“The boat boasts five decks, and with space to accommodate 14 guests and 31 crew members. In a further environmentally friendly feature, gel-fuelled fire bowls allow guests to stay warm outside without having to burn wood or coals. But its most cutting-edge feature is tucked away below decks - two 28-tonne vacuum-sealed tanks that are cooled to -423F (-253C) and filled with liquid hydrogen which powers the ship. The fuel will generate power for the two one-megawatt motors and propellors via on-board fuel cells, which combine hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity. Water is a by-product.”
The Guardian reports.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To live freely in writing...
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
Blog Archive
-
►
2024
(2568)
- 11/10 (8)
- 11/03 (62)
- 10/27 (62)
- 10/20 (49)
- 10/13 (49)
- 10/06 (59)
- 09/29 (58)
- 09/22 (62)
- 09/15 (52)
- 09/08 (58)
- 09/01 (56)
- 08/25 (51)
- 08/18 (57)
- 08/11 (54)
- 08/04 (64)
- 07/28 (60)
- 07/21 (75)
- 07/14 (69)
- 07/07 (63)
- 06/30 (49)
- 06/23 (68)
- 06/16 (58)
- 06/09 (61)
- 06/02 (59)
- 05/26 (56)
- 05/19 (54)
- 05/12 (53)
- 05/05 (56)
- 04/28 (65)
- 04/21 (57)
- 04/14 (68)
- 04/07 (56)
- 03/31 (55)
- 03/24 (56)
- 03/17 (59)
- 03/10 (52)
- 03/03 (63)
- 02/25 (59)
- 02/18 (45)
- 02/11 (60)
- 02/04 (56)
- 01/28 (50)
- 01/21 (64)
- 01/14 (62)
- 01/07 (59)
-
►
2023
(3115)
- 12/31 (58)
- 12/24 (43)
- 12/17 (55)
- 12/10 (66)
- 12/03 (57)
- 11/26 (56)
- 11/19 (44)
- 11/12 (55)
- 11/05 (69)
- 10/29 (63)
- 10/22 (54)
- 10/15 (62)
- 10/08 (69)
- 10/01 (70)
- 09/24 (55)
- 09/17 (49)
- 09/10 (62)
- 09/03 (54)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (45)
- 08/13 (50)
- 08/06 (54)
- 07/30 (62)
- 07/23 (50)
- 07/16 (49)
- 07/09 (59)
- 07/02 (61)
- 06/25 (63)
- 06/18 (53)
- 06/11 (63)
- 06/04 (67)
- 05/28 (53)
- 05/21 (60)
- 05/14 (66)
- 05/07 (66)
- 04/30 (67)
- 04/23 (54)
- 04/16 (55)
- 04/09 (64)
- 04/02 (63)
- 03/26 (64)
- 03/19 (76)
- 03/12 (60)
- 03/05 (52)
- 02/26 (63)
- 02/19 (49)
- 02/12 (66)
- 02/05 (63)
- 01/29 (60)
- 01/22 (57)
- 01/15 (60)
- 01/08 (66)
- 01/01 (60)
-
►
2022
(3553)
- 12/25 (55)
- 12/18 (56)
- 12/11 (73)
- 12/04 (71)
- 11/27 (76)
- 11/20 (76)
- 11/13 (80)
- 11/06 (71)
- 10/30 (72)
- 10/23 (60)
- 10/16 (61)
- 10/09 (63)
- 10/02 (70)
- 09/25 (56)
- 09/18 (62)
- 09/11 (64)
- 09/04 (76)
- 08/28 (75)
- 08/21 (63)
- 08/14 (71)
- 08/07 (76)
- 07/31 (74)
- 07/24 (71)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (67)
- 07/03 (70)
- 06/26 (73)
- 06/19 (79)
- 06/12 (74)
- 06/05 (87)
- 05/29 (54)
- 05/22 (66)
- 05/15 (72)
- 05/08 (76)
- 05/01 (62)
- 04/24 (62)
- 04/17 (70)
- 04/10 (69)
- 04/03 (82)
- 03/27 (67)
- 03/20 (64)
- 03/13 (64)
- 03/06 (79)
- 02/27 (64)
- 02/20 (66)
- 02/13 (68)
- 02/06 (59)
- 01/30 (70)
- 01/23 (58)
- 01/16 (61)
- 01/09 (64)
- 01/02 (68)
-
►
2021
(3054)
- 12/26 (55)
- 12/19 (52)
- 12/12 (53)
- 12/05 (51)
- 11/28 (44)
- 11/21 (62)
- 11/14 (54)
- 11/07 (54)
- 10/31 (65)
- 10/24 (73)
- 10/17 (61)
- 10/10 (62)
- 10/03 (64)
- 09/26 (59)
- 09/19 (48)
- 09/12 (53)
- 09/05 (60)
- 08/29 (76)
- 08/22 (67)
- 08/15 (66)
- 08/08 (53)
- 08/01 (55)
- 07/25 (56)
- 07/18 (58)
- 07/11 (59)
- 07/04 (52)
- 06/27 (57)
- 06/20 (57)
- 06/13 (65)
- 06/06 (64)
- 05/30 (50)
- 05/23 (64)
- 05/16 (56)
- 05/09 (65)
- 05/02 (63)
- 04/25 (62)
- 04/18 (56)
- 04/11 (64)
- 04/04 (71)
- 03/28 (68)
- 03/21 (57)
- 03/14 (66)
- 03/07 (60)
- 02/28 (53)
- 02/21 (56)
- 02/14 (40)
- 02/07 (62)
- 01/31 (53)
- 01/24 (61)
- 01/17 (56)
- 01/10 (58)
- 01/03 (58)
-
▼
2020
(3644)
- 12/27 (49)
- 12/20 (40)
- 12/13 (56)
- 12/06 (61)
- 11/29 (57)
- 11/22 (59)
- 11/15 (57)
- 11/08 (71)
- 11/01 (76)
- 10/25 (68)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (64)
- 10/04 (70)
- 09/27 (71)
- 09/20 (64)
- 09/13 (61)
- 09/06 (70)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (78)
- 08/16 (71)
- 08/09 (50)
- 08/02 (76)
- 07/26 (62)
- 07/19 (70)
- 07/12 (64)
- 07/05 (74)
- 06/28 (84)
- 06/21 (88)
- 06/14 (73)
- 06/07 (91)
- 05/31 (99)
- 05/24 (82)
- 05/17 (76)
- 05/10 (93)
- 05/03 (78)
- 04/26 (72)
- 04/19 (63)
- 04/12 (71)
- 04/05 (74)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (64)
- 03/15 (83)
- 03/08 (75)
- 03/01 (78)
- 02/23 (70)
- 02/16 (69)
- 02/09 (67)
- 02/02 (81)
- 01/26 (68)
- 01/19 (61)
- 01/12 (63)
- 01/05 (62)
-
►
2019
(3453)
- 12/29 (81)
- 12/22 (51)
- 12/15 (74)
- 12/08 (73)
- 12/01 (66)
- 11/24 (74)
- 11/17 (77)
- 11/10 (68)
- 11/03 (69)
- 10/27 (83)
- 10/20 (83)
- 10/13 (92)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (49)
- 09/22 (60)
- 09/15 (68)
- 09/08 (67)
- 09/01 (54)
- 08/25 (64)
- 08/18 (61)
- 08/11 (56)
- 08/04 (57)
- 07/28 (53)
- 07/21 (68)
- 07/14 (61)
- 07/07 (60)
- 06/30 (65)
- 06/23 (67)
- 06/16 (54)
- 06/09 (42)
- 06/02 (64)
- 05/26 (62)
- 05/19 (60)
- 05/12 (64)
- 05/05 (77)
- 04/28 (78)
- 04/21 (43)
- 04/14 (58)
- 04/07 (67)
- 03/31 (75)
- 03/24 (65)
- 03/17 (68)
- 03/10 (70)
- 03/03 (71)
- 02/24 (62)
- 02/17 (88)
- 02/10 (72)
- 02/03 (55)
- 01/27 (68)
- 01/20 (72)
- 01/13 (76)
- 01/06 (76)
-
►
2018
(3410)
- 12/30 (59)
- 12/23 (45)
- 12/16 (76)
- 12/09 (83)
- 12/02 (69)
- 11/25 (68)
- 11/18 (61)
- 11/11 (61)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (76)
- 10/21 (71)
- 10/14 (53)
- 10/07 (53)
- 09/30 (61)
- 09/23 (61)
- 09/16 (63)
- 09/09 (57)
- 09/02 (55)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (63)
- 08/12 (59)
- 08/05 (69)
- 07/29 (64)
- 07/22 (60)
- 07/15 (69)
- 07/08 (67)
- 07/01 (67)
- 06/24 (62)
- 06/17 (68)
- 06/10 (65)
- 06/03 (65)
- 05/27 (54)
- 05/20 (63)
- 05/13 (53)
- 05/06 (78)
- 04/29 (74)
- 04/22 (68)
- 04/15 (71)
- 04/08 (53)
- 04/01 (76)
- 03/25 (64)
- 03/18 (78)
- 03/11 (67)
- 03/04 (71)
- 02/25 (66)
- 02/18 (70)
- 02/11 (64)
- 02/04 (68)
- 01/28 (80)
- 01/21 (73)
- 01/14 (65)
- 01/07 (82)
-
►
2017
(3818)
- 12/31 (85)
- 12/24 (66)
- 12/17 (75)
- 12/10 (74)
- 12/03 (77)
- 11/26 (75)
- 11/19 (58)
- 11/12 (70)
- 11/05 (75)
- 10/29 (67)
- 10/22 (76)
- 10/15 (72)
- 10/08 (70)
- 10/01 (63)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (63)
- 09/10 (65)
- 09/03 (66)
- 08/27 (69)
- 08/20 (59)
- 08/13 (66)
- 08/06 (73)
- 07/30 (89)
- 07/23 (79)
- 07/16 (81)
- 07/09 (75)
- 07/02 (64)
- 06/25 (83)
- 06/18 (70)
- 06/11 (67)
- 06/04 (74)
- 05/28 (75)
- 05/21 (77)
- 05/14 (81)
- 05/07 (89)
- 04/30 (83)
- 04/23 (80)
- 04/16 (71)
- 04/09 (78)
- 04/02 (74)
- 03/26 (83)
- 03/19 (74)
- 03/12 (77)
- 03/05 (60)
- 02/26 (49)
- 02/19 (72)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (88)
- 01/29 (91)
- 01/22 (82)
- 01/15 (47)
- 01/08 (60)
- 01/01 (48)
-
►
2016
(3557)
- 12/25 (61)
- 12/18 (62)
- 12/11 (59)
- 12/04 (60)
- 11/27 (74)
- 11/20 (68)
- 11/13 (79)
- 11/06 (62)
- 10/30 (88)
- 10/23 (75)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (58)
- 10/02 (72)
- 09/25 (70)
- 09/18 (70)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (64)
- 08/28 (53)
- 08/21 (62)
- 08/14 (70)
- 08/07 (67)
- 07/31 (68)
- 07/24 (57)
- 07/17 (71)
- 07/10 (53)
- 07/03 (53)
- 06/26 (80)
- 06/19 (81)
- 06/12 (73)
- 06/05 (65)
- 05/29 (74)
- 05/22 (67)
- 05/15 (70)
- 05/08 (89)
- 05/01 (79)
- 04/24 (67)
- 04/17 (59)
- 04/10 (61)
- 04/03 (52)
- 03/27 (68)
- 03/20 (76)
- 03/13 (68)
- 03/06 (81)
- 02/28 (65)
- 02/21 (69)
- 02/14 (70)
- 02/07 (75)
- 01/31 (68)
- 01/24 (59)
- 01/17 (69)
- 01/10 (80)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2015
(3788)
- 12/27 (71)
- 12/20 (68)
- 12/13 (81)
- 12/06 (70)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (58)
- 11/15 (76)
- 11/08 (84)
- 11/01 (73)
- 10/25 (74)
- 10/18 (65)
- 10/11 (75)
- 10/04 (87)
- 09/27 (59)
- 09/20 (71)
- 09/13 (55)
- 09/06 (63)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (70)
- 08/16 (70)
- 08/09 (65)
- 08/02 (65)
- 07/26 (55)
- 07/19 (66)
- 07/12 (69)
- 07/05 (62)
- 06/28 (83)
- 06/21 (79)
- 06/14 (69)
- 06/07 (81)
- 05/31 (84)
- 05/24 (78)
- 05/17 (90)
- 05/10 (85)
- 05/03 (86)
- 04/26 (77)
- 04/19 (78)
- 04/12 (63)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (73)
- 03/15 (63)
- 03/08 (79)
- 03/01 (66)
- 02/22 (82)
- 02/15 (78)
- 02/08 (67)
- 02/01 (84)
- 01/25 (79)
- 01/18 (63)
- 01/11 (87)
- 01/04 (70)
-
►
2014
(3825)
- 12/28 (62)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (78)
- 12/07 (97)
- 11/30 (84)
- 11/23 (82)
- 11/16 (70)
- 11/09 (71)
- 11/02 (91)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (71)
