This is all irrelevant to the question of whether it would leak enough to be a greater greenhouse issue than burned jet fuel. As I established in another post in reply to you just now, that would need to be nearly a quarter of all of the hydrogen used in such a system. That is an extremely unlikely scenario.

Once again, I am not talking about any of the other logistical questions about using hydrogen like this. Only the greenhouse gas issue that came up.

There's no doubt that it's very iffy if this would be more suitable for aviation than other synthetic fuels. There are lots of potential issues. However the greenhouse warming potential as an issue just doesn't make mathematical sense. As far as 37X vs 12X, doesn't really matter since I addressed 37X in my post.

To cover it again, GWP is by mass. So, if 1/37th of the mass of CO2 in hydrogen is released, we're saying it's just as bad. However, we have to start by considering that we're not burning CO2 in engines, we're burning other fuels. In jets, we're burning jet fuel. That's just kerosene. Kerosene has about 12 kWh of energy per kg. Hydrogen has about 34 kWh of energy per kg. There are all sorts of practical questions about volumetric efficiency, etc. but all other things being equal, you use about 2.83 times as much hydrogen for the same air mileage as jet fuel. At the same time, the CO2 released from the jet fuel is about 3X the mass of the original fuel. So, right off the bat what we have a multiplier of about 8.49 we need to consider. In other words, if hydrogen is 37X as bad as a greenhouse gas as CO2, then 37/8.49=4.36 is the actual number we need to consider. In other words, for hydrogen as a fuel to be as bad as jet fuel, then 22.94% of the hydrogen has to outright leak in to the atmosphere. Despite potential issues containing hydrogen, this would be extremely unlikely.

We can get into externalies, but if we compare externalities for synthetic hydrogen vs. jet fuel, the hydrogen is still going to look better from a greenhouse gas perspective than the jet fuel. None of this is to say, that hydrogen would actually be better considering all of the other obstacles, but it clearly would not be as bad in terms of greenhouse contributions.

...My installation of minidlna still works fine, is Free Software, and doesn't phone home or exfiltrate my metadata.

The number of people that still pay attention to what Trump *says* is mind-boggling to me. His story changes every 4 hours. It's deliberate. He's running his messaging strategy like a reality show. It's designed to keep people off balance, uncertain, distracted and misinformed. It's designed to encourage you to "tune in" a few hours later. He's trying to maximize "viewership".

If you ignore the messaging, and pay attention to what's actually happening, you would know that the US is gearing up for a limited land war. This is nothing secret It's been covered on all the major news channels. But, it's second-run news that doesn't get the top billing, because it doesn't get as many likes and clicks as the will-he-won't-he reality show stuff you get from the Trump admin.

The smart people knew that Russia was gonna invade Ukraine, months before it happened. There was a ton of public info about it, but very few people paid attention because it's not intertaining stuff. Same thing is happening here. There's gonna be a limited land war in Iran, at the very least. It's gonna take a LONG time. And, when it happens, three quarters of the world are gonna make a surprised-pikachu-face.

Well, I didn't really go into it there since I was just responding to the specific claims from the poster I responded to. For what you mentioned, I will first point out that an extensive power grid significantly mitigates Dunkelflaute. However, when it is nationwide, I should also point out that, in my post, I explicitly ignored other power sources and storage methods like geothermal and hydro/hydro storage. If we don't ignore those, we get an additional buffer. What I think is that we should have a tiered storage system.

This would mean batteries for the standard short term. Meaning enough to cover the average deep winter night with average usages that the poster I replied to mentioned and then a little bit extra. That would provide coverage nearly all the time. 99%+. To supplement that, a secondary tier based on locally available resources, such as geological ones. That means hydro storage of various kinds (reservoirs, polders, underground, etc.) where practical, compressed or liquefied gas in underground reservoirs where practical, thermal storage in, for example, molten salt, etc. Basically, whatever is cheapest and makes use of available local resources. Where tier 2 is less practical than tier3, skip straight to tier3. Tier3 is longer term stable storage. This means things like synthetic methane (or even hydrogen if you can store it effectively), or synthetic liquid fuels. Also other substances, for example metal powders such as aluminum powder that you can burn in a thermal power plant, or use in some sort of flow battery, etc. then collect the oxides and use an electrolytic process to turn them back to metal powder again after use. There are all kinds of other options. Dehydrating zeolites, reservoirs of salt water and and fresh water where you generate power across a membrane between the two tanks then reverse the process with reverse osmosis to recharge, or basically any chemical process you can use to store energy that can be reversed with a reasonable energy loss, is relatively cheap at large scale, and that you can store in volume.

Basically, you would size your renewable power generation so that it would produce just enough on average in the dead of winter to power everything during the day and overnight on battery, which would mean plenty of surplus during other parts of the year. Whatever surplus there is in winter could charge the tier2 storage and, if it doesn't get enough for that, tier3 could be tapped to top up tier2. With all the surplus in the rest of the year, tier3 could be filled up and for tier3 storage types, that could last very long term and for many of them, increasing how much you can store could be quite cheap and simple. Of course, the tier3 storage would generally have much lower turnaround efficiency than batteries, but that would not be a problem because the surplus would be wasted otherwise.

To clarify, when I say it won't leak that badly, I'm not using a colloquialism. I'm literally saying that it won't leak as badly as would be sufficient and necessary for the amount to leaked to produce enough greenhouse warming to exceed the greenhouse warming that the replaced fossil fuels would cause. It would have to leak enormously to do that and we have enough experience to know it would not leak that much. So I'm really only thinking about an upper limit to the leaking.

