JMCB

Climate change as politics goes is nothing but another power and money grabbing scam.

As for real climate change well that's been going on since this planet manage to develop a climate some 3 - 4 billion years ago. Where I lived was once equivalent to a tropical forest and swamp and an inland sea and a dessert then it had a mile or two of ice on it a few times and now it's somewhere in between.

Now honestly if you added 2 degrees C to every single day of the year how exactly is that going to wipe out human kind? For me that would make the hottest days of the year where I live something like 106 F instead of 102 F which is well below the 130+F temps that millions of desert dwelling middle easterners live in now.

As for what I have seen of recent climate change in my region of the world well to be honest things have greatly improved over the last 30 years so I would kindly ask that you stop trying to prevent things from changing any more than you have.

I like where my climate and its effects are going, mild winters and warm enjoyable summers that last for more than 3 weeks, so leave it be!

As for your ultra high pressure tanks where exactly is the energy to fill them going to come from?

PV. I am terribly sorry to be the one to tell you but climate change is here and real and inescapable. You may care to have a look at NASA GISS L-OTI, Keeling and Climate4you. It is not the local temperature that matters - that fluctuates - but the general elevation above global lland-sea average above 14C. Last year was 0.16C [NOAA] warmer than 2014. Seems insignificant but 2.1C above 14C in Mongolia and there is now 20% desretification causing 65% migration. It is migration by those in the South fleeing starvation, by moving North, that will overwhem our civilisation - our infrastructure and capacity to cope.

Yes, in a warmer, greener, wetter world temperatures were higher but what has never been outside a 180 - 300 ppm band over millenia is carbon in the atmosphere - that is now above 400ppm and there is no mechanism to do anything abot it, so it goes on getting more and temperature rises.

Anything below 15 deg C is not worth mentioning since the Albedo of Earth is meant to be around that value.

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

Now if we are at about 14.16 Deg C we are in for a warming!

Also as far as I know in Mongolia people do not live in one spot all the time. They are used to the cold weather followed by heat. Go get there one day to see!

Last I spoke to my folks there was a cosy 3 degrees Celsius in an area where there is normally Spring by now. Do not worry!

This statement, "The intervention requires is to convert all the current global leet of ICSEs to something that is carbon free" (grammar and spelling mistakes left in place) entitles you to join the "Whacko of the Month" club.

Some distinguished members include kastrupsky and joe.fordham.

All potential inductees are screened using Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit prior to induction.

Having failed the test pitifully, you are immediately inducted by acclimation of all the committee members present.

Congratulations!

Aww.. You forgot DAS. He was an expert at ulta high pressure work remember?

10,000+ PSI using only plastic trash cans and garden hose!

Oh yes, DaS Energy I had to look him up.
This is priceless, "Hot gas from the short pipe now rises in the tall pipe untill it reaches the top pushing water down inside the tall pipe."

a 2.5C rise in temperature over the Arctic is not 'whako' - just terribly serious. Have a look at the NASA global climate model for January 2016 - it was also in the Washington Post, February 15 ( I think) - article by Mooney.

No, I have no argument with climate cycles. They have been happening since the beginning of time.

Air pollution in the form of hydrocarbons and other pollutants are also undeniable

I also disagree with tcmtech (the NDTB) that this is political. Look at the dawn of the Industrial (coal burning) Age and it is clear that CO2 is the direct result of this.

Your idea of how to cool the earth is whacko.

Serious in what way? It doesn't affect me for squat and who exactly lives there that gaining 5 degrees F every day of the year would be adversely affected that is not already on their way out?

The penguins and the polar bears? Do the penguins and the polar bears care whether or not us humans live? I think not.

BTW the Arctic is basically a dessert with snow. There's a reason humans never bothered with turning that continent into something useful to use. It's a crappy near barren desert without heat of a place to live and has been that way since way before we ever left Africa.

As far as I am concerned if the place warms up a good 30+ C year round it would just maybe be a tolerable place to live most of the time.

Now for the politics why exactly do they cry about some barren wasteland of a frozen desert that the vast majority of the average public can't name 10 honest and true facts about the place other than it's said to be melting and there are polar bears and penguins there and claim that it warming up is going to negatively affect us yet totally ignore all the presently inhabited places that have been seeing far greater gains from climate changes?Why is that exactly?

I want to know being that as of 20 10 5 years ago not one prediction about how the world as he know it being negatively affected has panned out.

The make the desolate uninhabited near devoid of resources and life frozen hell at the bottom of our planet to be a huge deal but every place that we live and work in now that's gotten better over the years is of no importance. Sorry but I live in one of those places where life is getting better every year and I do not want it being undone.