- 10/12 (86)
- 10/05 (61)
- 09/28 (58)
- 09/21 (67)
- 09/14 (56)
- 09/07 (70)
- 08/31 (64)
- 08/24 (63)
- 08/17 (51)
- 08/10 (79)
- 08/03 (71)
- 07/27 (75)
- 07/20 (81)
- 07/13 (75)
- 07/06 (67)
- 06/29 (41)
- 06/22 (80)
- 06/15 (78)
- 06/08 (91)
- 06/01 (59)
- 05/25 (58)
- 05/18 (90)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (72)
- 04/27 (72)
- 04/20 (73)
- 04/13 (82)
- 04/06 (81)
- 03/30 (77)
- 03/23 (66)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (77)
- 03/02 (90)
- 02/23 (73)
- 02/16 (91)
- 02/09 (77)
- 02/02 (91)
- 01/26 (86)
- 01/19 (81)
- 01/12 (90)
- 01/05 (67)
-
►
2013
(5117)
- 12/29 (83)
- 12/22 (82)
- 12/15 (51)
- 12/08 (95)
- 12/01 (87)
- 11/24 (79)
- 11/17 (71)
- 11/10 (94)
- 11/03 (86)
- 10/27 (73)
- 10/20 (88)
- 10/13 (79)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (65)
- 09/22 (78)
- 09/15 (81)
- 09/08 (77)
- 09/01 (79)
- 08/25 (79)
- 08/18 (96)
- 08/11 (64)
- 08/04 (82)
- 07/28 (84)
- 07/21 (110)
- 07/14 (112)
- 07/07 (91)
- 06/30 (101)
- 06/23 (101)
- 06/16 (106)
- 06/09 (133)
- 06/02 (111)
- 05/26 (86)
- 05/19 (126)
- 05/12 (125)
- 05/05 (133)
- 04/28 (103)
- 04/21 (126)
- 04/14 (98)
- 04/07 (100)
- 03/31 (110)
- 03/24 (121)
- 03/17 (120)
- 03/10 (102)
- 03/03 (98)
- 02/24 (129)
- 02/17 (104)
- 02/10 (116)
- 02/03 (135)
- 01/27 (125)
- 01/20 (125)
- 01/13 (123)
- 01/06 (129)
-
►
2012
(4971)
- 12/30 (88)
- 12/23 (103)
- 12/16 (129)
- 12/09 (120)
- 12/02 (126)
- 11/25 (98)
- 11/18 (62)
- 11/11 (87)
- 11/04 (111)
- 10/28 (98)
- 10/21 (105)
- 10/14 (101)
- 10/07 (94)
- 09/30 (90)
- 09/23 (83)
- 09/16 (93)
- 09/09 (114)
- 09/02 (93)
- 08/26 (91)
- 08/19 (103)
- 08/12 (68)
- 08/05 (74)
- 07/29 (108)
- 07/22 (117)
- 07/15 (93)
- 07/08 (88)
- 07/01 (85)
- 06/24 (76)
- 06/17 (92)
- 06/10 (126)
- 06/03 (96)
- 05/27 (100)
- 05/20 (124)
- 05/13 (99)
- 05/06 (110)
- 04/29 (87)
- 04/22 (98)
- 04/15 (82)
- 04/08 (87)
- 04/01 (90)
- 03/25 (85)
- 03/18 (98)
- 03/11 (94)
- 03/04 (96)
- 02/26 (91)
- 02/19 (88)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (78)
- 01/29 (74)
- 01/22 (80)
- 01/15 (77)
- 01/08 (71)
- 01/01 (76)
-
►
2011
(4463)
- 12/25 (93)
- 12/18 (87)
- 12/11 (88)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (84)
- 11/20 (71)
- 11/13 (77)
- 11/06 (78)
- 10/30 (70)
- 10/23 (79)
- 10/16 (95)
- 10/09 (77)
- 10/02 (99)
- 09/25 (82)
- 09/18 (91)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (83)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (91)
- 08/14 (80)
- 08/07 (89)
- 07/31 (69)
- 07/24 (102)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (90)
- 07/03 (89)
- 06/26 (69)
- 06/19 (80)
- 06/12 (93)
- 06/05 (110)
- 05/29 (90)
- 05/22 (88)
- 05/15 (92)
- 05/08 (83)
- 05/01 (95)
- 04/24 (84)
- 04/17 (77)
- 04/10 (90)
- 04/03 (96)
- 03/27 (83)
- 03/20 (96)
- 03/13 (97)
- 03/06 (105)
- 02/27 (91)
- 02/20 (83)
- 02/13 (79)
- 02/06 (75)
- 01/30 (78)
- 01/23 (78)
- 01/16 (104)
- 01/09 (80)
- 01/02 (103)
-
►
2010
(3835)
- 12/26 (73)
- 12/19 (72)
- 12/12 (96)
- 12/05 (76)
- 11/28 (77)
- 11/21 (75)
- 11/14 (92)
- 11/07 (82)
- 10/31 (84)
- 10/24 (64)
- 10/17 (79)
- 10/10 (84)
- 10/03 (88)
- 09/26 (77)
- 09/19 (69)
- 09/12 (73)
- 09/05 (62)
- 08/29 (67)
- 08/22 (65)
- 08/15 (82)
- 08/08 (67)
- 08/01 (83)
- 07/25 (67)
- 07/18 (76)
- 07/11 (73)
- 07/04 (60)
- 06/27 (86)
- 06/20 (66)
- 06/13 (57)
- 06/06 (53)
- 05/30 (79)
- 05/23 (88)
- 05/16 (85)
- 05/09 (81)
- 05/02 (81)
- 04/25 (71)
- 04/18 (61)
- 04/11 (80)
- 04/04 (62)
- 03/28 (64)
- 03/21 (66)
- 03/14 (49)
- 03/07 (71)
- 02/28 (76)
- 02/21 (66)
- 02/14 (82)
- 02/07 (61)
- 01/31 (79)
- 01/24 (87)
- 01/17 (80)
- 01/10 (72)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2009
(3716)
- 12/27 (58)
- 12/20 (53)
- 12/13 (84)
- 12/06 (77)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (50)
- 11/15 (83)
- 11/08 (78)
- 11/01 (74)
- 10/25 (85)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (63)
- 10/04 (91)
- 09/27 (86)
- 09/20 (82)
- 09/13 (60)
- 09/06 (64)
- 08/30 (81)
- 08/23 (82)
- 08/16 (72)
- 08/09 (70)
- 08/02 (45)
- 07/26 (76)
- 07/19 (71)
- 07/12 (42)
- 07/05 (57)
- 06/28 (105)
- 06/21 (86)
- 06/14 (71)
- 06/07 (83)
- 05/31 (83)
- 05/24 (57)
- 05/17 (74)
- 05/10 (83)
- 05/03 (57)
- 04/26 (70)
- 04/19 (67)
- 04/12 (82)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (62)
- 03/22 (67)
- 03/15 (68)
- 03/08 (50)
- 03/01 (60)
- 02/22 (53)
- 02/15 (55)
- 02/08 (68)
- 02/01 (89)
- 01/25 (81)
- 01/18 (83)
- 01/11 (91)
- 01/04 (77)
-
►
2008
(3407)
- 12/28 (75)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (63)
- 12/07 (78)
- 11/30 (87)
- 11/23 (68)
- 11/16 (75)
- 11/09 (85)
- 11/02 (81)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (86)
- 10/12 (70)
- 10/05 (66)
- 09/28 (76)
- 09/21 (84)
- 09/14 (75)
- 09/07 (73)
- 08/31 (81)
- 08/24 (75)
- 08/17 (73)
- 08/10 (73)
- 08/03 (56)
- 07/27 (57)
- 07/20 (55)
- 07/13 (42)
- 07/06 (47)
- 06/29 (58)
- 06/22 (62)
- 06/15 (53)
- 06/08 (65)
- 06/01 (53)
- 05/25 (45)
- 05/18 (62)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (69)
- 04/27 (69)
- 04/20 (68)
- 04/13 (64)
- 04/06 (63)
- 03/30 (49)
- 03/23 (54)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (72)
- 03/02 (70)
- 02/24 (61)
- 02/17 (62)
- 02/10 (68)
- 02/03 (60)
- 01/27 (58)
- 01/20 (51)
- 01/13 (49)
- 01/06 (69)
-
►
2007
(2915)
- 12/30 (67)
- 12/23 (50)
- 12/16 (51)
- 12/09 (51)
- 12/02 (50)
- 11/25 (51)
- 11/18 (57)
- 11/11 (64)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (57)
- 10/21 (55)
- 10/14 (57)
- 10/07 (52)
- 09/30 (60)
- 09/23 (66)
- 09/16 (39)
- 09/09 (61)
- 09/02 (65)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (55)
- 08/12 (58)
- 08/05 (59)
- 07/29 (53)
- 07/22 (58)
- 07/15 (51)
- 07/08 (63)
- 07/01 (66)
- 06/24 (54)
- 06/17 (45)
- 06/10 (55)
- 06/03 (69)
- 05/27 (60)
- 05/20 (68)
- 05/13 (72)
- 05/06 (56)
- 04/29 (49)
- 04/22 (52)
- 04/15 (52)
- 04/08 (50)
- 04/01 (41)
- 03/25 (50)
- 03/18 (50)
- 03/11 (62)
- 03/04 (54)
- 02/25 (47)
- 02/18 (53)
- 02/11 (50)
- 02/04 (61)
- 01/28 (65)
- 01/21 (50)
- 01/14 (51)
- 01/07 (61)
-
►
2006
(2745)
- 12/31 (53)
- 12/24 (55)
- 12/17 (54)
- 12/10 (65)
- 12/03 (82)
- 11/26 (50)
- 11/19 (54)
- 11/12 (58)
- 11/05 (65)
- 10/29 (56)
- 10/22 (64)
- 10/15 (63)
- 10/08 (55)
- 10/01 (60)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (43)
- 09/10 (36)
- 09/03 (56)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (47)
- 08/13 (54)
- 08/06 (51)
- 07/30 (47)
- 07/23 (45)
- 07/16 (42)
- 07/09 (60)
- 07/02 (46)
- 06/25 (52)
- 06/18 (50)
- 06/11 (55)
- 06/04 (54)
- 05/28 (41)
- 05/21 (54)
- 05/14 (47)
- 05/07 (63)
- 04/30 (52)
- 04/23 (40)
- 04/16 (38)
- 04/09 (54)
- 04/02 (48)
- 03/26 (52)
- 03/19 (45)
- 03/12 (47)
- 03/05 (49)
- 02/26 (46)
- 02/19 (50)
- 02/12 (43)
- 02/05 (47)
- 01/29 (56)
- 01/22 (45)
- 01/15 (44)
- 01/08 (44)
- 01/01 (55)
-
►
2005
(2920)
- 12/25 (56)
- 12/18 (49)
- 12/11 (67)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (62)
- 11/20 (65)
- 11/13 (67)
- 11/06 (68)
- 10/30 (64)
- 10/23 (64)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (61)
- 10/02 (75)
- 09/25 (59)
- 09/18 (58)
- 09/11 (54)
- 09/04 (57)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (58)
- 08/14 (67)
- 08/07 (61)
- 07/31 (54)
- 07/24 (62)
- 07/17 (70)
- 07/10 (59)
- 07/03 (65)
- 06/26 (78)
- 06/19 (53)
- 06/12 (54)
- 06/05 (44)
- 05/29 (51)
- 05/22 (53)
- 05/15 (34)
- 05/08 (38)
- 05/01 (61)
- 04/24 (55)
- 04/17 (55)
- 04/10 (63)
- 04/03 (61)
- 03/27 (51)
- 03/20 (42)
- 03/13 (57)
- 03/06 (45)
- 02/27 (48)
- 02/20 (44)
- 02/13 (36)
- 02/06 (50)
- 01/30 (50)
- 01/23 (37)
- 01/16 (29)
- 01/09 (41)
- 01/02 (45)
-
►
2004
(2035)
- 12/26 (48)
- 12/19 (41)
- 12/12 (46)
- 12/05 (47)
- 11/28 (53)
- 11/21 (45)
- 11/14 (46)
- 11/07 (60)
- 10/31 (48)
- 10/24 (45)
- 10/17 (60)
- 10/10 (37)
- 10/03 (42)
- 09/26 (37)
- 09/19 (46)
- 09/12 (30)
- 09/05 (40)
- 08/29 (43)
- 08/22 (39)
- 08/15 (27)
- 08/08 (36)
- 08/01 (32)
- 07/25 (43)
- 07/18 (28)
- 07/11 (35)
- 07/04 (34)
- 06/27 (31)
- 06/20 (35)
- 06/13 (35)
- 06/06 (21)
- 05/30 (32)
- 05/23 (40)
- 05/16 (35)
- 05/09 (46)
- 05/02 (52)
- 04/25 (52)
- 04/18 (45)
- 04/11 (36)
- 04/04 (37)
- 03/28 (31)
- 03/21 (40)
- 03/14 (33)
- 03/07 (36)
- 02/29 (41)
- 02/22 (31)
- 02/15 (33)
- 02/08 (43)
- 02/01 (33)
- 01/25 (43)
- 01/18 (56)
- 01/11 (30)
203 comments:
1 – 200 of 203 Newer› Newest»The Hindennerd.
