Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Otis said:

I'm sure things will move on but let's not pretend that gas won't be the primary source of heating for several decades. 

And at the same time pretend that the incidents of crop pressure in the UK and elsewhere due to increased drought and flooding aren't happening and won't get worse, clearly. 

[Otis]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And at the same time pretend that the incidents of crop pressure in the UK and elsewhere due to increased drought and flooding aren't happening and won't get worse, clearly. 

*sigh...

I'm not denying that. 

In the meantime, we still need gas. And whether we import it or drill for it in are own land/sea, we'll still use the same amount. 

One day we'll have to move away from gas, no one really knows when that will be or what the replacement will look like.

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Otis said:

*sigh...

I'm not denying that. 

In the meantime, we still need gas. And whether we import it or drill for it in are own land/sea, we'll still use the same amount. 

One day we'll have to move away from gas, no one really knows when that will be or what the replacement will look like.

 

Fair enough, then I cannot understand the advocacy for a path forward that will make that problem far worse than the theoratical idea of having no gas at all immediately (which is equally daft). I guess the argument is that there is no other choice, which is true at the present time and is why the change has to be phased - but not over several decades, we simply don't have that kind of time. 

 

The quicker it is moved away from (or even some miracle tech that nullifies the emissions it produces), the more damage is mitigated. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Whatever happened to hydrogen cells?

 

Abundant and cheap. Ok, so it's a little volatile, but so is gas, petrol, etc.

[Zear0]

9 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Whatever happened to hydrogen cells?

 

Abundant and cheap. Ok, so it's a little volatile, but so is gas, petrol, etc.

It's not really either of those things. I mean technically it's the most abundant element in the universe, but it's not a natural resource to be extracted. Due to it's tiny mass, it's an absolute pig to store as it just leaks out of things. It's also manufactured mainly through electrolysis and therefore from a cogenerative second law perspective, cut out the middle man and use use the electrolysis energy directly as that's far more efficient.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

It's not really either of those things. I mean technically it's the most abundant element in the universe, but it's not a natural resource to be extracted. Due to it's tiny mass, it's an absolute pig to store as it just leaks out of things. It's also manufactured mainly through electrolysis and therefore from a cogenerative second law perspective, cut out the middle man and use use the electrolysis energy directly as that's far more efficient.

So kinda like why alcohol free beers are so expensive, because the process involves making actual alcohol and then removing it.

 

I always wondered why until I found this out.

[reporterpenguin]

This probably belongs somewhere between here and the general news thread.

 

This is a hilariously combative interview done by Emily Maitlis and Nick Clegg. IMO she's quite disingenuous in her interpretation of a lot of what he says, and he's extremely defensive and touchy about being questioned. That said, it's very interesting hearing the views of someone who has been at the heart of social media and has been critical of it.

 

[reporterpenguin]

On 01/09/2025 at 12:46, Zear0 said:

It's not really either of those things. I mean technically it's the most abundant element in the universe, but it's not a natural resource to be extracted. Due to it's tiny mass, it's an absolute pig to store as it just leaks out of things. It's also manufactured mainly through electrolysis and therefore from a cogenerative second law perspective, cut out the middle man and use use the electrolysis energy directly as that's far more efficient.

I was always puzzled by the hype there was around hydrogen. For the reasons you state it seems very unlikely that the challenges of handling and storing it can be overcome economically, let alone the intrinsic inefficiencies of isolating it in the first place. The poor volumetric energy density would also be an issue, and it's not really like batteries where you can make them any shape you want to fit in the car. It always seemed like a non-starter, and I never really heard any convincing argument for its adoption.

 

I'm no chemist but if it were to ever take off I'd image it'd have to be stored as a compound with something else and then liberated with a catalyst of some sort. That then comes with the issue of what to do with the waste of whatever it was stored with, and how to refuel. I remember you being in some sort of scientific field @Zear0 but can't remember what, does any of the idea above make any sense to you?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8383r6d2po

 

Nine former leaders of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have spoken out against Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, publishing an open letter that criticises his policies - including restricting vaccines, pulling funding for research, and firing thousands of healthcare workers.

