“Electrification” is apparently a problem . . . for some very rich people.
Being rich, they dislike inconveniences, such as being tethered to a cord and enduring endless waits. Such things, as Leona Helmsley once put it, are “for the little people.”
Those who aren’t “little” will soon be able to buy Unleaded Cristal for their combustion-engined supercars – at about $20 per gallon, it is estimated. This would make it a bargain – relative to the Cristal, which goes for about $300 per bottle. But even if the unleaded variety did cost the same – or more – it would not hobble the people who can afford a new Ferrari or Porsche. Spending even $1,000 to fill the tank is peanuts for the person who can afford to spend $250,000-plus on the car.
But what is Unleaded Cristal?
It is a variety of “carbon neutral” gasoline extracted from the air via the Fischer-Tropsch Process, something that sounds like a sinister plot element from Phillip Dick’s alternate reality novel, The Man in the High Castle – in which the Germans (and the Japanese) won the war.
It is very elaborate, very energy-intensive process that involves first leaching out, then cooking and concentrating carbon dioxide molecules from what’s blowin’ in the wind. These carbon molecules are then combined in just the right order with hydrogen molecules separated from water via electrolysis to produce – voila! – the same hydrocarbon chains that constitute gasoline (and diesel).
Just a lot more expensively.
Oil is cheap because there is a lot of it – a fact now conceded by those who said, for more than 50 years, that the wells were about to run dry and thus it was urgently necessary to stop using oil before we ran out of it. The argument’s validity rested on whether it was in fact the case that we were about to run out. If so, it not only made sense, it was essential to find an alternative to oil – because there was no other alternative.
That is what they wanted people to believe, at any rate. But sabots were tossed in the wheels of the proverbial machinery and it became impossible to deny that not only weren’t the wells running dry, some were filling back up (if interested in this line of inquiry, search abiotic hydrocarbons). Under Trump – whatever his many flaws – the oil industry kept finding more oil.
There was almost a glut of it, in fact.
This happened because they were allowed to look for it.
Only three years ago, the United States was on the cusp of becoming a net exporter of the stuff and had enough of it, right here, to amply provide cheap energy for . . . the little people.
Huge problem, for the not-little.
So, they did two things. They ramped up derangement over the “climate crisis,” hectoring the population with Doom Scenarios that would come to pass any day now if they didn’t accept the necessity of giving up the cheap oil – and so, energy – that allowed the little people to live very much in the manner of their “betters,” just on a less extravagant scale. Leonardo DiCaprio may have a garage full of Porsches and Ferraris, but Joe Sixpack has a Mustang GT. Leo lives in a 10,000 square foot house, but Joe’s 2,200 square foot house is nice, too.
They then brilliantly succeeded in getting first the bureaucracy and then the media – and then the useful idiots – to use the word “emissions” in reference to a combustion byproduct that was never previously characterized as a pollutant.
Because, of course it (C02) isn’t.
Carbon dioxide is a non-reactive trace atmospheric gas. The italics part is important because the attribute that makes a combustion byproduct a pollutant is precisely that is reactive.
This is how smog forms.
Well, it did – when there were still significant emissions of reactive compounds coming out of the exhaust pipes of cars – but that hasn’t been an issue as regards new cars since about 30 years ago.
Since it no longer is – and it is no longer possible to get people to buy the bologna that the wells are running dry – a new lie had to be found to justify capping them. If we don’t, they say (observe the way they always presume to speak for we) then the “climate” will “change” . . . somehow. In a very alarming but nonspecific way.
Eventually, Wait and see!
Meanwhile, the time to act – i.e., for us to down the hairshirt of our own enserfment – is now.
It is argued by some that the pending availability of “carbon neutral” fuels (supposedly, on the acceptance of the idea that the “carbon” extracted from the air negates the “carbon” subsequently released, by burning it, into the air) is the “market” coming to the rescue of the gas-engined car.
This is certainly true in that a way has been found – for those who can afford it – to avoid “electrification.”
That latter is key to understanding.
If you can afford to have armed security patrolling your place, you are unaffected by laws debarring the average dope from possessing a firearm for his own self-defense. If you can afford to charter – or buy – your own jet, then you are unworried by the grope-a-dope that goes on at the commercial aviation cattle gates.
And if you can afford a quarter-million-dollar Porsche or Ferrari, then you can drive by the “little people” hooked up to their “fast” chargers on your way to the Lion D’Ore.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
Trees do the first half of this process all the time, making the burning of wood perfectly carbon neutral. All hail the steam engine?
Petroleum is a wholly natural fuel, naturally occurring in the Earth, renewable and recycles via long time window geological processes.
There zero evidence that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. If it did you wouldn’t find it 50,000 feet under solid basalt or 30,000 ft under the sea.