I wish the Gates could get his nuclear plant concept approved for use in the United States.
So enough crew for every guest to have a personal butler and 17 crew to run the boat?
And where does all that hydrogen come from to power the megawatt motors? Hydrogen mines? Unicorn flatus?
Talk about a gigantic carbon footprint, but hey, when you're personally saving the planet, why quibble about a few little trivial details?
Here. We go. Again.
Where is the hydrogen for the cells coming from?
What about the gel in the fireplaces?
And the hull? It's recyclable?
Where will it be kept?
How's he getting to it? A flying carpet?
I'm so fucking sick of this eco-fluffing.
Hydrogen is an energy transfer method not a fuel in the traditional sense. You need to either use electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen or catalyze natural gas to produce hydrogen gas.
Didn't the Hindenburg go up with liquid hydrogen? Why is this safe and that wasn't?
All of us normal people with our fossile fueled powered yahts and private jets are great sinners. Don't you see that your 300 foot yaht with a helipad and a swimming pool makes Mother Gaia weep.
As others have noted, he's not eliminating the co2 emissions, he's just moving offboard. Creating hydrogen is an incredibly energy intensive process.
Bill goes full Gangsta......
It's a boat. It floats on water. He couldn't throw another half billion at the problem, and generate hydrogen on the boat?
I'm thinking Bill skipped physics class that day.
we need a wealth tax. 50% on everything over $10 Billion.
As above, the real issue is the primary source of energy. Hydrogen is just an energy storage and delivery system. There are very few economically viable primary sources.
The best ones, that are both economical and which scale as anything but boutique technologies, are hydro and nuclear fission. Both are out of favor with the bien pensant consensus, which writes that solution spec.
This is a very familiar if disconcerting situation to an engineer. We are limited people I guess. Our instinct is to solve problems with reasonable tradeoffs. When one wrestles with nature one cannot expect to have it all your own way. The writers of the specifications however have no such understanding of that struggle.
"gel-fuelled fire bowls allow guests to stay warm outside without having to burn wood or coals"
We're talking about Sterno here, correct? Jellied alcohol. How is burning this hydrocarbon into CO₂ and water better than burning other hydrocarbons into CO₂ and water?
Jesus, that is one ugly-ass boat. Did Gates hire the guy who designed the Cybertruck?
Sure this is grotesque over-the-top status signaling, but it's GREEN ENERGY. MAN!
Engineering and navigation controlled by Windows 10.
Ugh. Fuel cells have been around since the LEM days with all the attendant pros and cons. BTW the water product can contain potassium. Back in the mid 60s my engineering team designed a potassium detector for the LEM that would alert the astronauts. Cost much $$ due to voluminous paperwork.
Oh, the Humanity!
I guess philanthropy is good business ...
Gates' yacht to be named The Edward Teller.
Whoa, that would make a really big boom if it exploded.
There's a company in Delaware that has a fuel cell in development that uses methane and a cheaper proprietary catalyst. Supposed to be much cheaper to run and nearly as efficient as hydrogen fuel cells.
There is a way he could do this more eco-friendly. With a friggin reactor. Then all hs would need to have is food. But that would a) instantly cancel him and b) would prevent him from docking at a huge number of ports in several countries.
And - for a globalist - that dog won't hunt monseigneur!
So, if you're a billionaire you can afford to live the Green lifestyle.
It cost a lot of money to keep Gandhi living in poverty, too.
How marvelous! This boat will work perfect for ferrying refugees from the Near East and North Africa to Europe.
Making the hydrogen does the emissions.
Surprises me that the left-wing Guardian would even report on this.
Sailboats work pretty well already.
Why, its carbon footprint must be zero! Or even negative!
The government could solve the climate crisis today -- and the homeless crisis as well - just by giving one of these yachts to everyone in the world!
Blogger Automatic_Wing said...
"As others have noted, he's not eliminating the co2 emissions, he's just moving offboard. Creating hydrogen is an incredibly energy intensive process."
Nonsense. The liquid hydrogen comes from carbon neutral and naturally sustainable energy farms located in the Gamma Sector. Properly modulated positron sub-pulses are directed at unrefined dilithium crystals located in a trellium-d containment field. A Yeager feedback loop is then used to calibrate the optimal decay resonance to produce liquid hydrogen for transport back to earth.
At least Tom Perkins built a sailboat.
It is gorgeous and 289 feet long. It sails so well it could be sailed off its anchor.
I walked by it in Venice about 10 years ago.
"Water is A by-product", not THE by-product.
Seems kinda pricey for only accommodating 14 guests, but I don't have his kind of money. Will he be cruising to the Galapagos with it?
Sails would be greener.
Industrially hydrogen gas is produced nearly exlusively by partial oxidation of methane with water in the form of high pressure steam (around 1000 C). The process first produces, in a two step process CO2 and H2. The steps are:
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
Performed over one type of catalyst, and the CO by product is then directed into the second step over a different catalyst to give
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
The heat and the pressure probably come from burning methane itself, or some other fossil fuel.
Does it all come into being from the ether? Or is he planning on offsetting the carbon impact of construction?
Even though hydrogen is super flammable and has a low ignition energy, it is likely safer than conventional fuels. So Mr. Gates' yacht won't be another Hindenberg. (Apparently, the famous airship was brought down by a diesel fire -- the hydrogen dissipated too fast to explode.)
He's ordered it? Yawn. Call me when it's successfully built and operational.
"First hydrogen powered superyacht"; of all the people on the planet, you'd think Mr. Gates would be smarter than to buy V1.0 of anything!
That’s a fine looking craft. How many Bikini Babes come standard on something of that magnitude? Asking for a friend...
The most famous hydrogen powered explosion is the Challenger space shuttle.
Will it float?
Hydrogen powered for the environment, and a helicopter pad to make clear it is only virtue signaling.
The most famous hydrogen powered explosion is the Challenger space shuttle.
Hindenberg. With Hindenfries.
The boat looks like the CSA Merrimack. What's old is new again!
Will Gates e-verify his minions?
Wiki sez:
Liquid hydrogen also has a much higher specific energy than gasoline, natural gas, or diesel.
The density of liquid hydrogen is only 70.99 g/L (at 20 K), a relative density of just 0.07 [.07 the density of water]. Although the specific energy is more than twice that of other fuels, this gives it a remarkably low volumetric energy density, many fold lower.
no mr. fusion power source,
Yes, it is to laugh, but I approve. Gates is the man to spend the money on V1.0. With each new version the technology, and maybe even the science, should improve. Lots of crafts get jobs, engineers, too. Perhaps Bloomberg can be convinced to redirect some of his politics money into such a scheme.
I only object when the Bloombergs of the world insist the rest of us spend our income on not yet environmentally positive schemes.
Fernandistein said...
Wiki sez:
Liquid hydrogen also has a much higher specific energy than gasoline, natural gas, or diesel.
The density of liquid hydrogen is only 70.99 g/L (at 20 K), a relative density of just 0.07 [.07 the density of water]. Although the specific energy is more than twice that of other fuels, this gives it a remarkably low volumetric energy density, many fold lower.
*************
In other words, it would require a huge fuel tank on an automobile, right? And when burned, hydrogen yields water vapor as a combustion product, something that would add greatly to humidity in cities.
Sounds really practical....
There's a company in Delaware that has a fuel cell in development that uses methane and a cheaper proprietary catalyst. Supposed to be much cheaper to run and nearly as efficient as hydrogen fuel cells.
So, the yacht could be powered by bullshit? Seems somehow appropriate.
Propulsion aside, it is easy to understand the purchase. Sometimes you just want to buy something. Make an impulse purchase. Get a toy. Like all those cheap drones we have sitting on our shelves now..
What a poor use of so much money. The good you could do with that much money smartly invested is almost limitless. The lives that could be saved, changed, improved. The problems that could be solved. Gates never was very innovative.
"Nonsense. The liquid hydrogen comes from carbon neutral and naturally sustainable energy farms located in the Gamma Sector. Properly modulated positron sub-pulses are directed at unrefined dilithium crystals located in a trellium-d containment field. A Yeager feedback loop is then used to calibrate the optimal decay resonance to produce liquid hydrogen for transport back to earth.”
If you wrote that yourself, you should be writing shit like that for a living.
Tommy Duncan said...
The liquid hydrogen comes from carbon neutral and naturally sustainable energy farms located in the Gamma Sector. Properly modulated positron sub-pulses are directed at unrefined dilithium crystals located in a trellium-d containment field. A Yeager feedback loop is then used to calibrate the optimal decay resonance to produce liquid hydrogen for transport back to earth.
=-=-=-=-=
Oho! You almost got me, Tommy. It all sounds green and plausible, but tell me this: Where do the positron sub-pulses come from?
"Where do the positron sub-pulses come from?”
Redouble your efforts to believe comrade!