They also wrote in an open letter that last week's removal of Dr Susan Monarez as CDC director - which was followed by a string of resignations in protest - added fuel to a "raging fire". 

 

Here's a hint; viruses don't tend to care about your politics, Mr Kennedy. They will kill and maim all the same, and it will be your responsibility that they have done so when they could have been prevented. 

[Zear0]

13 hours ago, reporterpenguin said:

I was always puzzled by the hype there was around hydrogen. For the reasons you state it seems very unlikely that the challenges of handling and storing it can be overcome economically, let alone the intrinsic inefficiencies of isolating it in the first place. The poor volumetric energy density would also be an issue, and it's not really like batteries where you can make them any shape you want to fit in the car. It always seemed like a non-starter, and I never really heard any convincing argument for its adoption.

 

I'm no chemist but if it were to ever take off I'd image it'd have to be stored as a compound with something else and then liberated with a catalyst of some sort. That then comes with the issue of what to do with the waste of whatever it was stored with, and how to refuel. I remember you being in some sort of scientific field @Zear0 but can't remember what, does any of the idea above make any sense to you?

You could store water and do the electrolysis at a refuel station to prevent leaks or mitigate hazards.  Same problem though, why bother putting the electricity to make Hydrogen, when you could just put the energy into the vehicle?  You can do it for less energy if it's under massive pressure, but then you're causing different hazards and practical issues like storage of the Potassium Hydroxides at pressure (stay away from that if it goes pop).  There are non electrolysis methods, but this generally involves breaking down hydrocarbons which again leads to the question as to why you wouldn't just use the fuel directly?

 

My company did some work few years ago with an energy utility in using low demand energy periods to use high (coal/gas) and low (nuclear) quality power generation to create hydrogen on site when the energy costs are lower.  This comes back to my original post on cogeneration (2nd order thermodynamic efficiency) to massively reduce the cost of producing it at the system levels.  The sums ended with it being essentially cost neutral so it wasn't progressed.  It also produced a headache where the license conditions for these sites forbid the generation and storage of hydrogen within the site boundaries, so it would have had to be located off site, under the regulation of the environment agency (different to the power stations) and would have been a nightmare.

 

There's a clip I always see on social media of Joe Rogan talking about electrolysis to make drinking water.  Neil deGrasse Tyson just keeps pointing out it's just a question of energy cost and is similar to the above.  For most of the cases where the energy isn't doing the direct work, it's rarely worth it.  If you can power it with renewables, the sums so start to work and that's what a lot of the "green hydrogen" focuses companies are looking at.  But I still wouldn't expect it to power cars, probably ever, only really makes sense for powering big infrastructure facilities.  I think battery technology has become more rapid and capable than we thought when hydrogen fuel cells were lauded as the future.  

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwyvyqkx9yo

 

One of the most famous polar shipwrecks has been filmed in detail on the sea floor for the first time.

The Terra Nova carried Captain Scott and his men on their doomed expedition to reach the South Pole more than a century ago.

The British party lost the race to the pole, and died on their return journey in 1912.

The footage shows the Terra Nova colonised with sea life, but key features of the wooden ship are still visible including its wheel, winch and mast.

 

Interesting piece. 

 

The more you look at what happened though, Scott really didn't stand a chance. Amundsen was better prepared, better equipped and a better leader. 

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwyvyqkx9yo

 

One of the most famous polar shipwrecks has been filmed in detail on the sea floor for the first time.

The Terra Nova carried Captain Scott and his men on their doomed expedition to reach the South Pole more than a century ago.

The British party lost the race to the pole, and died on their return journey in 1912.

The footage shows the Terra Nova colonised with sea life, but key features of the wooden ship are still visible including its wheel, winch and mast.

 

Interesting piece. 

 

The more you look at what happened though, Scott really didn't stand a chance. Amundsen was better prepared, better equipped and a better leader. 

 

[whoareyaaa]

This asteroid/meotrite is pretty crazy travelling at 130,000mph fastest ever recorded and is only the third interstellar object ever seen

 

also nasa are making an announcement about a discovery on mars today.