I do completely agree with you that, with the right materials and techniques, the leakage could be very small. It still does present a worry in airports with lots of planes fueling at once. I'm sure acceptably safe protocols and fueling hardware could be established, but I can also see why it might reasonably make a lot of people nervous. In any case, there are a number of other hurdles to getting hydrogen planes to work, I just felt the need to point out that the complaint about greenhouse potential was misplaced. In terms of potentially viable technologies, for now, my money is on either getting conventional rechargeable batteries good enough, or on metal-air batteries, even if they're swappable primary cells (that can be "recharged" by reprocessing the metal oxides at a plant at the airport) as opposed to directly rechargeable versions. For medium distance flights, anyway. For long haul, we may have no choice but to use liquid fuels for now, but they don't need to be of fossil origin. The Navy is testing units to produce jet fuel from seawater currently. We'll see if that technology translates easily to civilian use and if it's sufficiently economical.

Interesting thing to note though is that you can actually see nearly 60% of the moon from Earth, just not all at the same time. Since the orbit of the Moon is slightly elliptical, it appears to rock slightly from the point of view of Earth, letting you see a bit more on one side or the other. Also, you can see a tiny bit over the lunar poles from high and low latitudes on Earth.

Why would you need to bring it down to Earth background levels? Humans can survive considerably higher than that.

That used to be the tradition for civilized western countries - you wait until well after death to memorialize someone.

There were damn good reasons for that but we've abandoned it. The time frame doesn't fit well with the internet economy, where everything is measured in milliseconds, clicks, likes and ad sales.

Actually the internet economy thrives when someone's reputation gets thrashed back and forth. First you put someone on a pedestal. Tons of internet content results in ad sales. 2 years later, you focus on their dirt, generate a bunch of negative internet content, and get them cancelled. This generates more ad sales. 1 year later after the hate has died down, you remind people of the positive they did, rinse and repeat, generating internet income with each cycle.

Maybe you might be taken a bit more seriously if you A. didn't act like you had some special, secret knowledge when everyone here already knows that there's radiation in space. B. Actually presented some numbers about actual expected radiation dose in the situations you mentioned and compared them to known human radiation tolerances and standards (such as for radiation workers in power plants, etc.) and C. actually considered the radiation mitigation strategies that are already employed and proposed for future space travel.

I've heard more like 12x. Even at 37x though, it seems like H2 from non-fossil sources would be far better than CO2 producing fossil fuels. Even at 37x, it comes down to whether the use of hydrogen as a fuel would displace 37x as much or more CO2 from being introduced into the atmosphere. Basic logic says it probably would. Consider, with fossil fuels, essentially the entire mass of the fuel plus about 3x its mass becomes CO2 in the atmosphere. Essentially, every last drop of fuel ends up as atmospheric CO2 with a 4X multiplier. So, that would mean that something like 10% of the hydrogen fuel would need to end up in the atmosphere to be as bad as a greenhouse gas. Now, hydrogen is hard to contain completely, but it still tends not to leak that badly.

Then there's the fact that displacing methane usage with hydrogen would lead to significantly less methane in the atmosphere in the first place, so there would be less methane for it to extend the lifespan of. There are other effects hydrogen may have that would also contribute to global warming, however, so it would not drop to zero even if methane were eliminated entirely.

We also need to consider that this is for air travel. Hydrogen in other uses such as cars, etc. is unlikely. For most purposes, battery technology would be preferable. This would just be a potential solution for modes like air travel, where battery weight might make it prohibitive. So that means that the actual overall usage for it would be far less than for fossil fuels in general.

So, looking at it, that seems to suggest that, even if it has more warming potential, the net effect would still be a reduction in warming. Of course, that's not the only consideration for hydrogen. The extreme flammability is a concern, along with hydrogen embrittlement of containment vessels, the turbines themselves, etc. So, there are some questions about viability.

Overall, your argument seems overblown. Any industry currently using fossil fuels would still be doing better from a greenhouse gas perspective if it moved to green hydrogen (obviously not to hydrogen from fossil fuel sources).

I’ve got plenty of gripes about Thiel, and the 2-billion dollar valuation is the standard I-estimate-my-company-as-being-worth-all-teh-mmmoonnaayyy.

But this idea seems solid and worth pursuing. It’s a real market, for real goods, that probably could benefit from some tech. There’s use case is extremely low on buzzwords. No AI. No blockchain. No crypto. Just a solid case for a hardware/software system that could probably improve actual physical productivity in an easily measurable way. The argument for using cloud infrastructure is pretty compelling.

The kicker is if costs can be low enough to justify, that’s a LOT of fairly advanced hardware to purchase, install, and deal with wear and tear in an aggressive outdoor physical environment, in order to get my cows to grow 20 percent better. Is it worth it? I have no clue, but that’s gonna be the main question to answer. Agriculture is a very-low-bullsh&t industry.

To the people who are griping about Thiel planning to use this on humans. Your worries are 5 years too late. We’re already shackled to devices that monitor and occasionally prod us in various directions. They’re about 7cm by 14cm by 1cm and we THINK that we’re the ones in control but who are we kidding?

Im all for psychedelic research. The evidence for possible therapeutic effects is super strong, and moral hysteria has prevented a lot of potential good from being realized. But were barely scratching the surface of the effects of individual psychedelics. Combo effects are gonna take decades to understand. This is either an April fools day hoax, or spectacularly irresponsible. Its published in scientific advances, a legit journal, so this looks like a bunch of high powered universities doing something spectacularly dumb. This will leak out of the lab, if it hasnt already. Itll wind up on the streets.

And it's not that hard to determine that. In these days of pulling credit reports and asking for social media passwords, not much remains hidden.

If your social media accounts are filled with keg drinking headstands, funny drunken photos, and stupid decisions made on pub crawls, you need to sweep your accounts before job hunting. Or create a bland generic account and let it sleep until you start your next job hunt. Companies look for creation dates, not consistent activity.

If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.

There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.

(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's kludge.)