"You need to either use electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen or catalyze natural gas to produce hydrogen gas." I don't know where Gates gets his hydrogen from (perhaps it's produced in a boutique using solar electricity, and sold at boutique prices)? But essentially all commercial hydrogen is obtained by reforming natural gas, as it's far less costly than electrolysys.
"At high temperatures (700 to 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen:
CH4 + H2O ? CO + 3H2"
Additional hydrogen can be obtained by reacting the CO with water via the water-gas shift reaction":
"CO + H2O ? CO2 + H2"
"two 28-tonne vacuum-sealed tanks that are cooled to -423F (-253C) and filled with liquid hydrogen" -- and how much energy does it take to keep the LH2 from boiling away (or does he just let it do so, as it surely will despite the best thermal insulation)?
And if these vacuum tanks are not actively refrigerated, surely you'd lose most of your liquid hydrogen as you were loading it, as it would boil furiously until the interior tank walls got somewhere close to that -253C?
Or perhaps we're not supposed to ask such pesky questions, but just go "Gee, Wow! I'm just SO pleased he doesn't just use CNG to generate electricity to run the props and other on-board electric loads? No matter how much it costs, or how many irreplaceable resources it expends to do so.
"You need to either use electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen or catalyze natural gas to produce hydrogen gas." I don't know where Gates gets his hydrogen from (perhaps it's produced in a boutique using solar electricity, and sold at boutique prices)? But essentially all commercial hydrogen is obtained by reforming natural gas, as it's far less costly than electrolysys.
"At high temperatures (700 to 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen:
CH4 + H2O ? CO + 3H2"
Additional hydrogen can be obtained by reacting the CO with water via the water-gas shift reaction":
"CO + H2O ? CO2 + H2"
"two 28-tonne vacuum-sealed tanks that are cooled to -423F (-253C) and filled with liquid hydrogen" -- and how much energy does it take to keep the LH2 from boiling away (or does he just let it do so, as it surely will despite the best thermal insulation)?
And if these vacuum tanks are not actively refrigerated, surely you'd lose most of your liquid hydrogen as you were loading it, as it would boil furiously until the interior tank walls got somewhere close to that -253C?
Or perhaps we're not supposed to ask such pesky questions, but just go "Gee, Wow! I'm just SO pleased he doesn't just use CNG to generate electricity to run the props and other on-board electric loads? No matter how much it costs, or how many irreplaceable resources it expends to do so.
Let's All HAIL Bill Gates on this!
His Ship will be COMPLETELY not CO2 emitting!
(well, except for the:
“diesel back-up” which will run refrigerator units that keep the hydrogen liquid
and the "gel" burners (sterno) cans that will provide cozy heat
BUT! other than the diesel fuel, and the sterno
The ship will emit No CO2
Some neigh sayers will point out, that between the
....manufacture
....transportation
....storage
....conversion loses
of the hydrogen,
the total CO2 production will be Two or Three TIMES higher than if the boat just used diesel engines.... BUT!
THAT CO2 will be Out of Sight; and as you all would Know, if you were SCIENTISTS! CO2 that is produced out of sight adds virtually NOTHING* to climate change
You'd Know This; If you were SCIENTISTS!
virtually NOTHING* you see, the total amount of CO2 required for this boat is far less than one Trillionth of the existing CO2 in the Atmosphere, So the ship WILL have No detrimental effects! Science!
Sheridan... My sentiments exactly!. Looks like an office building. Real estate offices, a Dentist, maybe Podiatrist and a couple Temp Employment/Placement offices. It is a boat because it floats on water. Would be a fancy target in Somalia. But he's employing people so it is a winner. When he tires of it maybe Donald will make an offer on it for floating casinos an such.
Fresh sea air. Bloomberg the "Little Buddy"?
Caligula... Don't cloud the issue with facts. "The future is now at More Science High". Cap'n' Porgy!
What Firesign could do with this "boat"!
Looks like something from The Thunderbirds TV show.
Caligula,
The best data I could find for liquification of hydrogen gas (from NASA) is that it takes about 1/3 of the usable energy of a given mass of liquid hydrogen to just liquify it, to say nothing of the losses on storage or the need for continuous refrigeration efforts to minimize losses.
There's a company in Delaware that has a fuel cell in development that uses methane and a cheaper proprietary catalyst. Supposed to be much cheaper to run and nearly as efficient as hydrogen fuel cells.
San Francisco and L.A. literally washing money down the sewers..
Can we make methane from human poop? | Yahoo Answers
I have been trying to find good data for how much energy is expended in just producing hydrogen in steam reformation, but have come up empty so far. Probably a lot more than you get out in energy stored at hydrogen gas at pressure.
the total CO2 production will be Two or Three TIMES higher than if the boat just used diesel engines.... BUT! THAT CO2 will be Out of Sight
Out-of-sight, out-of-mind, where progressive climate change is further mitigated through purchase of carbon credits ("indulgences"). Let us bray that the mortal gods will find us worthy of their empathy. Plan a population, sequester a virginal human life, to be included in their consensus.
Gates also does more mundane charity, like sewage treatment, vaccinations, schools... just like the Trumpf family of do gooders.
Yancey Ward wrote: The best data I could find for liquification of hydrogen gas (from NASA) is that it takes about 1/3 of the usable energy of a given mass of liquid hydrogen to just liquify it, to say nothing of the losses on storage or the need for continuous refrigeration efforts to minimize losses.
Our first H-bomb was a refrigerated core of liquified deuterium gas -- not feasible as a weapon. Later on, we switched to innocuous lithium deuteride as the fuel of choice. It turns out that LiD does marvelous things when bombard with neutrons.
He is an investor in Heliogen, a Californian startup that aims to turn sunlight into a source of heat exceeding 1,000C that could help replace fossil fuels. It is the first company in the world to concentrate sunlight to reach temperatures that are high enough to power heavy industry without carbon emissions.
From the Heliogen website:
The Heliogen technology is also capable of thermo-chemically splitting water to create 100% green hydrogen, which we are working to develop as our first HelioFuel.
I kind of trust Bill Gates, because I think he is both smart and has good intentions, but this just happened to a similar tech:
But you can’t trust what the government says. Crescent Dunes is a flop and taxpayers are set to lose $737 million on it, according to a new Bloomberg report. That is even more than the $535 million taxpayers lost on the corruption‐soaked Solyndra solar project.
With 10,000 mirrors arrayed in the Nevada desert, Crescent Dunes does look cool. But with the much lower costs of solar photovoltaic and natural gas projects, the government’s gamble on this alternative technology was folly. Politicians never apologize for their mistakes, and the main politician responsible for this one, former Senator Harry Reid, has retired and won’t face any tough questions about wasting our money. - Cato Institute.
If anyone, like me, wondered how many watts are in 1 horsepower, the unit of measurement I typically associate with vehicle engines, the answer is about 745. That mean that each of those 1 Megawatt engines is approximately 1,342 horsepower.
Well, like Steve Jobs told him - it's not just about being the richest person in the cemetery.
Too bad most Republicans still haven't figured even that much out. ;-(
Gates also does more mundane charity, like sewage treatment, vaccinations, schools... just like the Trumpf family of do gooders.
Trump's kids were court-ordered mandatory lessons to learn how to run the charities in their name for charitable rather than personal purposes and well, as for the Orange Anti-Vaxxer himself... just check out this.
It goes like this: a new, state-of-the-art material called ceria (CeO2) is heated to about 1,500° C, [In solar oven] at which point it releases a pure stream of oxygen. Then, at about 1,000° C, water and carbon dioxide are introduced. The ceria wants its oxygen back, so it breaks the water and carbon dioxide up into hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen, and absorbs the oxygen. What’s left is a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, otherwise known as “syngas.”
Basically, you start with H2O + CO2 and you end up with a mix of H + CO. As it happens, every hydrocarbon (fossil) fuel in the world, from kerosene to gasoline, from boat fuel to jet fuel, is built around some combination of H and CO, which means synfuel can be refined into any fuel, for any purpose. If the CO2 that feeds into the process is drawn from the ambient air via direct air capture (DAC), which is still a big if for now, then the resulting fuels can be said to be carbon-neutral, a huge improvement on the carbon-intensive fuels now in use. - Vox
I am not sure that they can directly capture CO2 rom the air though, but hey, it’s his money. Let him give it a go. It would be pretty hard to prove you can’t. Photosynthesis does it. The yacht doesn’t run on the above synfuel, BTW.
Yancey Ward said...
"I have been trying to find good data for how much energy is expended in just producing hydrogen in steam reformation, but have come up empty so far. Probably a lot more than you get out in energy stored at hydrogen gas at pressure."
Start with oil refineries. Their processes strip hydrogen from lesser value products to combine it to make higher value products. UOP-Universal Oil Products pioneered some of the processes.
Whatever the carbon footprint, this strikes me as being a pretty neat toy. Swell way to relax on week-ends. Great place to brainstorm more ideas for wind mills and ways to help the third world.... I guess the status symbol among billionaires is not who has got the biggest yacht but who has the most eco-friendly one. Eat your heart out David Geffen. The Obamas will be staying with the Gates on their next eco-aware vacation.
Nothing costs like being Green!
There are two ways out of the CO2 issue, impose suffering or develop technologies. At some point, I suppose, fusion will come along and provide nearly unlimited energy. If Democrats were serious about CO2, we would be building modern nuclear plants to replace coal, and triple bank shot technologies like this could hatch when they are ready.
It’s funny if you ask a Democrat about Global Warming he will say that it’s gonna destroy the Earth, but then if you suggest that nuclear could prevent it, he will say “Well Global Warming isn’t really that bad.”
The best data I could find for liquification of hydrogen gas (from NASA) is that it takes about 1/3 of the usable energy of a given mass of liquid hydrogen to just liquify it, to say nothing of the losses on storage or the need for continuous refrigeration efforts to minimize losses.
Good point. That's why I never got onto the petroleum thing. Do you know how much it costs to store that stuff when compared to a stable? And the transportation? Horses OTOH actually have legs that can not only allow the animals to transport themselves, but with you and other riders on top of them!
Innovation is always a bad thing. Economics proves it. I think Adam Smith taught us this. And it's why the Soviets gave us Chernobyl - because their reactor was a cutting edge design and run without any cost-saving measures in place whatsoever.
There are two ways out of the CO2 issue, impose suffering or develop technologies.
Or you could stop subsidizing fossil fuels and incentivize innovation, but Republicans hate that - especially this Republican. He'd actually prefer forcing utilities to buy at a premium in order to keep those 10,000 voters in Appalachia that put him in office.
Talk about suffering. The country has to do whatever a few thousand voters unable to make a living off of anything other than dinosaur bones want him to do.
The Guardian is wrong. The output product of hydrogen combustion is not water, it's water vapor, a gas that is about 7,000 times more greenhouse forcible than CO². This may be beyond the understanding of the editors. Perhaps. It is outside and beyond the education and capacity of Ritmo.
My first thought: novel coronavirus.
My second thought: The Magic Christian.
My third thought: old people just like cruises.
"Or you could stop subsidizing fossil fuels and incentivize innovation,”
$10 gas, that’s Pee Pee Tapes solution.
Is there a padded room for Greta?
The Guardian is wrong. The output product of hydrogen combustion is not water, it's water vapor, a gas that is about 7,000 times more greenhouse forcible than CO². This may be beyond the understanding of the editors. Perhaps. It is outside and beyond the education and capacity of Ritmo.
It is certainly outside and beyond the education of "Quaestor" to know that water vapor turns back to water at temperatures below 99.98 degrees celsius and would therefore not increase overall GHG content compared to CO2, which does not have temperatures on the earth cold enough to despot it back into a non-atmospheric solid phase. This is why scientists are not concerned about hydrogen technologies as if they were pollutants.
