A Derail Thread

[Love Zhaoying]

Happy Saturday! 

[Love Zhaoying]

Was supposed to be a GIF..fail!

[Rhonda Huntress]

I save the gif (pronounced jif 😛 ) to my computer first and then upload like normal.

[Selene Gregoire]

2 hours ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

I save the gif (pronounced jif 😛 ) to my computer first and then upload like normal.

 

Or snip it, then copy/paste. But that probably won't work for animated. 

[Lindal Kidd]

Just right clicking it and choosing "copy image location" then pasting it usually works for me!

But then, I only download the hard "G" gifs.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Just right clicking it and choosing "copy image location" then pasting it usually works for me!

But then, I only download the hard "G" gifs.

Was on my phone..there's no "right click" on a phone! 😹😿

[LittleMe Jewell]

I was searching for a meme earlier and came across this.  It comes in a short & long sleeve T-shirt, a hoodie, and a sweatshirt.  I am truly considering ordering one.

 

 

[Gregorian Chant]

9 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I was searching for a meme earlier and came across this.  It comes in a short & long sleeve T-shirt, a hoodie, and a sweatshirt.  I am truly considering ordering one.

 

 

I think I need this shirt in SL. (As if my ever-expanding inventory hasn't suffered enough.)

[Selene Gregoire]

50 minutes ago, Gregorian Chant said:

I think I need this shirt in SL. (As if my ever-expanding inventory hasn't suffered enough.)

I could have used it back in the cave man days when we still did inventory... by hand.

[Lindal Kidd]

I need the RL and the SL version both!

[Rhonda Huntress]

The price of oil has taken a huge slide.  This is good news for everyone but the oil companies.  Looks like our little home town boom is over.

Cheaper energy for all!  YAY

1000's to be laid off at home ...  Boo!

It's a complicated feeling.  Thankfully I no longer work in the oil industry so I'm good.

[BelindaN]

Funny (not funny really) side effect of the virus is the curtailing of mass global recreational travel , restricting endless pointless meetings, and making people more aware of hygiene.

Oh and reminding them to stockpile toilet roll......

[Lindal Kidd]

On 3/10/2020 at 7:56 PM, Rhonda Huntress said:

The price of oil has taken a huge slide.  This is good news for everyone but the oil companies.  Looks like our little home town boom is over.

Cheaper energy for all!  YAY

1000's to be laid off at home ...  Boo!

The drop in oil prices is very interesting.  If the climate change activists get their way and we rapidly transition to electric vehicles, the demand for oil is going to take a huge body blow.  This will result in cheap oil and gas prices, which means internal combustion vehicles will be more competitive, slowing the adoption of EVs.  So, to continue the changeover, there will have to be massive incentives placed on EVs, or taxes on operating ICE vehicles.  The whole oil industry will have to contract, putting a LOT of people out of work.  It will all be a huge and painful shift.

Of course, it may all be for naught.  I read just today that particulate pollution from tire and brake wear (which is, of course, totally unregulated) is about 1,000 times greater than emissions from tailpipes.

We've been chasing the wrong dragon.  Again.

As Belinda notes, this current crisis is also showing us how much we waste by our incessant running about.  Perhaps we should all sit still more often.

[Rhonda Huntress]

26 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

If the climate change activists get their way and we rapidly transition to electric vehicles, the demand for oil is going to take a huge body blow. 

Most big oil companies would love to shift to all electric cars.  Refining, marketing and transportation is huge headache.  Why sell to end users when you can sell to a few, large demand industries.  Like, say, electrical plants?  As more electrical vehicles take to the roads.  Less oil will be produced but natural gas drilling will quickly take its place.  Sell to the suppliers, not the consumers. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Of course, it may all be for naught.  I read just today that particulate pollution from tire and brake wear (which is, of course, totally unregulated) is about 1,000 times greater than emissions from tailpipes.

I question the story you relate, Lindal. Before I go looking for it, let me show you why I suspect that from some quick guesstimates.

During the 14 year life of my old Ford Focus, it burned 200,000mi/30mpg of gasoline. That's 6,666 gallons of gas. Each burned gallon of gas produces approximately 20 pounds of CO2. The carbon comes from the fuel, the oxygen from the air intake. The output is largely CO2 and H20. So, that's 6,666*20 = 133,333 lbs of C02.

Over the same 200,000mi, I went through 3.5 sets of tires and one set of brakes. The tires for my car weigh maybe 25lbs each, and a set of brake pads weigh maybe a pound per wheel, most of that in the metal backplate. The lost tread on a tire is probably no more than 15% of the total tire weight and the lost portion of the brake pad assembly is probably less than half.

