Quote from Curbina

In Chemical Analysis you simply calibrate your instruments against a known amount. That’s usually the control. Complex matrixes force you to perform a extraction before measuring and that obviously introduces noise. You can question the calibration, you can ask for increasing the sample size, but if a good chemical analysis laboratory tells you a result is consistently found on a product, I wouldn’t have much reasons to doubt it.

Yes, however most tobacco farmers have not switched to PGM mining, nor have the makers of Selsun Blue gilded their offices and homes in over-plentiful platinum.

Nothing on tobacco and Pd (besides using Pd to make cigarette smoking less harmful) but this one seems interesting.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b04821

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I calculated once that there is about 2 000 000 000 pounds of uranium in the Pacific Ocean sea water.

Clarke discusses mining seawater in "Profiles." I discussed it starting on p. 78:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

Quote from Curbina

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b04821

Amazing those plants don't live on cold fusion alone.

Quote from JedRothwell

Clarke discusses mining seawater in "Profiles." I discussed it starting on p. 78:

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

It’s a neat idea, but for example there are volcanic flows that cover up to 900 000 km² and are several km thick that contain on average 12 ppm uranium. Sandstones and conglomerates derived from these volcanics can contain over 40 ppm uranium on average. That’s a tremendous reservoir of uranium.

I am just using uranium as an example. Uranium is about 40 times more common than silver in the Earth’s crust.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

That’s a tremendous reservoir of uranium

Australia has got heaps. of uranium.. but since the Fukushima incident..

investment interest has waned

Geoscience Australia

Geoscience Australia is Australia's pre-eminent public sector geoscience organisation. We are the nation's trusted advisor on the geology and geography of…

www.ga.gov.au

on the other hand, no country has a monopoly on deuterium..

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

..no need to mine the ocean

in 1,000 cubic kilometers of water there will also be 150 million tons of heavy water.

We would need 6,200 tons of this to produce all of the energy we now consume.

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf Pg 79

Quote from Frogfall

https://www.resilience.org/sto…gy-transition-is-failing/

Crucially, even if we had a new energy source - mineral shortages will hamper the continual drive for "growth".

Nope.

I do find some of the blinkered fantasist cornucopian sentiments here quite disturbing.

We are not even able to support our current levels of global industry and agriculture without resorting to human slavery, child labour, and the mass destruction of habitats necessary for diverse fauna and flora.

Human beings are the planet’s most voracious parasites. But a parasite that destroys its host, without the option of another host to infest, will simply destroy itself too.

Quote from Frogfall

I do find some of the blinkered fantasist cornucopian sentiments here quite disturbing.

We are not even able to support our current levels of global industry and agriculture without resorting to human slavery, child labour, and the mass destruction of habitats necessary for diverse fauna and flora.

Human beings are the planet’s most voracious parasites. But a parasite that destroys its host, without the option of another host to infest, will simply destroy itself too.

I agree to a great extent, but we also have, as species, a lot of issues that are derived from psychological problems far more than from technical reasons. Many of our psychological problems, which are of diverse nature and affect different human groups to a different extent, have their highest level of impact in our so called "economic system", which is more than anything else a collection of sistematic psychological problems turned into control system.

Quote from Frogfall

We are not even able to support our current levels of global industry and agriculture without resorting to human slavery, child labour, and the mass destruction of habitats necessary for diverse fauna and flora.

We could easily support our current levels without these things. Those things are counterproductive. They are an economic negative. Slavery and child labor add nothing to the economy. Slavery discourages automation and the productive use of workers. Sending children to school is far more productive than having them work. Destruction of the environment only happens with stupid industries. Destruction is a sign of inefficiency and wasted resources. As they say, pollution is valuable resources in the wrong place. Eliminate destruction and pollution and you ultimately reduce the cost of production and increase the desired end product.

I visited a house in Atlanta that had slave quarters and written testimony from slaves. In the 1860s, they drew water from a spring about 100 feet from the house, down a steep hill. One ex-slave described how when she was a girl, she spent all day hauling buckets of water up the hill. Pitcher pumps and earlier pumps were invented long before that. Apart from any ethical concerns about slavery, if the slave owners had any economic sense, they would have installed a pump and had the girl do more productive work. Having slaves -- people you don't pay -- makes a person squander human labor and human capabilities.

Quote from JedRothwell

Having slaves -- people you don't pay -- makes a person squander human labor and human capabilities.

That is also true of having volunteers, for example in a political campaign. Or putting too much money or too many employees in an R&D project. IBM used to squander opportunities because they threw too many people and too much money at R&D that did not deserve it.

Quote

“You can’t take water and export it out of the state, there’s laws about that,” said Arizona geohydrologist Marvin Glotfelty. “But you can take ‘virtual’ water and export it; alfalfa, cotton, electricity or anything created in part from the use of water.”

Wells are running dry in drought-weary Southwest as foreign-owned farms guzzle water to feed cattle overseas | CNN

edition.cnn.com

Quote from Frogfall

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/1…-farms-climate/index.html

Àn guess who's water the dry southwest is eyeing. There is 80 Miles of cold fresh water between me and Ontario Canada thanks to the late great ice age. You can't pipe oil, but water is fine. Thankfully, another sovereign nation has claims on that water. Tends to slow things down.