And BTW the places on earth were and still are inhabited that are seeing negative changes were largely crappy places the majority of the time us humans have been here to begin with. Sucks to be them and maybe they should move.

At least you're consistent.

Wrong, but consistent.

Wrong about what?

The overall weather/season to season climate here where I live has gotten better over the last 20+ years?

That the majority of climate change fuss has more questionable political agendas driving it than proven truth good or bad?

That if we raised the overall temperature of the whole planet by even as much as 10 degrees F for every single day of the year that we would still never see a day that was not within the already known and survival conditions we have now past or present?

You said, "The overall weather/season to season climate here where I live has gotten better over the last 20+ years".

The overall weather/season to season climate where you live may have gotten hotter over the last 20+ years, and that may suit your short sighted view, but it may just melt all that white desert and flood the coasts everywhere and sink a lot of islands.

Never mind.

And?

It's not like the polar ice caps haven't melted in the past?

Around 20,000 years ago(Well within the age of modern homosapien existance) the sea levels were something like 400 feet lower than they are now.

What's interesting is that for the first ~12,000 years of that ~20,000 the sea levels changed around 350 - 370 feet or roughly 3 feet per century until around 8000 years ago where it slowed down to the present ~1/2 inch per century that we are still seeing (and suddenly making a big stink about) today.

So yea I don't really have the slightest bit of concern for what may happen to the islands and coastal areas being whatever happens has happened before and somehow our ancestors manged to survive it just fine.

Now to throw some basic rational sense at this even at the rapid 3 feet per century rate it would take two lifetimes for the typical 5' 10" tall person to drowned if they were to stupid to not move from the beach assuming they never budged a foot and never died of old age,starvation or were carried away by the tides or any storms in that time period.

That's that whole part of the climate change debate that just pisses me off. It's like no one has any clue or acceptance that in the timelines involved, even at extremely rapid 3 feet per century rates of rise, that people are not going to pick up their feet and walk away from danger and that zero civil construction/adaptation will take place that adjust to the changes in the environment as they come.

Finally, we agree on something.

Even centuries are meaningless to Mother Earth.

That's just it. The realistic time scales of noticeable change are still measured in centuries not months or years as some want us to react as.

On top of that as I have always pushed in this topic not 100% of everywhere becomes an uninhabitable wasteland and is rammed down our throats by the media and politicians.

For every area that becomes less favorable a formerly unfavorable area can change into a highly favorable one to which those people who have half a brain and a will to survive and flourish will settle into.

Basic recorded history and archaeological facts easily show that is a standard rule of long term human existence not an anomaly. How many great civilizations of the last 4000 years or less have went belly up simply because some aspect of their once favorable locations changed and how many were due to climate shifts alone?

Yea a bunch and on every continent and major island too!

Just a note Penguins and Arctic do not go well together! A polar bear will eat near nada penguins in his live time.

Exactly my point. The majority of people who are all wound up about climate change don't know jack shyt about the real goings on and whats what and where of the vast majority of it yet they scream that something has to be done now.

BTW how long did it take anyone to catch that and call me out on that little point and I laid it on pretty thick!

Seriously Lynn? Ya dropped the ball on that one and I damn near handed it to you with both hands.

Oh yea But al gore said so and he even showed pictures at one time of polar bears and penguins so it has to be true!

Personally I like to think I know about twice as much about climate change as the average person which by the numbers puts me at knowing maybe 2% of what's what.

Million PSI something something something climate change avoided blah blah blah. There now I'm not off topic on this post either..

I'm still trying to figure out what a Nada Penguin is?

Its the Arctic version of Penguins! Don't ya know?

Lets say it Not Anywhere Dangling Around!

Why do you think we are phasing in electric vehicles?

Unfortunately nothing we are doing at the moment is relevant since none address the problem, which is the current global fleet of c1 bn ICEs creating 51% of man made carbon - coal and gas 40%.

The other problem is that (look at Keeling Curve) the carbon footprint of making hydogen, electric, hybrid et al venicles, the making of the electricity or hydrogen, the distribution, maintenance and replacement, all of which has used up $5.3 Tr in subsidies, hasn't helped. They haven't had the slightest effect on carbon production which las year was a record 35.6 bn tons added to what we have already put in the air.

Kyoto (adopted by Paris) was responsible for a great many red herrings not least that we can keep the warming down to 2C by cutting carbon. In fact if we cut carbon 100% tomorrow the climate still warms, if only because 7.4 bn of us are breathing it out!

We have to cut carbon 100% and recover at least 100ppm to return the system to what nature can handle. If we don't intervene we are toast!