Or perhaps he did know all this basic stuff and just wanted to be as dishonest as his hero, President Windmill Cancer, is every single day. But in a deceptive and sneakier way.
Quaestor said...
The Guardian is wrong. The output product of hydrogen combustion is not water, it's water vapor, a gas that is about 7,000 times more greenhouse forcible than CO².
Ding ding ding!
Thank you , Quaestor, even though you did just barely beat me to it.
Water vapor is a FAR bigger "greenhouse gas" than CO². Everything you need to know about Bill Gates, and the "environmental community", can be summed up in the fact that they think this is "more green" than burning natural gas.
$10 gas
How much does it cost to subsidize fossil fuels and pay for the damage done by widespread fires, flooding and droughts?
A two-for-one deal! Pay the polluters to pollute and make the citizens pay for the damage and after-effects!
It the monstrosity being built with ecologically correct materials in an ecological way?
Water vapor is a FAR bigger "greenhouse gas" than CO². Everything you need to know about Bill Gates, and the "environmental community", can be summed up..
Can be summed up by the fact that in elementary school they learned about the water cycle and the fact that vapor can and at normal conditions WILL fall back to earth as rain. Whereas CO2 cannot. Do they teach you in right-wing indoctrination school what "rain" is? Very important, stuff - rain. Makes the grass grow. You guys should try catching on to complex things like that some time.
Have computers added to or subtracted from humanity's carbon footprint?...My guess is that they're a net plus.....Rockefeller didn't invent kerosene, but he perfected the way to produce it as a reliable product at a reasonable price. He thereby saved the whale from being hunted to extinction. His charities cured or prevented yellow fever, scarlet fever, and tapeworm infestations in the south. His father-in-law was an organizer of the Underground Railroad. Rockefeller endowed a black college, Spelman College, in his name....There was an anti-trust suit against Standard Oil. The government was awarded $25 million dollars. The liberal newspaper, The World, crowed that with this money the government could buy five new battleships. The award was later overturned on appeal.....Billionaires sometimes spend their money foolishly, but they generally do more good with the wealth of nations than bureaucrats. (I, of course, exclude Jeffrey Epstein and entertainment industry billionaires in this discussion.)...I'd rather have Bill Gates throwing his money around than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doing so.
This is not a vessel in search of technology, it's a technology in search of a vessel.
Heavy rain in Australia extinguishes major wildfire, causes flash flooding
"How much does it cost to subsidize fossil fuels and pay for the damage done by widespread fires, flooding and droughts? “
Like I said, $10 gas. He admits it, then he goes on to blame stuff that has been happening since the close of the last ice age to basically wreck the economy. But... wait for it... he promises new and better jobs bolting down Chinese made solar panels!
Pee Pee Tapes is right about the water cycle though. But water vapor does far overmatch CO2 as a climate forcing. I just doubt that on a planetary scale, water as exhaust will end up being that important.
Squeamish,
And how many people died from radiation at chernobyl?
How many have died from power plant radiation since forever?
I ran through the numbers for Howard a couple weeks ago. Perhaps you missed class that day.
John Henry
"Whereas CO2 cannot." - Absolutely correct. Here's what CO2 does:
Photosynthesis - Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. For ~75% of the last half-billion years, CO2 was 2-15 times higher than now. It helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons, lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes, shrinks deserts & reduces the spread of fire, plants using & retaining H2O more efficiently. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more, sparking growth, more photosynthesis & CO2 uptake. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies survive, increase net rainfall & save lives. The result is increased food production, soil moisture, crop growth & a greener planet, even as forest fires, droughts, heatwaves & temperature related deaths have been significantly reduced.
Look around! This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.
If you don’t want widespread fires, don’t let fuel pile up.
It’s like there were never droughts before the 20th century.
If you don’t want poorer farmers to burn their fields to prepare for planting, then you’re going to have to come up with a different solution.
They can’t have modern technology because of fossil fuels. Plus they can’t afford it.
Reliable Electricity in those countries is unstable, or you get Puerto Rico warehouses, or selling stuff other people paid for.
So what are your choices?
Can’t provide robots because you need fossil fuels to make them and ship them.
So, child and slave labor it is?
FIX IT.
Aunty Trump, 1:45:
Vox seems to have missed some ifs in that quote though. (I’m not able to read the whole analysis just now.) If the CO2 is taken from the atmosphere (DAC exists but isn’t ready for prime time yet) and if the energy required to run the DAC comes from a carbon-neutral source, and if the energy required to turn it into syngas AND the energy cost to turn syngas into liquid fuel come from a carbon-neutral source - and there’s no way around this: You are unburning someone’s smoke when you do this - then, and only then can the fuel be said to be carbon-neutral.
As others have ably put it above, the hydrogen or the CO2-derived fuels are carriers. To make sense, the article should focus on the source of energy Gates’ yacht will be using.
John henry is almost as bad at missing the point as the rain was for keeping those fires going.
But rain isn't a bad thing - certainly not as bad as the floods the changed climate is producing. And I can prove that right-wingers will agree. Because if a country singer said it, it must be true! They will have to embrace it - for cultural reasons.
I have my doubts, but I admire Gates for pushing the envelope with his own money. Not so much when the feds come and take my money at gun point and flush it down the toilet in places like Crescent Dunes, where I am sure Harry Reid’s friends palms got greased before it went belly up, or Solyndra.
Or like Paul Pelosi Jr, working from home as an energy executive in a “clean energy” company in Ukraine. “Clean Energy Company” means scheme to collect graft. That’s the kind of company, owned by Gazprom, that gave Hillary’s campaign manager 75K shares worth millions when Hillary had a 95% chance of winning, and worthless two days after the election.
Politicians know that people won’t question billions and billions for “clean energy” so you get things like the Biden clan with their snouts in the trough.
I'd rather have Bill Gates throwing his money around than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doing so.
Bill Gates puts a lot of money into fighting disease. This yacht may be a big toy but Gates has enough money to try things that may work, or may fail.
Of all the stupid stuff to come out off this fascinating point in time, and all the hysteria from the alarmists, good things will prevail. We will have cheap , reliable backyard power supplies eventually. There are fortunes to be made in renewable energy, and because of availability of information and rapidity of access due to computers and internet things will change in a hurry in spite of government interference and anti-nuclear fanatics.
"They will have to embrace it - for cultural reasons.”
You really don’t understand how rational thought works, do you? It’s Democrats who think that entertainers know what is best for us on account of they are so pretty and sexy.
Two eyes jack,
GMTA. I almost posted about the magic Christian the other day in the Joyce discussion.
I was thinking about where he buys the Mona Lisa at auction and then cuts out the nose. "Only good part of the painting" he tells the shocked auction house audience.
I do like your idea though. Raquel Welch is a bit over the hill, though. He'd have to get someone else to whip the slaves.
Movie is on YouTube and I watched for the first time in 50 years las year. Not bad but it has not aged well.
John Henry
"Whereas CO2 cannot." - Absolutely correct. Here's what CO2 does:
Photosynthesis - Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. For ~75% of the last half-billion years, CO2 was 2-15 times higher than now. It helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons, lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes, shrinks deserts & reduces the spread of fire, plants using & retaining H2O more efficiently. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more, sparking growth, more photosynthesis & CO2 uptake. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies survive, increase net rainfall & save lives. The result is increased food production, soil moisture, crop growth & a greener planet, even as forest fires, droughts, heatwaves & temperature related deaths have been significantly reduced.
Look around! This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.
None of which would be jeopardized by humans using better, cleaner, or renewable energy sources. Or even producing none of it (except from respiration) at all. All these things were happening before industrialization and would continue to happen. No, the carbon cycle is not dependent upon us, and still doesn't deposit back to earth to relieve the wasteful amount that's forced into the atmosphere at levels higher than before industrialization.
But I commend you on regurgitating what any 4th grader can tell you. Minus the part about disease. Tropical diseases are a bitch and you're already fucking up most forest resources by losing the winter that kills off pests. Try growing maple syrup on a shrinking habitat. Or having a civilization in the jurassic or whichever long gone geological era during which you propose that agriculture and wide scale human habitation should have taken place instead of the holocene.
So you are saying that you don't know how many radiation deaths, Squeamish?
Sounds like it.
I'm all in on nuclear power. Fission for now. Fusion if and when. (probably)
John Henry
You really don’t understand how rational thought works, do you? It’s Democrats who think that entertainers know what is best for us on account of they are so pretty and sexy.
Conservatism is a knee-jerk opposition to rational thought and it wasn't Democrats who promoted Phil Robertson's Duck Dynasty or Kid Rock to their stages or as guests on Fox News or whatever. You would make just as much use of entertainers too if you could. It's just that most entertainers don't hate their fellow man or progress or enlightenment as conservatives tend to do.
"then, and only then can the fuel be said to be carbon-neutral.”
Yes. The technology would have to put out so much excess energy at such a low cost as to seem fantastic to us mortals living in 2020. Right now it looks like nuclear would be the way to create the hydrogen fuel Gates wants. It is certainly the only bridge technology to get us decades into the future when this stuff could conceivably become available on the scale required to make a dent in the problem.
Now you are just dumping the disordered leavings of your fevered imagination, Pee Pee Tapes.
? Is it even V1.0 ?
Describes More like POC at the level of Iowa Caucus App.
How does Bill Gates level of genius compared to Elon Musk on physical engineering problems?
Like I said, $10 gas.
So you are or are not in favor of the US subsidizing fossil fuels to the tune of 6.5% of global GDP?
I know what you said. Instead of repeating yourself though, why not admit the kind of market distortions that you're advocating, and that's without even accounting for all the environmental externalities which are increasingly being internalized.
Everybody is on board for better cleaner energy. Just like it would be great if snake oil cured everything from cancer to women’s complaints.
Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I presume that - this time around - he doesn’t need to swallow up the various subs with a big empty tanker, he can use the fancy-dance hydrogen thingamajig and some magneto ray run on Windows XP.
I thought Barbara Bach was absolutely beautiful, but that may be simple nostalgia, cause me and my older brother snuck into that film at the multiplex when we are quite young. The things older brothers do, thanks R.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/clinton-foundation-and-gates-foundation-partner-measure-global-progress-women-and
The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.
This is all hand waving. How many lives are saved by hospitals, which are incredibly energy intenstive. What about tractors for growing food, trucks for transporting food, ships, plants to process food for market, etc. How many lives do they save each year?
This one-sided crapola that any bright teenager could see through is as convincing to you as lies about pee tapes. You don’t ask the first question because you already love the answer.
Climate change adaption is complete pie in the sky. Climate has been changing for the 20,000 years since there were mile thick glaciers covering most of New York State. Adapting to climate change is a cost of doing business as a human being in the Quaternary.
I have no problem with Quazillionaires building super boats because late at night they have bad dreams and they think they will be safer if they spend some time in the South Pacific if it all goes to hell.
Clean energy is not "snake oil." It's just not being subsidized by mature industries owned by the wealthiest families that America has to capture the regulation with. And it doesn't have 10 - 100,000 voters dependent on in two Appalachian states that gave the Orange Angry Kid the presidency. Talk about draining a swamp. I guess if the swamp has those voters working paycheck to paycheck off of it it's really not all that much of a swamp after all.
Hydrogen-powered jet-skis? Zodiacs? Helicopter? Private jet?
Ritmo reveals his defects constantly. (Maybe he thinks Althouse operates a confessional and he'll absolution for his haughty mea culpas.) Today's sins — no thermodynamics, and no grasp of the Celius scale.
Yes, water vapor will become liquid, but below 100⁰ C not F. And when it comes out of Bill Gate's yacht the water vapor, like any exhaust, is pretty damned hot. So where does that waste heat unavoidably go? Into the wider environment, unavoidably. And while it's there cooling to the local dew point, it's a greenhouse gas, unavoidably.