15% of 25lbs x 4 tires x 3.5 changes = 52.5lbs of tire dust.
50% of 1lb x 4 wheels x 2 changes = 4lbs of brake pad dust.

So, over the life of my car, that's 56.5 pounds of tire/brake dust and 133,333 lbs of C02. And so I call BS on the story. Now I'll go looking for it.

Minutes later, there's this story... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7236155/Electric-cars-WONT-end-air-pollution-release-brake-tyre-particulates.html

That article is about micro plastic pollution, and claims that up to 28% of the world's micro plastic pollution comes from tires, brakes and road surfaces. Never mind that brake pads and road surfaces contain no plastic. Their comparison to exhaust fumes may be about lung irritants, not CO2. We don't yet fully understand the effects of micro plastics in the environment, but some studies are showing they're a problem. We do know that people (asthma sufferers and the elderly in particular) are adversely affected by particulates in the atmosphere, but they're also affected by combustion byproducts and their offspring (ozone). I imagine the reduction in smog from conversion to electric power would be more welcome to people than a reduction in tire dust. And there's the tremendous problem of global warming, which would be helped by any reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. Take the improvements you can get.

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters

[Lindal Kidd]

Thank you, Maddy!  I don't think either of us has gone into enough depth to verify or debunk the claim.  The article I read does seem based on the one you unearthed.  But both you and I, and the writers of those articles, appear to be talking apples and oranges.  You're talking about exhaust gases, specifically CO2 and water vapor.  The articles cite a study of particulates, specifically PM2.5.  To muddy the waters further, the article you linked asserts that these particulates are "micro plastics", which they are not, or not entirely.

But besides all that, I think your math is wrong.  A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds, so it seems unlikely that burning it will produce 20 lb. of CO2.  Let's try high school chemistry...
The simplest equation for gasoline burned with pure oxygen is C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O.  Burning in air, and considering additives and incomplete combustion requires considering several other chemical equations, but let's stick with that one for simplicity.  A mole of gasoline = 8(12)+18 = 114 grams.  The combustion products are 8 moles CO2 = 8(12+2(16)) = 352 grams, and 9 moles of water = 9(2+16) = 162 grams.  The proportion of CO2 to gasoline is thus 352/114 = 3.0877.  Burning a gallon of gas would produce 6.3 x 3.0877 = 19.45 lb. CO2.

Huh.  I wasn't expecting that result, but I check you!

I am leaving my stream-of-consciousness post just as I wrote it and walked through it to serve as an example to others to not open their big, fat, opinionated mouths until they've run the numbers.

[BelindaN]

I should have listened more in chemistry class.....

[Love Zhaoying]

9 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

A mole of gasoline

Not to be confused by SL moles..

[Selene Gregoire]

10 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Thank you, Maddy!  I don't think either of us has gone into enough depth to verify or debunk the claim.  The article I read does seem based on the one you unearthed.  But both you and I, and the writers of those articles, appear to be talking apples and oranges.  You're talking about exhaust gases, specifically CO2 and water vapor.  The articles cite a study of particulates, specifically PM2.5.  To muddy the waters further, the article you linked asserts that these particulates are "micro plastics", which they are not, or not entirely.

But besides all that, I think your math is wrong.  A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds, so it seems unlikely that burning it will produce 20 lb. of CO2.  Let's try high school chemistry...
The simplest equation for gasoline burned with pure oxygen is C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O.  Burning in air, and considering additives and incomplete combustion requires considering several other chemical equations, but let's stick with that one for simplicity.  A mole of gasoline = 8(12)+18 = 114 grams.  The combustion products are 8 moles CO2 = 8(12+2(16)) = 352 grams, and 9 moles of water = 9(2+16) = 162 grams.  The proportion of CO2 to gasoline is thus 352/114 = 3.0877.  Burning a gallon of gas would produce 6.3 x 3.0877 = 19.45 lb. CO2.

Huh.  I wasn't expecting that result, but I check you!

I am leaving my stream-of-consciousness post just as I wrote it and walked through it to serve as an example to others to not open their big, fat, opinionated mouths until they've run the numbers.

I was wondering wtf moles had to with anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

Quote

The mole (symbol: mol) is the unit of measurement for amount of substance in the International System of Units (SI). It is defined as exactly 6.02214076×10²³ constitutive particles, which may be atoms, molecules, ions, or electrons.^[1]

My eyes glazed over after that.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Selene Gregoire

[BelindaN]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not to be confused by SL moles..

I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.