Nature will not be able to handle our efforts to counteract system changes that we have not even started to understand.

Lets paint the surface of Earth white for a better albedo effect!

We are toast because we have been listening to the crap for too long!

No - there you are wrong, as the merest research will show you. Nature can re-cycle up at about 280ppm carbon annually but, today, that is 130 ppm less than the current count at 408 ppm.The effect of that progressive failure is global warming, which is now well outside the +/= 0.5C fluctuation from 14 C, which was taken to be healthy planet mean global temperature. You may care to checkout what is happening. If you visit L-OTI you will see the NASA models and a host of information which includesthe 'anomaly' = the departure from Mean Feb 2012 global warming was un-exceptionally at +0.50C Feb 2013 +0.48C Feb 2014 +0.55C Feb 2015 +0.86C Feb 2016 +1.34C If the 2016 Feb rise is repeated ( without acceleration ) February 2017 will, a 1.82C pass through 1.5C which the IPCC - Paris COP - hoped to avoid, but in unavoidable then not before 2050. If there is a further repetition in trend (without acceleration) than 2017 Feb could well herald 2.3C Something Paris didn't consider to be possible in their wildest dreams. Even the most cautious at Kyoto and Paris considered that to a dangerous 'dangerous global anomaly'.People suffering droubt and Starvation will their plight will make them irresistible - or our civilisation dies. An engine able to replace the Internal combustion engine may help. All that remains to be considered ids a fuel tank ( not flammable) but to operate to 3,000 bar. What I am seeking is what materials and by way of fabrication can such a tank be mede without being very heavy. This is a serious question and all help much appreciated. And no this is not a DIY project Not off topic since containing nitrogen as a SCF has yet to be done outside an autoclave.

Even if you could manufacture a cylinder to those specifications what would you pump it up with?

Bazzer

hyper-compression is nothing new. Ethylene is compressed to 50,000psi et al.

Yeah but how much energy does that take.....15,000 hp.... 12 MW What does a machine like this cost, and how much would it cost to operate? What would the capacity of the tank be, and how much would it weigh?

Let's look at electrical use figures available for just compressed air...at low pressure

"Example One:

What is the annual electricity cost to operate a fully loaded 200 hp compressor that runs 40% of the time (3,500 hrs/yr)? Motor efficiency is assumed to be 85%, so the compressor is drawing approximately 175 kW. Electricity cost is $0.08/kWh. If the monthly demand charge is $10/kW, then the customer will be charged $1,750 each month in addition to the kWh usage cost (51,040 kWh with the above assumptions). For this situation, the average cost of electricity including the kWh use and demand charge is approximately $0.114/kWh.

Annual Electricity Cost = [hp x 0.746 x Hrs x Electricity Cost] / Motor Efficiency

Annual Electricity Cost = [200 hp x 0.746 kW/hp x 3,500 hrs x $0.114/kWh] / 0.85

Annual Electricity Cost = $70,036

http://www.scegbusiness.com/Article.aspx?userID=351124&articleID=226

75 bar = 1102 psi, not 110,000 psi. Perhaps you meant 7500 bar.

I gather that not much is known about LN2 above the triple point where the distinction between liquid and gas disappears.

Here is what I found:

http://dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/690183.pdf

This appears to be a very dangerous undertaking. Please don't do it close to where I live.

Yes of course - typo - sorry (mild dyslexia is my excuse!). Yes I think that is it under its civilian cover. Amazing stuff. No no-one in the World knows anything about it. But now that a PVM has been invented as a balancing flow valve it will enable its use in aerosol etc. Pat. . US 8556133. SCF nitrogen is a whole new world to explore - if we survive climate change - nothing of which today addresses. Thanks. All help gratefully received. Of course I will not be trying to do this myself!The PVM with liquid CO2 is as far as I went - proving the concept. Works as specified.

Hey! I've also got mild dyslexia, I made a deal with the devil and sold my soul to santa.

Bazzer

Actually making a small cylinder that could withstand 1,000,000 PSI is not that complicated. It's just going to be really heavy.

If it was me I would start with a solid 12" dia high strength steel shaft, something from the Hardox line that is in the 200,000+ PSI tensile strength range, and bore a 4" hole down the center to suit your volume you need.

As for the rest read up on what a Bomb Calorimeter is and follow their design but make everything 10 times heavier.

You have it in one. If one is trying to contain a small quantity then theoretically and from such stuff as hyper-compression data and the US Army pressure vessel data one can deal with it simply by SS. Though its long term integrity is suspect - but gun barrel stuff would be fine (peak pressure c 75,000psi [5,000bar)) Any help would be appreciated.