I wish I could get Pee Pee Tapes rants aired as ads for the Democrats. We could win 49 states again.
The people who are the best able to capture the wealth from new energy supplies are the people who already own the old energy supplies.
People who point the finger the People Who Are Not Like Them ("West Virginia cola miners) to blame all of society's ills upon have psychological problems and should, like mad dogs, be avoided.
How many lives are saved by hospitals, which are incredibly energy intenstive.
No one is saying less energy use should be mandated, although conservation technologies allow people to use as much with less cost. It's a red herring since the argument is always about sourcing.
Anyway, that was in Forbes. The magazine about money. The investors seem to know what's what because they're dumping these stocks; divesting away from them can no longer be avoided as long as our conservatives are happy to have those industries owning the government in a swamp of regulatory capture. Here's the Financial Times. I'm not sure what they or those investors or those editors looked into regarding "hospitals, growing food, trucks for transporting food, ships, plants to process food for market, etc." But I assume they didn't ignore those things. Of course, if you're more of an expert than they are on the economy and investing then let's you and I (and they) compare portfolios and see if you can't become the next Warren Buffet... or at least Bernie Madoff.
Why is it that every conservative thinks they know more than the people who actually do the work? It's astounding how contemptuous they are of anyone with experience, wisdom or expertise. I guess those armchairs must make for really research-intensive learning labs.
A lot of “clean energy” is snake oil.
https://www.cato.org/blog/crescent-dunes-another-green-flop
It’s also commonly used by politicians as a way to funnel public funds into private hands. Like Nancy Pelosi’s son, like Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, for two recent examples. I am not sure how much “clean energy” money from US taxpayers that Burisma collected, but I don’t think it was zero.
I wish I could get Pee Pee Tapes rants aired as ads for the Democrats. We could win 49 states again.
I wish you could realize that reflected political power is no substitute for whatever humiliation you must be feeling to be so defiant about just some basic facts.
Blogger President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said
______+++++&&&&
Are you claiming Ordinary humidity is not water vapor in air?
There are plenty of left wring writers at Forbes. But I already shredded that article above.
"to be so defiant about just some basic facts.”
They are not facts. That you imagine that they are says a lot more about you than it does about me. But it’s pretty funny that you would use a word like “defiant” All of you political control freak types are the same.
How many assumptions, would you say, went into that IMF study you are defending so fiercely? I am sure you have a solid idea, I am sure you have read it and considered it carefully. How many untested and untestable assumptions are in it? Share.
Ritmo reveals his defects constantly. (Maybe he thinks Althouse operates a confessional and he'll absolution for his haughty mea culpas.) Today's sins — no thermodynamics, and no grasp of the Celius scale.
Yes, water vapor will become liquid, but below 100⁰ C not F. And when it comes out of Bill Gate's yacht the water vapor, like any exhaust, is pretty damned hot.
(Emphasis added to demonstrate idiocy).
I didn't realize it stayed that way ("pretty damned hot")forever. What law of thermodynamics leads you to believe that it would, as it must for your never-before-heard theory of anthropogenic global water vapor warming to be anything other than laughably implausible?
In any event, this shows you how stupid (or at least proudly uninformed) Quaestor is: H20 IS being produced by carbonization. It's the other by-product, along with CO2, etc. when carbon is combusted. So apparently he is opposed to the industries that are combusting carbon, because they produce water (vapor!) too!
Or at least he would be if he were intelligent or honest.
Alas, he is neither. But at least he's not writing as salty a screed here as he was against his senator, Kay.
Fernandistein and wholelottassplainin are right: The energy density of LH2 is too low to be practical in this application. What's the cruising range of that yacht? (A lot less than it would be if those tanks were filled with gasoline or diesel, I can tell you that much.) So it's kind of the nautical equivalent of an electric car: Not enough range, and no place to refuel it if it runs out unexpectedly.
And of course no matter how good the tanks are, that LH2 is going to be boiling off even if the thing is tied up at the dock. Enjoy your lunch! No hurry! Have another kale smoothie!
It's a stupid stunt, but it's his money, so I hope he has fun with it. When he gets tired of it, it can be retrofit to run on diesel and make a nice toy for another rich dude with more money than brains.
BTW there's no smoking on-board.
I am sure you are aware, Pee Pee Tapes, that multiple recent analyses of data collected over the past three decades have shown that the estimates of warming made by “mainstream” scientists and modelers were greatly overstated.
They are not facts.
It's a fact that fossil fuels are subsidized. It's a fact that coal is subsidized. It's a fact that the administration is making an energy choice to please a few thousand Appalachian voters when he says "tooooo degrees" in response to the Paris accords as if he's bothered to actually think through the consequences of his policy choices.
He knows they're just political choices, because he needs those few thousand voters. I guess you do, too.
Anyway, if you have evidence that the subsidies (and other strong-arm efforts) aren't there, cite your own evidence. You seem to believe that the market for or against fossil fuels is a free one. It is not. Beyond that, cite evidence of your own or just admit that you don't care whether it's subsidized or not.
...multiple recent analyses of data collected over the past three decades have shown that the estimates of warming made by “mainstream” scientists and modelers were greatly overstated.
This is false. Go ahead and cite your "real climate.org" site or whichever windmill cancer president-approved resource fed you that misinformation.
Where do I find out more about subsidy of fossil fuels?
Edumacate me.
I calculated the climate sensitivity in a temporary standstill period (or slightly decreasing) as it was detected in the observations of the EEI during 1999 to 2018. The ECS value of 1.72K as the best estimate is in excellent agreement with the value found in LC18, 1.66K using the then current C&W GMST dataset (see Tab.3 of this paper).
The published ECS-values of the CMIP6 models have a mean above 4 K (see this recent paper) that is higher by a factor of 2.4 than observed here. This growing discrepancy between observed values of ECS reduces the credibility of the high model estimates.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/10/climate-sensitivity-in-light-of-the-latest-energy-imbalance-evidence/
That’s just the conclusion, please read the whole thing, and then you can cite for me the studies, based on actual collected data not models, that show that the expected rate of warming indeed has occurred.
You could check out EESI. Or basically just google it. If it would make a difference, you probably would.
But you might just be one of the people who don't care what the government spends, as long as it's what you want it spent on.
Conservatives used to tell us deficits and the debt mattered too. But blonde presidents can run trillion dollar deficits just because they're special or whatever.
"Where do I find out more about subsidy of fossil fuels?”
He says that "climate adaption" is a subsidy of fossil fuels. Things like that. Then if you call him on things like hospitals that need energy, he just does an abra cadabra to create cleaner cheaper energy to run them. Stuff like that. He can just keep inventing clean energy out of his patootie faster than you can ask him questions.
It’s funny too how they don’t just call it “the costs” of fossil fuels, instead using language that suggests something very different to anybody who only reads the headlines. Because when somebody hears “cost” their first question is “what are the benefits” and they don’t want you asking that. It’s all snake handling, and it’s based on faith.
"ou could check out EESI. Or basically just google it. “
You asked me for a cite, and I gave it to you, there are several studies referenced in my link. But you know you can’t do the same. I know, you have “faith” that the study is in there.
Well my faith is that you can’t do it, so I am going back to my book. This is a waste of time.
Do I really need to "read the whole thing" when Frank Bosse doesn't even review temperature at all?
He did use a fancy term or two. But neither of us are climate scientists. Does all the melting of ancient ice at the poles no longer count? Or any of the other major anomalies? Are we supposed to stop looking at shorter winters?
I just want to know who died and gave Frank Bosse that much greater evidence and powers of reasoning than all the resources at the disposal of NASA, NOAA, the DOD, the insurance industries, the financial services industries and the consumer markets for renewables or at the very least, "green-washing."
Science is a consensus of the facts and their reviews, not just one guy writing one blog post - no matter how many fancy terms he throws around.
Right, you are taking it on faith because you trust what newspaper reporters tell you that the scientists are saying.
This is how we got into WWI, we trusted the “intellectuals” when in fact they all had their own agendas.
You asked me for a cite..
Actually, "Narayanan" did, too. Funny how YOU answered him before I was allowed to, and then once I did you fell back into the personal attacks for having done so.
"Narayanan" - whoever you are... Aunty Trump says you are worthy of being answered by her, but not by me. I am so sorry. Please accept my apologies on her behalf. She is reading a book but at least you are important enough for her to interrupt it! (Probably because she thinks that you are at a stage in your understanding that makes you more likely to believe her half-truths than anyone else's full truth).
Be glad for that, Narayanan.
The word "fact" has an interesting history. It wasn't used much before the 17th century. People used to speak of "Truths" that were reached through the power of Reason. Now they tend to speak of "facts" which are determined by acclaim. Reason can't tell you that a fetus is not a human being. Instead it simply declared to be a fact, or sometimes, that scourge of language, a "scientific fact."
Right, you are taking it on faith because you trust what newspaper reporters tell you that the scientists are saying.
This is how we got into WWI, we trusted the “intellectuals” when in fact they all had their own agendas.
Actually, I'm pretty familiar with what most scientists are saying because the basic science is sound. And it's out there. Not just through reporters but actual scientists. And I said actual scientists, not engineers who could never observe or create a world as vast as the natural one to compete with their little artificial versions or what their industries pay them to think.
If we're debating the wisdom of knowledge vs. non-knowledge then I think the discussion's over. Reporters don't get everything right. And I suppose it's possible that the majority of them combined with major industries and agencies are all wrong.
But what I know is certain is that "anti-intellectuals" are almost always wrong. Intentionally. Facts disturb them. And I think they were a big part of the backlash against the "leugenpresse" that got us into WWII. So there's that.
Don't feel so insulted. Intellectuals got us into WWI, or so you say. But at least anti-intellectuals got us into WWII - a much grander conflict. Isn't that something to be proud of?
;-)
it's a niche item, I wonder if it will catch on, wind and solar, couldn't supply the population back in the 18th century, now if that Cambridge prof gets her wish?
So you say the science is “sound.” Then I am sure you can dig up a study that shows that the one I cited was wrong. My point was that newspaper reporters have agendas, scientists are human beings, many of them have agendas. The only way anybody can understand this stuff is to look at the science itself. You can’t lay you hands on a study that shows that the doomsday predictions made are holding up, can you?
Billions of dollars gets poured down the rathole of “clean energy” siphoned off by the politically connected, BTW. It’s not like people pushing it are all saints. I have given examples of that above, yet you pretend it never happened. The ability to ignore evidence must be something that you “smart” people have.
So you say the science is “sound.” Then I am sure you can dig up a study that shows that the one I cited was wrong.
But no one needs to do that because the sound science against which your position must compete and prevail over is the greenhouse effect itself, which is responsible for keeping the earth 60 degrees warmer than outer space.
I assume you don't deny that the earth is warmer than space and that the atmosphere makes it that way.
Ergo, changing the composition of what's in the earth's atmosphere (and there are only a few major constituents, the largest of which are climatologically inert), will change the temperature.
Sure, there could be other factors. There are other factors.
But to argue that they somehow overwhelm the factor that keeps us as a global average 60 degrees warmer than space is not anything that anyone has been able to do.
In the past the denialists would talk about sunspots, and other stuff. Again, none of this is greater than the very effect that keeps us warmer than space. Much warmer.
How do you attack the premise of AGW without attacking the greenhouse effect? I don't see how.
Hydrogen, eh? Did he name it Hindenburg?
Show me the current study that examines that data collected over the past decades that demonstrates that the predicted warming has appeared as advertised.
If they can’t get that right, how can we trust them on anything else? Paleoclimate studies show that the territory of the US, for example, has been subject to intense decades long droughts since the end of the last ice age. If they cant get the temperatures right, why should we trust them when they tell us that we are to blame with our cheap gasoline, for every unusual weather event?
Why can’t you do it?
