Nickel Hydrogen battery...

[Anthony William Sloman]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

--
Bill Slomam, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

--
Bill Slomam, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...
Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery.. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Except that you can\'t separate them.

> Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?

The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.
Except that you can\'t separate them.
Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?
The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

The re-radiation effect is quite complicated, but that\'s where most of warming is coming from, not from radiation into space:

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Except that you can\'t separate them.

Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?
The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

The re-radiation effect is quite complicated, but that\'s where most of warming is coming from, not from radiation into space:

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/

Don\'t be silly. The warming comes from the sun. The warming effect we feel at the surface does change as the effective radiation altitude moves higher in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.
The effective radiation altitude does depend on the wavelength of the radiation being emitted, which is a complicating factor, but nothing elaborate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency...

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Except that you can\'t separate them.

Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?
The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

The re-radiation effect is quite complicated, but that\'s where most of warming is coming from, not from radiation into space:

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/
Don\'t be silly. The warming comes from the sun. The warming effect we feel at the surface does change as the effective radiation altitude moves higher in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.
The effective radiation altitude does depend on the wavelength of the radiation being emitted, which is a complicating factor, but nothing elaborate..

The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.

What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency....

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Except that you can\'t separate them.

Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?
The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

The re-radiation effect is quite complicated, but that\'s where most of warming is coming from, not from radiation into space:

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/

Don\'t be silly. The warming comes from the sun. The warming effect we feel at the surface does change as the effective radiation altitude moves higher in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.
The effective radiation altitude does depend on the wavelength of the radiation being emitted, which is a complicating factor, but nothing elaborate.

The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.

Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

> What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?

Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/grid-scale-battery-storage-nickel-hydrogen

With gullible lunatics like Flyguy claiming that lithium ion batteries are too dangerous to use. one has to suspect that the guys behind this battery chemistry are spending a bit on propaganda.

The interesting bit in the article is the sentence.

\"Their use of expensive platinum catalysts kept them relegated to space applications until five years ago, when Stanford materials science and engineering professor and battery entrepreneur Yi Cui’s team found an inexpensive nickel-molybdenum-cobalt alloy catalyst for the battery that costs US $20 per kilogram.\"

Sounds pretty good, except that 60oC maximum operating temperature would require air conditioning in places like Arizona.

Wonder what he means exactly by 90% \'round trip\' efficiency....

Presumably you get back 90% of the energy you use to charge the battery. 85% is more typical.

Hmm- that\'s still pretty good, very good actually. It would put charging and delivery efficiency at 95% each.

Except that you can\'t separate them.

Where in the IR spectrum is all this industrial electronics waste heat, and will it be absorbed by CO2?
The earth is a black body radiator, and the waste heat will warm the planet at it\'s surface.

That eventually gets radiated out into space. Some of it is absorbed by CO2 on the way up, and re-radiated from the colder atmosphere up there on its way out into space.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=115

The re-radiation effect is quite complicated, but that\'s where most of warming is coming from, not from radiation into space:

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/re-radiation-of-heat/

Don\'t be silly. The warming comes from the sun. The warming effect we feel at the surface does change as the effective radiation altitude moves higher in the atmosphere, where the air is colder.
The effective radiation altitude does depend on the wavelength of the radiation being emitted, which is a complicating factor, but nothing elaborate.

The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount? It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat. Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.

What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?
Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too

That mineral stuff takes forever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount?

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

> It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.

Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations. The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

Condensed mater has a much broader absorbtion spectrum than atmospheric gases.

> Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.

You really do need to learn some physics. \"Heat\" is energy. Light interacting with matter does deposit energy in that matter, but optical photons are just another form of energy.

What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?
Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too.

That mineral stuff takes forever.

But if you enlarge the surface area by crushing it, a shorter period of \"forever\".

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=73520

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
snip
The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount?
The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat..
Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations. The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

So what is it about molecules that makes the excitation so much more energetic than that of the individual atoms alone?

Condensed mater has a much broader absorbtion spectrum than atmospheric gases.
Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.
You really do need to learn some physics. \"Heat\" is energy. Light interacting with matter does deposit energy in that matter, but optical photons are just another form of energy.
What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?
Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too.
That mineral stuff takes forever.
But if you enlarge the surface area by crushing it, a shorter period of \"forever\".

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=73520

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:48:27 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
snip
The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount?

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.
Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations. The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

So what is it about molecules that makes the excitation so much more energetic than that of the individual atoms alone?

Molecules are made up of atoms. Because the atoms are bonded, the bonds can stretch and compress and these vibrations store energy.

There\'s nothing peculiarly energetic about them - single atoms are confined to absorbing and storing energy by electronic excitations, which tend to be more energetic and correspondingly harder to excite and shorter lived.

Your problem seems to be that you don\'t have any kind of detailed grasp of what is going on, and persistently make bizarre and unhelpful distinctions.

