[Petrochemicals]

. Forming hydrogen from electrolysis as aircraft fuel is totally inefficient and what would you do with the carbon left over inside the plane??  .   

It's not that inefficient and I am sure it will improve like all technologies, it is certainly more efficient than turning the windmills off or shutting down nuclear plants and I sure if you have no fuel, some fuel is better!

[Petrochemicals]

An efficient way of compressing some gases into a smaller, denser volume..

There are big voids in the ground where gas can be stored, Germany has some and has just filled them up for this winter with natural gas at a low price, our government though elected not to develop/maintain such voids because they are obsolete as we are now going green, with such developments as hydrogen, so this winter the UK will be paying through the nose again.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you want to keep the atmosphere out of the British Isles?

I don't.
But you want to pretend that the UK is isolated from the rest of the globe, and you can't do that while we share an atmosphere so, how do you plan to do it?

Quote
If the hydrogen feed to the process is provided at comparatively low pressure, the first step of the process is pre-compression.
The ignorance of the Royal Society of Chemistry must be an embarrassment  to you.

And the compression doesn't make it into a liquid, does it?
It remains that case that "The problem with hydrogen gas is it cannot be compressed into liquid form" and both the RSC and  NASA would concur.
I'm getting embarrassed by you apparently arguing in bad faith, but that's a different issue.

[alancalverd]

I'm perfectly happy to share the world's atmosphere, as we already do.  It is unpleasantly cold in some places and unpleasantly hot in others, and that won't change even though the average will increase. The British Isles are particularly favored by physics and geography so that life here could be tolerable and even idyllic when most of humanity suffer, if we can reduce the population to a sustainable level.

Praying for a miracle, or even a lifeboat, is all very well, but it makes sense to inflate your lifejacket while you are waiting.

[alancalverd]

the reason they use diesel is because it doesn't go pop easily.

No, because it has a high energy density, a broad liquid temperature range, and can be burned controllably in a turbine. Gasoline pops easily and is also used in aircraft.

[paul cotter]

I sure one could use petrol(gasoline) in a turbine, but I would not recommend it due to it's volatility and hence fire hazard.

[Bored chemist]

Praying for a miracle, or even a lifeboat, is all very well, but it makes sense to inflate your lifejacket while you are waiting.

And waiting for people to die- over the course of perhaps a hundred years- is waiting for the lifeboat.
Decarbonising the economy is inflating your life jacket while you wait.

[Bored chemist]

I sure one could use petrol(gasoline) in a turbine, but I would not recommend it due to it's volatility and hence fire hazard.

Ever heard of avgas?
Aviation spirit is about as "bangy" as ordinary petrol; slightly less volatile.

[paul cotter]

Avgas?  no I never heard that term, I presume it is short for aviation gasoline. How does aviation petrol rate on the octane scale?

[alancalverd]

And waiting for people to die- over the course of perhaps a hundred years- is waiting for the lifeboat.

No need to wait. 2800 Brits will die tomorrow, and every day thereafter for the next 70 years or so.  All we need to do is not replace them. Doing nothing is always an option worth exploring.

Decarbonising the economy is inflating your life jacket while you wait.

But there aren't enough of those lifejackets to go around, and they haven't been proved to float. It's just an expensive form of prayer to a god that most of the world can't afford to worship.  I've no objection to folk praying but action (or in my scenario, inaction!) is better.

[alancalverd]

Avgas?  no I never heard that term, I presume it is short for aviation gasoline. How does aviation petrol rate on the octane scale?

100 octane low-lead is the standard, but some ex-Soviet radial engines work with 90 or less and quite a few small units run on MOGAS UL (another obvious acronym). Sadly, small diesels haven't been particularly reliable in aircraft which is a pity as AVTUR and JETA (guess what?) are cheaper and more widely available. You can burn pretty well anything from chip fat to AVGAS in an aviation turbine but the former tends to clog the injectors and the latter is very expensive.

The downside of hydrogen for small road vehicles is the lack of an immediately-available refuelling grid but where all journeys are predictable base-to-base it is an ideal fuel. Hence heavy goods vehicles, buses, trains and aircraft are ideally suited.