"But no one needs to do that because the sound science ...”
It should be so simple then, or are you saying that they don’t check their assumptions, but still tell us that we need to bulldoze our current economy?
So basically antipathy to man-made energy production technology focused variously on: Nuclear, Coal, fossil fuels, hydro power, firewood etc.
Or against Man who stepped out of the cave looked around took breath and got to work.
Now I really am going back to my book. I will check in later, give you lots of time to come up with the study.
Blogger President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said...
It is certainly outside and beyond the education of "Quaestor" to know that water vapor turns back to water at temperatures below 99.98 degrees celsius and would therefore not increase overall GHG content compared to CO2, which does not have temperatures on the earth cold enough to despot it back into a non-atmospheric solid phase. This is why scientists are not concerned about hydrogen technologies as if they were pollutants.
Or perhaps he did know all this basic stuff and just wanted to be as dishonest as his hero, President Windmill Cancer, is every single day. But in a deceptive and sneakier way.
Wow, no, I didn't know that the normal humidity level was 0%. I didn't know that there's nothing we can do to make things more humid
And I didn't know that "photosynthesis is fantasy", that CO2 just goes into the atmosphere and stays there forever more.
Of course, the reason why I didn't "know" all these things is because they're utter BS.
Speaking of lying, and being deceptive and dishonest
Blogger President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said ...
So edumacate me!
Can we adjust for technological energy contribution to Earth climate engine with "Giant Umbrella" to reduce insolation energy?
Would that be cheaper?
Better than going to Mars!?
How about tuning Earth orbit distance from Sun?
Blogger President Toilet Paper Shoe's Cooked-Up Drug Deal said...
But no one needs to do that because the sound science against which your position must compete and prevail over is the greenhouse effect itself, which is responsible for keeping the earth 60 degrees warmer than outer space.
You literally don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about, do you?
https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html
The average temperature of outer space around the Earth is a balmy 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit). This is obviously a far cry from more distant space's 3 kelvins above absolute zero. But this relatively mild average masks unbelievably extreme temperature swings. Just past Earth's upper atmosphere, the number of gas molecules drops precipitously to nearly zero, as does pressure. This means there is almost no matter to transfer energy -- but also no matter to buffer direct radiation streaming from the sun. This solar radiation heats the space near Earth to 393.15 kelvins (120 degrees Celsius or 248 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher, while shaded objects plummet to temperatures lower than 173.5 kelvins (minus 100 degrees Celsius or minus 148 degrees Fahrenheit).
Does the "greenhouse effect" warm the Earth? Why yes, it does. Does its effect outpower that of the sun? Why no, it doesn't. Has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere been higher than it is today? Why yes, it has. Did that higher concentration lead to "runaway greenhouse effect" (which is the core basis of the AGW fantasy)? Why no, it didn't?
Was the Earth warmer during the medieval warming period? Why yes, it was.
Are you a pathetic religious lunatic, desperately looking for some meaning to your utterly worthless life, if you go around preaching the AGW dogma? Why yes, you are!
Unless, of course, you're a whore in a lab coat, telling the politicians they need more power, in exchange for them giving you more money. Then you're just worthless scum.
GFY, PTP
Show me the current study that examines that data collected over the past decades that demonstrates that the predicted warming has appeared as advertised.
There are many things that are studied. One of those studies would be called places like "Greenland" or "the North Pole" which show changes that are unprecedented at least since the 10,000 years in which we've had agriculture and therefore the very things upon which we have been able to build economies and cities and civilization in the first place.
It sounds like you want the one, single, great, definitive, handed down from the Heavens study to end all other studies. But the thing is, the vast majority of any single thing which could be studied has and all point to the same conclusion. Scientific consensus is a consensus of what all the studies show, not just what any one of them show. There is no such thing as one study to end all studies like in the Lord of the Rings. But there is a point when you stop pretending that gravity will be disproven. Or AGW.
Beyond that, if you really think that all the major phenomena described by National Geographic, NASA, NOAA, the DOD and now the insurance and financial industries are corrupted or ignorant, I don't know what to tell you. Your position seems to be that the economy demands we do whatever we can to frame the whole thing as poppycock. Whatever piece of data or science will persuade you remains, as it does for most "ECONOMY FIRST!" denialists, elusive. If you're not convinced by the sheer steepness of disproving the greenhouse effect, that's a tall order.
But the economics is lining up against you as well. Like I said, no agriculture, no economy. Flooded out cities (because the major and richest ones are all on coasts) also = messed up economy. The insurance industries agree and now the investors are following suit.
At this point, it's fascinating that you think it's I (and all these other stakeholders) who need to persuade you, rather than the other way around.
But I'll listen to evidence. What I can't listen to is someone who will hold to her position and not even define what it is that would convince her not to. It shows whose goalposts are really the flexible ones here.
Maybe if Trump (a super rational guy) changed his mind on the topic then you'd start to actually analyze your position rationally. But probably not much else would do it ;-)
And I didn't know that "photosynthesis is fantasy", that CO2 just goes into the atmosphere and stays there forever more.
Of course, the reason why I didn't "know" all these things is because they're utter BS.
Greg, if you really think we're going to plant enough trees to soak up the 50% increase in atmospheric carbon we've created then it's obvious who's holding on to utter BS.
Lots of dead dinosaurs and other pre-historic detritus to burn. And we're only burning more of it.
But we'll plant enough trees to overcome that. Keep fucking that chicken, man. Lol!
How do you attack the premise of AGW without attacking the greenhouse effect?
_____&&&&&+++++
Here I've been given to understand AGW was conclusion of SCIENTIST based on some evidence.
Now You are telling me it is premise only?
Oh My edumacation.
Does the "greenhouse effect" warm the Earth? Why yes, it does. Does its effect outpower that of the sun? Why no, it doesn't.
Lol. But no one is proposing making the sun go away. Except maybe people like you. LOL!
But it's all good. We wouldn't need to.
Has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere been higher than it is today? Why yes, it has. Did that higher concentration lead to "runaway greenhouse effect" (which is the core basis of the AGW fantasy)? Why no, it didn't?
Actually, it did. Just not when humans were around. Or really any living things of the sort with which we'd be familiar today.
Just water, possibly algae and rocks. You know, like the one under which you live. LOL!!!
Other than that, I leave the readers with the completely rational, unemotional mental process of your type:
Are you a pathetic religious lunatic, desperately looking for some meaning to your utterly worthless life, if you go around preaching the AGW dogma? Why yes, you are!
Unless, of course, you're a whore in a lab coat, telling the politicians they need more power, in exchange for them giving you more money. Then you're just worthless scum.
GFY, PTP
Be proud of your fellow denialists, Althouse people. This guy seems to be speaking for you.
Sorry Narayanan. I don't do ESL lessons for free.
Did that higher concentration lead to "runaway greenhouse effect" (which is the core basis of the AGW fantasy)? Why no, it didn't?
Actually, it did. Just not when humans were around. Or really any living things of the sort with which we'd be familiar today.
_____
And then what happened for us to come to be?
Whoever dies owning the most toys still wins. Gates also wants to die owning the most virtue points for stopping his toy planet from warming or becoming over populated...over half a billion. So his toy vaccines must be injected into the six billion surplus people quick.
It should be so simple then, or are you saying that they don’t check their assumptions, but still tell us that we need to bulldoze our current economy?
If you're saying that the greenhouse effect is an assumption that we must find a way to disprove (not that anyone has ever been able to) then you'll at least have to bulldoze most astronomy departments, NASA and the aerospace industries. At the very least.
I'm sure once you (or some guy you read) has figured out a way to do that though then you'll be sure to submit your paper to them on whatever this strange and elusive thing that keeps our planet 60 degrees warmer than space really is?
I don't think you will. The answer doesn't matter to you, and your position isn't one that you are really invested in, either. Just politically. As soon as Trump needs people other than coal miners to give him that 50,000 vote edge, you'll stop disbelieving AGW also.
But what's interesting to me is that even with insurance industries and the financial sector jumping ship, you still say the science is unsound. That part is fascinating.
Can you rewrite my insurance policies and rebalance my portfolio, too? You're a pretty talented person, at least for at anti-intellectual who nevertheless insists a single study will one disprove what it is that keeps our own planet 60 degrees warmer than space. Or that the single study that should have proven it has really never been done.
https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html
The average temperature of outer space around the Earth is a balmy 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit).
That was a dumb article.
"So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature."
Similar: "At the Earth's distance from the sun, a space thermometer with roughly half its surface is absorbing sunlight would register 45 degrees Fahrenheit."
On earth the temperature is measured in the shade; if you did that in space you wouldn't get a balmy 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit, you'd get -423.whatever,and if you put a thermoneter in the sun on the earth you can easily record temps far above the official records.
You literally don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about, do you?
Hmm.
https://sciencing.com/temperatures-outer-space-around-earth-20254.html
The average temperature of outer space around the Earth is a balmy 283.32 kelvins (10.17 degrees Celsius or 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit).
That was a dumb article.
"So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature."
Similar: "At the Earth's distance from the sun, a space thermometer with roughly half its surface is absorbing sunlight would register 45 degrees Fahrenheit."
On earth the temperature is measured in the shade; if you did that in space you wouldn't get a balmy 50.3 degrees Fahrenheit, you'd get -423.whatever,and if you put a thermoneter in the sun on the earth you can easily record temps far above the official records.
You literally don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about, do you?
Hmm.
Greg the traitor: What temperature proxy do you rely on to tell you the MWP is warmer than now?
Hydrogen + Oxygen = BOOM!
Howard said...
Greg the traitor: What temperature proxy do you rely on to tell you the MWP is warmer than now?
Howard: which temperature reconstruction do you rely on to tell you that the MWP was NOT warmer than now?
So I got home and read the article.
I suspect that the reporter doesn't know the difference between hydrogen and a Hydrox cookie and thinks hydrogen is a source not a store of energy as a number of people here have pointed out.
Is be willing to bet $20 that bill gates knows.
Striped to its simplicity, it sounds like gates plans to run the yacht on solar power. Collect it in California, store it as hydrogen, "burn" it in a fuel cell on the boat.
Sounds on the surface like it might be co2 neutral. It would take a detailed analysis to see if it is co2 positive, negative or neutral but let's assume neutrality for the moment.
The biggest problem with solar power is storage. The heliogen project to convert solar to hydrogen could solve that if it worked.
Sounds to me like what gates is doing is as much a demonstration testbed to jump the technology as a yacht for leisure.
Other than the fact that he gets a cool boat out of it, is it much different from what he has been doing with nuclear? Or malaria vaccine? (I'll forgive him almost anything for his work on that.
Bill gates is Hella smart. I would not bet against him on this.
John Henry
The politicians of Earth are no more likely to effectively address global warming than they are to address the national debt. Neither will be remedied. Just deal with it. Find something worth fighting over. The debt is exceeding estimates while global warming is not living up to the scare tactics, but even as the problem of debt is widely agreed upon by all sides, it will not be addressed, so imagine the chances for global warming.
And what's with an infinity pool on a yacht? an infinity pool requires the edges to be perfectly level. Hard to do on a boat even alongsid a pier. Even in a drydock.
Perhaps the entire pool is mounted on servo driven gimbles to keep it level. That would be a cool piece of gear. Not for tech. Gimbles and servos have been around forever. Think wwii bombsights for example. More for the engineering challenge.
Trying to control a large, heavy, pool of water and keeping it from sloshing as you do. Hmmmmm...
And in case I've not been clear, the single coolest thing about the yacht is that he is doing it with his own money.
John Henry
The MWP was real: https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/hansen-confirmed-the-mwp-in-1981/
Current temperatures are nothing special. We've hit higher, without every having that fantasy "runaway greenhouse effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view
If you accept that we will not really do anything about global warming, and I don't know how you can expect the nations of earth to do anything else, then you might as well join the side of those not concerned - for your own peace of mind, and you might very well be right anyway.