What?

Don't even think about it.

Especially don't listen to the North Dakota Tire Burner who regularly cheats death with his homemade time bombs.

In order to obtain the volumes of Nitrogen you would need would first require that you be very, very rich. Indeed, you'd need to be rich enough to hire several researchers, designers and a machine shop to take on this task in any meaningful volume.

Alternately, make the best use of your very limited time left on this polluted planet before Yellowstone, climate change, air pollution or a drunk driver ends your miserable existence.

I have recently purchased some property a few miles from the ocean that I will pass down to my heirs, confident that in a few short years it will become valuable ocean front property.

Yes - it requires State funding. Or maybe 'Breakthrough' - problem is that poeple want what disturbes the status quo as much as a hole in the head - only when the conventional wisdom accepts there is a problem may any new (really) disruptive technology get funded.

Again,

You are naive, at best.

You say, "problem is that poeple want what disturbes the status quo.............".

The real problem is that "people" do not control their own destiny.

The "state" (USA) is controlled by 535 lifetime freeloaders. Politicians whose ONLY concern is amassing enough bribe money to buy their next election onto the gravy train.

Where else can you pretend to work 1/3 of a year and make $200,000.00 legally?

So how realistic is it to believe that there is any chance of everybody switching to nitrogen driven vehicles in the next few years? Nitrogen vehicles that don't even exist, using infrastructure that doesn't exist, using methods that don't even exist...? No... the only feasible answer is Electric vehicles produced and fueled by sustainable energy from nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrothermal and others...In the end it all comes down to the main source of energy being used, efficiency of conversion, and recyclability of materials used...that all rests with the adaptability of the methods used to attain the goal in question, which firmly depends on the steps being profitable at each level....You cannot get from here to there without a firmly defined set of steps, each profitable and readily adaptable in the present environment...

I see your psi vs bar is a little offset, check what exactly pressure you're taking about.

You bury it underground deep enough. Enough rock can contain a nuclear explosion.

What exactly are you trying to design or build? Your questions on CR4 seem to be about the same thing but I couldn't find a clear explanation on exactly what you are trying to do.

It sounds like you want to build a compressed nitrogen engine fuel tank for a vehicle? If so why, as compressed air vehicles are hopelessly inefficient and nitrogen vehicles suffer from the same problem (and more, one big one being pumping and containment safety) - actually producing enough of the gas necessary in the first place in a more energy and environmentally efficient manor than existing technologies.

What have you got so far and what makes you think this will be a viable replacement for the existing ICE running petrol or even compressed natural gas, or electric battery storage-powered engines?

If one were to use LN2 at ambient T one is not trying to improve on the 1903 cold cryogenic expansion method of powering an engine, recently proved - again - not to be powerful enough to be useful. Of course LN2 would be an scf, but the physics of a perfect gas doesn't suggest anything particularly strange and the loss of the meniscus in CO2 was just that. So the question is to find the right materials and fabrication for a tank (could be a tubular frame acting as a vehicle chassis) for the high pressure involved. Otherwise such 'air engines' aren't in any way new.,

Fastening onto one possible technology is not the way forward. The key design criteria are [power per unit weight moved] and [energy stored per unit weight moved]. These things dictate the technology to be employed, for it is no good if tone stores a lot of energy if it adds to the vehicle weight to the point where it is uneconomic to run.

• In the scale of things, the sodium-sulphur battery [NaS] driving electric motors seems an attractive technology. However, whereas with an internal combustion engine one simply starts it and moves off, a NaS power unit needs to rise above 300degC before it can operate. User acceptance and planning ahead are the main obstacles to be overcome, as with other battery storage systems.

You are, of course, right - in conventional terms - but maybe one can forget the criteria if one's initial power is solar and ones means of storage is nitrogen. Nitrogen as liquid (sfc) at ambient temperature is at 43,000 psi (2905 bar). A litre of that will constitute quite a lot of energy - more than enough to move the weight of a vehicle quite as powerfully as any fossil fuel impulse - about 700psi in an average 4 stroke ICE. But the problem is, I think, how to make a fuel tank and from what materials. I would hasten to add I have no intention of doing it myself. But when, eventually, the penny drops and people begin to realise the reality of climate warming and its affect on humanity - in absence of intervention - I think a time will come when the priority will be to try and avoid our species extinction, even if it does mean the avoidance of the immense interest invested in fossil fuels. 'Til then we must just hope that God has heard Bill Gates and is about to work a miracle - yet having given us free will I am not holding my breath for it, we, after all, are the author's of this misfortune!