[Bored chemist]

Doing nothing is always an option worth exploring.

Yes. But persuading biology not to reproduce is not "doing nothing", is it?

. 2800 Brits will die tomorrow, and every day thereafter for the next 70 years or so

If we do nothing the death rate is likely to rise pretty abruptly at some point.

But the idea of this sort of planning is to avoid using the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse as your control mechanism.

But there aren't enough of those lifejackets to go around

The only reason for that is that the ship will not order enough for everyone because someone told them that "doing nothing" was an option.

[alancalverd]

But persuading biology not to reproduce is not "doing nothing", is it?

You might do well to consult a book about mummies and daddies. Multicellular species have to put quite a bit of effort into making, and sometimes raising, their offspring. If, despite all the sweat, you enjoy heterosex, ?1000 a year will buy a lot of pills and condoms.

But the idea of this sort of planning is to avoid using the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse as your control mechanism.

Exactly my point. If the human population exceeds a sustainable level, you can expect famine, pestilence, war and conquest. We can't make more land or water, but we can make fewer humans.

The only reason for that is that the ship will not order enough for everyone because someone told them that "doing nothing" was an option.

After 27 very expensive global conferences where everyone pledged to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they have increased by 46%. The only exception was 2020 when one of the horsemen made an unscheduled appearance.

Now if the Gadarene swine are all rushing towards the cliff edge, and you can't avoid being swept along with them (because we share the atmosphere), why not choose a route that will give you a soft landing?

[Bored chemist]

1000 [pounds] a year will buy a lot of pills and condoms.

True but it will buy very little fertility treatment.
You are underestimating how much most people want kids.
They are prepared to pay many thousands a year for the privilege.

Exactly my point. If the human population exceeds a sustainable level, you can expect famine, pestilence, war and conquest.

So, you ether change the number of people - which is impractically slow so the horsemen get here first- or you change what is sustainable.

After 27 very expensive global conferences where everyone pledged to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they have increased by 46%.

Because they listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".

[paul cotter]

Good morning, BC. I made a similar point some time ago on a similar discussion: when one looks at the lengths infertile couples will go to, at huge expense, to have a child it gives one an idea of the strength of such desires. The broody female feels her life to be incomplete without said offspring and is truly a force to be reckoned with. My solution: equine viral arthritis, this will cripple the horses of said horsemen and it has the benefit of being wildly contagious!!

[alancalverd]

You are underestimating how much most people want kids.
They are prepared to pay many thousands a year for the privilege.

I don't intend to prevent anyone from spending their money or having children. But I'm not prepared to subsidise their choice, and I'm happy to help those who don't want children to enjoy their life to the full.

[alancalverd]

you change what is sustainable.

By telling the poor to enjoy their poverty? Very Christian. Very immoral.

[alancalverd]

Because they listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".

I don't recall that being in any COP resolution. They all witter on about carbon dioxide, not people or their aspirations.

But instead of blaming everyone else for their rush to extinction, why not prevent your own - or at least that of your grandchildren - and save the local environment even if the rest of the planet is doomed.

Decarbonisation is inevitable anyway when the fossils have all been oxidised: my plan merely makes the transition feasible and desirable.

[Bored chemist]

you change what is sustainable.

By telling the poor to enjoy their poverty? Very Christian. Very immoral.

And, once again, you seem to be going for the "bad faith argument" .
I have already pointed out that what we should be doing is not restricting people's aspirations, but ensuring that the aspirations are met in innovative ways which don't trash the planet.
But you ignore that and come up with some stupid deliberate misinterpretation.

[Bored chemist]

But instead of blaming everyone else for their rush to extinction, why not prevent your own - or at least that of your grandchildren - and save the local environment even if the rest of the planet is doomed.

I'm reminded of the observation that having a "no smoking" area in a pub is like having a "no pissing" area in a swimming pool.
Eventually people realised it was a bit silly and banned smoking in the pub.

How long will it take you to cotton on to the fact that there's only one planet, and one atmosphere and one sea level.

We already know what happens when the UK thinks it can "go it alone" and, as a consequence, our economy is down the pan.

Why would you think we can do it with global environmental issues?

(Come to think of it, there may be an obvious answer there)