My life in a nutshell.

It's a big list.

Edited March 12, 2020 by BelindaN

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, BelindaN said:

I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.

My life in a nutshell.

It's a big list.

I actually remembered the mole constant from high school chemistry.

[Gregorian Chant]

19 hours ago, BelindaN said:

Funny (not funny really) side effect of the virus is the curtailing of mass global recreational travel , restricting endless pointless meetings, and making people more aware of hygiene.

Oh and reminding them to stockpile toilet roll......

I was thinking something similar when I notice the local public transportation hasn't smelled this Pine Sol fresh since its inception. (Not that people be joking about the virus should stick around more.)

 

[Lindal Kidd]

3 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I was wondering wtf moles had to with anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

My eyes glazed over after that.

Yeah, when they taught it in chemistry class, I never really did get Avogadro's Number (6.02 x 10**23 atoms per mole).  We called it "Avocado's Number".  But while the number is weird, the concept is not.  Chemists wanted a way to be able to go from looking at atoms and molecules to doing experiments with real-world amounts of substances.  So, a "mole" of anything is that substance's atomic weight, in grams.  Gasoline is C8H18...eight atoms of carbon and eighteen atoms of hydrogen.  Carbon has atomic weight 12, and hydrogen is 1 (from the periodic table, don't you know).  So we add up the atomic weights of all the atoms in the gasoline molecule...(8 x 12) + (18 x 1) = 114.  A "mole" of gasoline is then 114 grams.  There are 6.02x10**23 molecules of gasoline in that 114 grams, but we don't even have to think about that; no one's counting atoms*.  The important point is 1 mole of anything, in grams = atomic weight of the thing.

*No chemists, I mean.  Chemists weigh stuff in balances.  Physicists DO count atoms; in fact, they count quarks.

   

Quark!                                                                    Quark!

Edited March 12, 2020 by Lindal Kidd

[Madelaine McMasters]

12 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Thank you, Maddy!  I don't think either of us has gone into enough depth to verify or debunk the claim.  The article I read does seem based on the one you unearthed.  But both you and I, and the writers of those articles, appear to be talking apples and oranges.  You're talking about exhaust gases, specifically CO2 and water vapor.  The articles cite a study of particulates, specifically PM2.5.  To muddy the waters further, the article you linked asserts that these particulates are "micro plastics", which they are not, or not entirely.

But besides all that, I think your math is wrong.  A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds, so it seems unlikely that burning it will produce 20 lb. of CO2.  Let's try high school chemistry...
The simplest equation for gasoline burned with pure oxygen is C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O.  Burning in air, and considering additives and incomplete combustion requires considering several other chemical equations, but let's stick with that one for simplicity.  A mole of gasoline = 8(12)+18 = 114 grams.  The combustion products are 8 moles CO2 = 8(12+2(16)) = 352 grams, and 9 moles of water = 9(2+16) = 162 grams.  The proportion of CO2 to gasoline is thus 352/114 = 3.0877.  Burning a gallon of gas would produce 6.3 x 3.0877 = 19.45 lb. CO2.

Huh.  I wasn't expecting that result, but I check you!

I am leaving my stream-of-consciousness post just as I wrote it and walked through it to serve as an example to others to not open their big, fat, opinionated mouths until they've run the numbers.

I'm a fun storehouse of potentially useless information, like the density of gasoline (learned in pilot ground school) and how much CO2 comes from burning a gallon of gas (probably learned from Science News, and 20 is a nice round number). My goal is generally to have a sense of the magnitude of most things to within one decimal place.  I did jump to the conclusion that "emissions" referred to the totality of what comes out the tailpipe, not just the particulates. My BS detector goes off when I think a decimal point might be wildly out of place. In this case, it was a bit of apples vs oranges and a bit of thinking they're the same fruit (equal threats to humanity).

Being curious about diesel particulates, I found this... https://dieselnet.com/tech/dpm.php

Light duty diesel vehicles (pre DEF) emit around 30mg of soot per km driven. Over my car's 300K km, that's 9kg of soot, or about 20lbs. That's on the order of tire dust.

[Lindal Kidd]

To further point out the scaremongering tactics of some environmentalists, that study appears to have included "road dust"...dirt kicked up into the air by the passage of vehicles.  There's no way in hell THAT will ever get mitigated unless we start sluicing off all the roads daily, or maybe forget vehicles altogether and just walk from place to place the way God intended.

Some people really think we should all still be hunter gatherers, with a world population of a few million at most.

Anyway, Maddy...your storehouse is full of potentially USEFUL information.  So, fixed that for you.