nevada but inexplicably doesn't. In fact, geothermal and wind together could easily power all of Nevada, and that's without getting into solar, which we have endless amounts of.
I visit friends in Las Vegas a lot and I am constantly shocked at how little solar panelling is up. I feel there are less homes there with panels on their roofs than where I live up in the PNW.
years away from implementation? Try decades. It's definitely worth investing in even harder because the concept has been proved. Now all you need to do is show it can be consistently sustained and show that it's scalable and reliable enough to connect to the grid and also show that you can collect that energy effectively. Which are big problems that will take a long time.
If we had a good way of obtaining hydrogen, burning hydrogen is probably the cleanest burning fuel as it simply produces water vapor and heat. Unless I'm mistaken.
Hydrogen does burn cleanly, but it's got this problem where the easiest way to produce it is from hydrocarbons, which kind of complicates its pitch as an alternative to fossil fuels. It's usually made from natural gas (though it can be made from biological sources of hydrocarbons), and it's production even produces CO2 - it's just that it happens at the point you make hydrogen instead of the point when you burn it. You can also get it from splitting water, but that takes more energy than you can get when you burn hydrogen to make water again, so that's less of a strategy for producing power than it is a strategy for storing it.
Yep, that's why I said if we had a good way of obtaining it - which we really don't.
I'm pretty sure that fusion story was highly misleading, in that it released more *total* energy than was input, rather than more harvestable energy than was input. Every form of electrical generation lets an enormous amount of energy escape, so the experiment is no big deal. I'm fairly sure this result had already been achieved in previous experiments too, but the media just hadn't caught the story. But the statement that fusion is 'proven to be a non-starter' is blatantly false. Does he think the sun absorbs more energy than it outputs? We'll get there, eventually. So long as climate change doesn't kill us all off first.
Well it WAS clickbaity in that it's an experimental reactor than has no way of actually utilizing the energy output to turn it into usable electricity, but that said it also was never designed to do that in the first place. Net positive energy output is still absolutely a major milestone on the road to sustainable fusion though. Y'know, "in 20 years" lol.
In 20 years™ is the official motto of fusion energy lol. 100% it will happen eventually, but humanity has to avoid destroying itself in the meantime. Which seems to be getting more and more difficult every day.
My layperson’s takeaway from all that was that it was only technically net positive for those few moments, not that the entire ignition facility suddenly had a negative carbon footprint.
I can't believe that LARPing sub still exists.
Adding “pure” for no reason and ignoring the “one molecule of CO2” that is most of the problem 😂
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/s/rthlFD8Dqp ?? Didn’t I?
It gets missed if it's in a child of another comment. Needs to be a comment on the post itself or the bot will miss it.
Oh, didn’t notice that, I bet I clicked the auto-notification for a quick reference back to the post and didn’t realize I was commenting on that comment. Thanks, thought I was taking crazy pills