Water and oil were formed under the same conditions due to cold nuclear fusion and plasma formed by terrestrial electricity! We have no other way, we need to understand the reproduction of water and oil, but how it migrates into traps and accumulates, we need to know how long we have enough oil and water. The main thing is that oil accumulates with the migration of oil from the bottom due to the subduction mechanism in the absorption zones of the oceanic crust and continental subduction in modern depressions, it definitely exists and we can calculate the time of formation of our fluids. The most important assessment of our fluids is the role of cooling the planet itself to minimum values that cannot be higher than 600 degrees Celsius. This is due to the content of spores and pollen in the oil and water itself. If oil is formed at depths of more than 1000 km and even more to the core, where the core is composed of plasma formations such as ball lightning and its rotation gives rotation of geospheres and layers of geolithodynamic complexes, the rotation of which does not allow fluids to rise to the surface, namely horizontally. Without such a device in the planet Earth, all the fluids came to the surface and would have disappeared completely long ago. In general, the deeper into the Earth, the higher the rotation of the geospheres, the core rotates at a speed of 20-40 m/ sec. And the main task of fluids is to cool the planet, but since we take a lot of oil and water, a crisis is coming that can turn the whole planet upside down, there will be no fluids, there will be no cooling of the planet itself, hence the temperature is rising in many regions of oil-containing deposits and deep warming. In general, taking water and oil from planet Earth leads to an increase in temperature, that's how we need to talk now, otherwise everyone is getting hung up on hydrocarbons and people need to know where the trouble is coming from!!

Waiting for Superbatteries - IEEE Spectrum

There is a long way to go before batteries rival the energy density of liquid fuels. Over the past 50 years, the highest energy density of mass-produced batteries has roughly quintupled, from less than 150 to more than 700 Wh/L. But even if that trend continues for the next 50 years, we would still see top densities of about 3,500 Wh/L, no more than a third that of kerosene. The wait for superbatteries ready to power intercontinental flight may not be over by even 2070.

Quote from Shane D.

Waiting for Superbatteries - IEEE Spectrum

There is a long way to go before batteries rival the energy density of liquid fuels. Over the past 50 years, the highest energy density of mass-produced batteries has roughly quintupled, from less than 150 to more than 700 Wh/L. But even if that trend continues for the next 50 years, we would still see top densities of about 3,500 Wh/L, no more than a third that of kerosene. The wait for superbatteries ready to power intercontinental flight may not be over by even 2070.

However, electric motors are much more efficient than ICEs, so this needs to be taken in account. I still think there’s a long way before EVs are really an alternative.

No, energy is needed now, by 2070 it will be too late, so don't relax, work. Carl Page wrote to me to contact me, but he never came out, but according to plate tectonics, they gave Google in August, where did this jerk do me, is it bad with their roof or what!!!! We need to finish the job, only geology will help us. Give me the address of Carl Page, who has his address, send... I have everything for the discovery of new energy, I was banned on Facebook, they wanted to ban me on YouTube, they don't like my discovery and even here. Remember, oil and water are of the most important importance and we will definitely find new energy, but this requires money of only 30 thousand dollars. so write and see my topics. https://www.google.com/search?…AoAECoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz https://www.google.com/search?…AoAECoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

Quote from Shane D.

There is a long way to go before batteries rival the energy density of liquid fuels.

I doubt they will ever catch up. I don't think anyone anticipates that. Except for the liquid flow type battery, which is really a sort of engine. Like a fuel cell.

Quote from Curbina

I still think there’s a long way before EVs are really an alternative.

I think electric cars will be even better than gasoline models once they reach 400 to 600 miles. As I have often commented here, 600 miles is the farthest most people can drive in one day, so there is no need for a longer range. You recharge overnight. However, self-driving long haul trucks would benefit from a range above 600 miles. Or from rapid recharging. If recharging speed begins to approach the speed of filling a gasoline tank, electric cars and trucks will be as good as gasoline models in terms of range. They are already better in many other parameters such as cost and maintenance.

Years ago, there were schemes to rapidly replace the entire battery pack in an EV. That would be as quick as filling a gasoline tank. That would speed up recharging, but it does nothing to extend range. It would mean you do not own the battery pack. You leave it behind at the gas station, where it is recharged and loaded into some other car. That sounds like a can of worms. Battery packs are complicated and have different lifespans. I do not think anyone is working on that approach. The fast chargers from Tesla are probably beginning to approach the speed of refilling with gasoline or changing out a battery pack.

Electrically powered aircraft are entirely different matter. I doubt that battery powered large-scale long distance aircraft will ever become possible. Liquid or gaseous chemical fuel will be used, or cold fusion. Battery powered short distance aircraft, air taxies, and self-flying aircraft similar to drones but large enough to carry a passenger are already being developed. I expect they will be widely used. I guess the range will be a few hundred miles when the technology matures.

The dark side of German wind power :: It fluctuates between 35% and now 6 % only. (FAZ 1.12.2022)