Condensed mater has a much broader absorbtion spectrum than atmospheric gases.

Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.

You really do need to learn some physics. \"Heat\" is energy. Light interacting with matter does deposit energy in that matter, but optical photons are just another form of energy.

What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?

Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too.

That mineral stuff takes forever.

But if you enlarge the surface area by crushing it, a shorter period of \"forever\".

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=73520

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[ehsjr]

On 9/29/2023 10:30 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

<snip>

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.

Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations.

The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases,
mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

What do you actually mean? The statement is wrong. You have something
in mind different that what you said. Some kind of ellipsis at work here.

Ed

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:48:27 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
snip
The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount?

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.
Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations. The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

So what is it about molecules that makes the excitation so much more energetic than that of the individual atoms alone?
Molecules are made up of atoms. Because the atoms are bonded, the bonds can stretch and compress and these vibrations store energy.

There\'s nothing peculiarly energetic about them - single atoms are confined to absorbing and storing energy by electronic excitations, which tend to be more energetic and correspondingly harder to excite and shorter lived.

Your problem seems to be that you don\'t have any kind of detailed grasp of what is going on, and persistently make bizarre and unhelpful distinctions.

The subject matter is not that deep.

Condensed mater has a much broader absorbtion spectrum than atmospheric gases.

Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.

You really do need to learn some physics. \"Heat\" is energy. Light interacting with matter does deposit energy in that matter, but optical photons are just another form of energy.

What are some of the other mechanisms for dissipating atmospheric CO2 besides photosynthesis?

Weathering silicate rocks to carbonate. One entirely practical scheme to combat anthropogenic global warming involved digging up olivine, crushing it and spreading it on beaches, river-banks and fields where it would be damp enough to react with CO2.

In the oceans phytoplankton could do the job. Some micro-organisms grow carbonate shells which sink to the bottom of the ocean when they die.. Giving them the right trace nutrients to get more of them would help too.

That mineral stuff takes forever.

But if you enlarge the surface area by crushing it, a shorter period of \"forever\".

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=73520

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:36:53 AM UTC+10, ehsjr wrote:

On 9/29/2023 10:30 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

snip

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.

Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations.

The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

What do you actually mean? The statement is wrong.

The only single atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases. The nitrogen and oxygen atoms are present as diatomic molecules.

They don\'t get excited by visible sunlight either.

> You have something in mind different that what you said.

You seems to have something different in mind from what I said, and you need to spell it out.

> Some kind of ellipsis at work here.

ellipsis
/ɪˈlɪpsɪs/
noun
noun: ellipsis; plural noun: ellipses

the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.
\"it is very rare for an ellipsis to occur without a linguistic antecedent\"
a set of dots (…) indicating an ellipsis.


Fred Bloggs didn\'t seem to understand the difference between atoms and molecules which it comes to absorbing solar radiation. Isolated atoms can\'t do it on their own.

Molecules have vibrational and rotational modes that can be excited by visible light and the longer wavelength near-infra-red that convey the other half of the sun\'s output to us.

Condensed matter is essentially molecular, in that the atoms in it interact fairly strongly and have vibrational modes that can be excited by incident radiation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:54:34 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:16:38 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:48:27 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:53:03 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:45:57 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:18:48 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:49:43 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:20:12 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:18:11 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:29:08 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:50:34 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
snip
The warming is coming from the IR excited by sunlight, not the sunlight itself. It\'s the re-radiation effect that\'s responsible for insulating the Earth against radiating that IR into space.
Learn some physics. That\'s meaningless word salad.

Does broad spectrum sunlight have IR in significant amount?

The Sun is a black body radiator at about 5800K so it contains a lot of IR - about half the energy comes out at wavelengths longer than we can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

It\'s the excitation of atoms by visible sunlight that produces the heat.
Actually the excitation of molecular vibrations. The only atoms in the earth\'s atmosphere are the inert gases, mostly argon at 0.93% and none of them absorb in the visible.

So what is it about molecules that makes the excitation so much more energetic than that of the individual atoms alone?
Molecules are made up of atoms. Because the atoms are bonded, the bonds can stretch and compress and these vibrations store energy.

There\'s nothing peculiarly energetic about them - single atoms are confined to absorbing and storing energy by electronic excitations, which tend to be more energetic and correspondingly harder to excite and shorter lived..

Your problem seems to be that you don\'t have any kind of detailed grasp of what is going on, and persistently make bizarre and unhelpful distinctions.

The subject matter is not that deep.

But deep enough that you clearly haven\'t immersed yourself in it.

Condensed mater has a much broader absorbtion spectrum than atmospheric gases.

Looks like a light to heat conversion process to me.

You really do need to learn some physics. \"Heat\" is energy. Light interacting with matter does deposit energy in that matter, but optical photons are just another form of energy.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney