Davin News Server

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 09:49:23 -0700, Alan wrote:

> On 2024-10-04 01:33, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 08:49:47 -0700, Alan wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2024-10-03 08:23, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 17:53:49 -0700, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-02 16:48, Mittens Romney wrote:
>>>>>> Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:49:02 -0600, Mittens Romney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is increasing concern that energy generation from fossil fuels
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hydrocarbons are the safest, densest (not counting radio-isotopes)
>>>>>>> energy transport mechanism we have: so far batteries *ain't* up
>>>>>>> to snuff either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the "fossil" part that's  a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dhu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because we insist on deadnaming abiotic oil.
>>>>> Oh...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...it completely makes sense that you're one of those.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual "origin" of "fossil carbons" is of no account:
>>>> they are buried an' diggin' them up to burn as a source
>>>> of Electric Power is the underlying problem the industry
>>>> faces: you lose 60% offa the top no matter whut in conversion
>>>> (usually closer to 2/3) either way.
>>> Why did you put quotes around "origin" and "fossil carbons"?
>> 
>> Because they could just as well be _non_ fossil carbon and it's
>> of no account to the here and now.  "Fossil" implies some living
>> source origin, and there's always the (distinct) possibility
>> that some buried carbons originate with the planets original
>> accretion from stardust.
> No. They really couldn't be non-fossil carbon.

No, U are NOT clearing on the fact that it doesn't matter whether 
the carbon is fossil or not AFTER IT'S BURNED.  Now FUCK OFF 
and grow a brain.

Dhu



-- 
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.  
 C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-) 
 Duncan Patton a Campbell