 

 

 

 

[The Bear]

28 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

This asteroid/meotrite is pretty crazy travelling at 130,000mph fastest ever recorded and is only the third interstellar object ever seen

It's an interstellar comet. 

[whoareyaaa]

Something about a Sapphire Canyon rock sample from Perseverance, which contains organic carbon and intriguing spots potentially linked to ancient life. Details confirmed via NASA's site.

 

on the image, the rock shows light-colored, textured surfaces with dark spots resembling "leopard spots" – features NASA links to possible ancient microbial activity. Their analysis indicates iron phosphate, iron sulfide, and organic carbon, but confirmation requires Earth labs. It's intriguing but not definitive proof of life.

Edited 10 September 2025 by whoareyaaa

[CheeseHead]

4 hours ago, The Bear said:

It's an interstellar comet. 

Not absolutely sure but I would say that a comet is bound to one stellar system, so it can’t be a comet and interstellar!

[The Bear]

9 minutes ago, CheeseHead said:

Not absolutely sure but I would say that a comet is bound to one stellar system, so it can’t be a comet and interstellar!

Anything can be thrown out of their own solar system with the right gravitational assist, just as asteroids and even planets can. 

 

It's definitely a comet. It's a ball of ice, dust and gas. It can't be anything else. The previous one Oumuamua was a strange shaped asteroid. 

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, The Bear said:

Anything can be thrown out of their own solar system with the right gravitational assist, just as asteroids and even planets can. 

OK, I am thinking we get Putin, Trump, Musk and Farage in a shipping container and go for it!

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd725pj0g9ro

 

Unusual rocks discovered on Mars contain the most tantalising evidence yet of potential past life on the Red Planet.

The mudstones, found in a dusty riverbed by Nasa's Perseverance Rover, are dotted with intriguing markings nicknamed leopard spots and poppy seeds.

Scientists believe these features contain minerals produced by chemical reactions that could be associated with ancient Martian microbes.

It's possible the minerals were produced by natural geological processes, but at a press conference Nasa said the features could be the clearest signs of life ever found.

 

It's been long held that there was ancient life in Mars while there was liquid water there. It's good to have more and more evidence pointing in that direction.

[The Bear]

Wrong fred 

Edited 15 September 2025 by The Bear

[Trav Le Bleu]

Another victory for industry!

 

City to Sea announces closure after 10 years of campaigning - BBC News

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2d3j41redo.amp

[The Bear]

This is a good watch. Concisely explains, with lots of figures, how streaming services shot themselves in the foot and pushed everyone to piracy. 

 

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, The Bear said:

This is a good watch. Concisely explains, with lots of figures, how streaming services shot themselves in the foot and pushed everyone to piracy. 

 

 

 

Enshitification

[blabyboy]

On 15/09/2025 at 07:35, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd725pj0g9ro

 

Unusual rocks discovered on Mars contain the most tantalising evidence yet of potential past life on the Red Planet.

The mudstones, found in a dusty riverbed by Nasa's Perseverance Rover, are dotted with intriguing markings nicknamed leopard spots and poppy seeds.

Scientists believe these features contain minerals produced by chemical reactions that could be associated with ancient Martian microbes.

It's possible the minerals were produced by natural geological processes, but at a press conference Nasa said the features could be the clearest signs of life ever found.

 

It's been long held that there was ancient life in Mars while there was liquid water there. It's good to have more and more evidence pointing in that direction.

Problem is that there is still no confirmed (paid for) mission to get the samples back for further testing. The Chinese are currently the most viable to do this in the 2030's.

 

Can't help thinking we missed an opportunity to be a bit braver in '76 and then we'd be much further along this route.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

Problem is that there is still no confirmed (paid for) mission to get the samples back for further testing. The Chinese are currently the most viable to do this in the 2030's.

 

Can't help thinking we missed an opportunity to be a bit braver in '76 and then we'd be much further along this route.

Absolutely. We missed several opportunities and multiple decades, in fact. 

 

Too much time grubbing in the mud over incredibly pretty human ideas.