"carbon" footprint, "carbon" emissions and so on is pure propaganda. Carbon is a solid. It is not, generally, airborne and I've never heard anyone claim it contributes to global whatsit.
A lot of people, some here, talk about "carbon" when they really mean co2 because they don't know any better.
Others know better but do it anywayeither out of sloppiness or for propaganda.
Carbon is visible and dirty. Think soot, graphite, pencils, coal. (though according to deBeers, "carbon is a girl's best friend" and "carbon is forever"
Otoh, co2 is clean and friendly. It puts out fires, makes cake rise and gives pop a tingle.
Talking about carbon when you mean co2 is pure propaganda.
Stop doing it.
John Henry
John henry @6:28: "...Striped to its simplicity, it sounds like gates plans to run the yacht on solar power..."
Actually that just postpones the problem, but doesn't solve it. Unless someone is mining semiconductor grade polysilicon somewhere on this planet. That would be competitive advantage in a big way.
The alternative of making solar cells out of sand is an energy-intensive business.
Now, if Bill had announced plans to tool around in a hydrogen-powered cigarette boat with a bunch of hot chicks in bikinis in the passenger seats, I'd give him proper crazy geezer creds, especially if the oxidizer was LOX. But apparently not.
Good news. Someday his yacht will be in a landfill.
Just to be clear, airborne carbon particles, mostly as smoke is a serious problem in many parts of the world. Look at pictures of Pittsburgh in the 50s. We have it pretty well under control now in the us.
My point was that it is co2, not carbon that is allegedto contribute to global whatsit. Yet people keep calling it "carbon".
John Henry
Had much higher CO2 concentrations in the past:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf
Current CO2 levels: ~400 ppm
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
Phidippus said...
John henry @6:28: "...Striped to its simplicity, it sounds like gates plans to run the yacht on solar power..."
Actually that just postpones the problem, but doesn't solve it. Unless someone is mining semiconductor grade polysilicon somewhere on this planet. That would be competitive advantage in a big way.
The alternative of making solar cells out of sand is an energy-intensive business.
I agree with you 100% and even said so. But I don't have the info, time or inclin to to the complex analysis needed to determine whether it is co2 positive, negative or neutral. It could be any one of the three.
It is still a worthwhile project especially since it is his own money.
Even if this particular project turns out to be co2 positive, develop the technology ang get it to work. then get it to work well and be efficient
John Henry
"If you're saying that the greenhouse effect is an assumption”
So you don’t think that there is any need to look at the data we have collected over the past several decades to verify that the models are right? You just figure that since the greenhouse effect is real, that their calculations of doom must also be correct? When it was originally discovered, the effect was calculated out on paper without these incredibly complex computer programs, and so far, it looks like those original calculations of a mild warming are much closer to the truth.
Does Bill Gates even know how hydrogen is produced???
As of 2018, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification.
Duh... it ain't so 'Green'.
Climate scientists cannot tell you large of an increase you will see in global temp per unit of atmospheric CO2. We know this because their attempts to map atmospheric CO2 to global temp have been wrong in the past. In fact, trying map past temperatures to its contemporary atmospheric CO2 PPM is impossible. If you ask a climate scientist what atmospheric CO2 PPM corresponds to -5, -2, -1, 0, +1 deg. C, etc., they can't tell you because they do not fully understand the role CO2 plays in forcing global temp increases.
The geologic record doesn't help, there is no obvious cause and effect relationship between the concentration of atmospheric C02 and global temps.
It is also not necessarily true that an increase in atmospheric leads to a increase of unknowm magnitude of global temp. It is quite possible that at 700 PPM of Co2 (it is currently about 416 PPM) clouds increase and cause global temps to drop.
They just do not know, and it is ridiculous for people who call themselves scientists who are interested observing and explaining natural phenomenon to say that they know.
I don't know what President Toilet Paper means by fossil fuel subsidies. However, years ago, it was popular for leftists to claim that the Oil Depletion Allowance was a subsidy. Maybe this is what he means. It's not a subsidy, unless you consider the Depreciation Allowance to be a subsidy to all commercial businesses. Both allowances allow a business to set aside a portion of its untaxed income to fund replacement of the asset in question. You have to be anti-business and anti-free market to consider these to be subsidies. It assumes that all income belongs to the government.
It's about time.
Talking about carbon when you mean co2 is pure propaganda.
Their stated goal is to decarbonize the economy. The [anthropogenic] CO2 fraction of a fraction leverage point, and assertions/assumptions of [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] [global] cooling... warming... change, undeniable, unfalsifiable, over a [30 year] period, is a means to an end.
I don't know if anyone has point out yet that most of the world's hydrogen production goes into producing ammonia from nitrogen in the Haber-Bosch process:
N2 + 3H2 = 2NH3
Ammonia in turn is used for fertilizers to feed people. Any large scale diversion of hydrogen away from making ammonia will pits fueling yachts against feeding people. Then again, I'm sure malenthusiasts think there are too many people already.
"If you're saying that the greenhouse effect is an assumption”
So you don’t think that there is any need to look at the data we have collected over the past several decades to verify that the models are right? You just figure that since the greenhouse effect is real, that their calculations of doom must also be correct? When it was originally discovered, the effect was calculated out on paper without these incredibly complex computer programs, and so far, it looks like those original calculations of a mild warming are much closer to the truth.
"Mild" is a pretty subjective adjective.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/ipcc-report-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/worse-climate/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/climate/climate-change-acceleration.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/science-climate-change.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
Lots of people are living and more will continue to live with the impacts economic and otherwise of this devastation. It doesn't appear you are interested in having them compensated for living through this real-life scientific experiment of a "model" you'd like to see them live through, and yet you're even more reluctant to do anything that doesn't continue to favor specific, dominant fossil industries dictating that policy be crafted specifically around their own profits.
That's an interesting set of priorities to have.
It seems we just have different values. Once again, you are not only willing to disbelieve everything that NOAA, NASA, Nat Geo, Nature, the DOD, insurance industry, geophysicists, astrophysicists, and investors are saying, but to make hostages out of who knows how many victims of droughts, flooding and fire as it takes for your preference for making sure that a few companies get to regulate the government and public opinion - rather than allowing the people's representatives to regulate them, or at least regulate what they're doing to the planet.
There are moral disagreements and intellectual disagreements. But the parameters of those stakes and how much someone is willing to disbelieve in order to push them on that many people is the hallmark of someone that reason - intellectual, moral, what have you - is simply beyond reach.
Don't worry. I'm sure once every remaining industry with the most money and political power stops lobbying to emit whatever carbon they want, you'll shift your own goalposts once again and stop being an AGW self-proclaimed "realist."
By then the amount of economic and personal dislocation caused by it will be undeniable, immense and abhorrent - but that's not your concern. I'm only responding to you so that future generations can see how horrible people can be and the lengths they are willing to go in order to beat the "anti-intellectual" drum of the most immoral/amoral companies around.
Planters had just as many boosters during slavery and the civil war. Years from now your kids (if you have any) will be able to see what you wrote in 2020 and ponder your own legacy in similar terms.
"The Sunday Telegraph said the boat would have a 'diesel back-up' due to the scarcity of hydrogen refuelling stations."
I've never had any trouble filling up my hydrogen powered super-yacht.
But just imagine the wide range of skilled people getting paid to build this thing. From steelworkers and welders to carpenters and cabinet makers. Mechanics, drafters, painters, engineers, interior decorators, IT and software professionals. Probably hundreds more over five years.
I say buy as many yachts as you want rich people.
What temperature proxy do you rely on to tell you the MWP is warmer than now?
Norse settlement in Greenland started in the early 11th century. On their farms, the Greenlanders were able to raise cattle, sheep, as well as root vegetables and cereals. By the 14th century, the climate had deteriorated to the point that agriculture was impossible, as it is today. Most of them abandoned Greenland and returned to Iceland or mainland Europe. A small remnant joined Inuit bands, adopting their hunter-fisherman subsistence culture.
Sources
1. Grœnlendinga saga (Flateyjarbók ms)
2 Human Diet and Subsistence Patterns in Norse Greenland AD
c.980–AD c.1450: Archaeological Interpretations (Arneborg, Lynnerup, and Heinemeier)
But just imagine the wide range of skilled people getting paid to build this thing. From steelworkers and welders to carpenters and cabinet makers. Mechanics, drafters, painters, engineers, interior decorators, IT and software professionals. Probably hundreds more over five years.
I say buy as many yachts as you want rich people.
This it exactly right. When we tax luxuries so no one can afford them, or limit what the rich do with their money, it puts people out of work. This is a rather crude example of the trickle down effect.
So here is what we have from Nature: "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against”
In other words, speculation based on models, not examination of the model performance
NASA:
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
How has that model been tracking? Not interested, apparently. Because I already linked to the answer, which isn’t scary enough.
Scientific Amerianc blog:
Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb’s wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.
Then, to develop a consistent picture of long-term trends, techniques had to be developed to compensate for the errors in the older measurements and reconcile them with the newer ones.
So we have scattered robotic. submarine temperature sensors all over the ocean, and they couldn’t find the “missing heat” so here’s a plan! Lets re-examine historical records and apply a bunch of untestable assumptions.
I am not even going to bother with the agenda driven New York Times.
So what you are telling me is no, you do not have an analysis of the data collected in the satellite era that demonstrates that this effect is happening in the magnitude predicted by the models. The ones used in all of your scary scenarios.
That just seems like a pretty glaring omission. It’s almost as if they don’t want to publicize the answer, because it is unhelpful to “the Cause."
stlcdr said...
When we tax luxuries so no one can afford them, or limit what the rich do with their money, it puts people out of work.
And that's why the Dutch will be building Bill's yacht.
"Does Bill Gates even know how hydrogen is produced???”
To be fair to Bill Gates, he has a large investment in a technology that promises to generate hydrogen from steam using solar, an array of mirrors, Heliogen. Bill Gates is not an idiot. I don’t believe he throws away money the way the government usually does, in order to funnel graft to their cronies. I think he reads their reports and understands them and actually cares that the money is doing something worthwhile. For a U.S. Senator, paying off your crony buddies is deemed “worthwhile.” If Bill wants to give somebody money, he can just write them a check, not create some elaborate ruse to pry the money from taxpayers.
I don't care if Bill Gates throws away his money... It's his money to throw away. People rich enough to spend money on a floating vacation home that they'll probably use a dozen days a year can be important drivers of innovation, and because there aren't very many of them, they aren't likely to do lasting harm if their costly luxury experiments fail. Go to it, Bill!
(And like John Henry, I'm that much more willing to give him a pass because of his important work in malaria reduction et al. But does he have only philanthropy in mind when he spends billions on a philanthropic project? I doubt it. And I don't care. Results matter MUCH more than motivations... which is also the crux of the whole impeachment farrago, though the D side refused to acknowledge it.)
Anyway, bring on the hydrogen-powered yacht! And if he can solve the heretofore unacknowledged problem of how to make an infinity pool still look cool despite an intrinsically unstable surface (thank you again, John Henry, for bringing up this issue), so much the better.
I don't care if Bill Gates throws away his money..
Did he take advantage of any tax credits? That I have problems with.
Gates is preparing for the day when no land mass will be safe or habitable. He can then spend the rest of his life (and his heirs theirs) sailing on the seas, safely away from the havoc and bloodshed ashore.
The hydrogen-powered yacht company says this is fake news.
“Aqua is a concept under development and has not been sold to Mr. Gates.”
Apparently, it's fake news. (Second try, blogger ate the first one)
https://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-reportedly-orders-645m-hydrogen-powered-superyacht/
There will always be New Zealand.
Post a Comment