We’ve been running out of oil in 10 years for at least 120 years. Known reserves are STILL increasing.
No one can explain where all this oil we have used so far and still know the location of, came from! Its ridiculous on its face.
Yeah this e-fuel nonsense is just another nonsensical thing like the EVs to make motoring unaffordable for the plebes.
Future historians will write up this time period as The Stupid Era.
>Future historians will write up this time period as The Stupid Era.
I believe you have got that right, Alex.
That is, if there *are* any future historians.
Hope springs eternal.
I think most people understand that oil is not in fact running out. What many might not be aware of is that the energy cost of extracting it is getting higher all the time and has been for more than a century, with no indications that is about to change.
Visit https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ for an overview of the issues involved. It’s evident that prosperity for the average person has been dropping for some time now, and the ever-increasing costs of extraction may be a big part of the reason.
“It’s evident that prosperity for the average person has been dropping for some time now”
And the cause is the Fed and the US government, as they suck all the prosperity they can out of the publics hands. In fact, “the ever increasing costs of extraction” can largely be blamed on that government extraction of prosperity in their ever increasing regulation and prohibition of effective extraction processes.
Curious how Russia appears to have no such extreme extraction costs, as it sells oil at $60 a barrel.
Things are actually a little more complex than they appear, as always. One way to think about it is that the extraction costs of large legacy reserves have not increased nearly as much relative to the extraction costs of newer fossil fuel reserves.
Gail Tverburg also has some interesting ideas as to where the future is headed, including the apparently contradictory notion that higher extraction costs might lead to lower prices.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/
One thing is for sure, the ‘science’ of energy economics is most definitely not settled.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Twenty-odd years ago, I worked on a lot of oil exploration technology. It’s not made from compressed dinosaurs or anything, but most modern oil deposits come from the ooze of algae and dinoflagellates from ancient oceans. As microscopic life died, it made an ooze on the bottom of the ocean. Decomposers had not yet evolved, so this become trapped between layers of rock and plate tectonics mixed it all up over the last 300 million years. This isn’t to say some oil can’t be geologic in origin, but in modern oil extraction, you do all kinds of radar and soundings to find likely places oil might be, you drill out cores and analyze them under microscopes, and if you see evidence of dinoflagellates (whose skeletons survive and fossilize), you know you are in the vicinity of an ancient sea bed, and likely, oil. Whether or not you accept this, this is how the oil that powers your world has been found.
It’s amazing what happened in the carboniferous period – life trapped enormous amounts of CO2 with the help of photosynthesis and sunshine. Ancient forests became coal, ancient sea sludge became oil. This thing about oil being dinosaurs is a caricature, as they had nowhere near enough biomass compared to forests and ocean microorganisms.
Known reserves are increasing because, barring liberal idiocy, we have much better ground penetrating radar and sonar and fracking has enabled us to extract what were previously untappable reserves. The Bakken oil field in the northern US / souhern Canada has more oil than the middle east ever had, it’s just really difficult to extract and not very cost effective.
Also, you are wrong about it self renewing. As I said above, decomposers had not yet evolved. Today, there is no ocean sea sludge because various microorganisms digest it and turn it back into CO2. When trees fall in the woods, bugs and mushrooms and bacteria eat the wood. When coal formed, nothing in nature could break down cellulose and nothing in the ocean could process the sludge before geologic activity covered it up. Imagine a world where “rotting” didn’t exist – and that’s what was the case back then. The atmosphere also had 4x the CO2 as it does today, so the amount of life that was possible was much larger, as life is CO2 limited.
I’m no expert here on the formation of the stuff, but I did find the stuff by following the trail microorganism fossils. What I mention above is Geology 101. I can see how it would continue to regenerate as the subduction faults take organic matter underground, but the process of massive amount of life being turned into oil and coal, no longer happens.
That must be why Russia drilling well below the fossil layer and finding abundant oil was a state secret for some time.
Even the IEEE admits EVs suck:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2658797726
Battery power:
The Harrison Bergeron of automotive technology, IMO.
From the IEEE article:
‘Automakers seem to view EVs as razors through which they can sell software as the razor blades. Monetizing vehicle data and subscriptions could generate $1.5 trillion by 2030, according to McKinsey.
‘VW thinks that it will generate “triple-digit-millions” in future sales through selling customized subscription services, like offering autonomous driving on a pay-per-use basis. It envisions customers would be willing to pay 7 euros per hour for the capability. Ford believes it will earn $20 billion, Stellantis some $22.5 billion and GM $20 to $25 billion from paid software-enabled vehicle features by 2030.’
“Autonomous driving on a pay-per-use basis” may be the stupidest idea in all of human history. Hope this harebrained experiment doesn’t take place near me.
Reading the litany of issues cited in the IEEE article, a visitor from Mars would be perplexed: why even bother with the endless headaches associated with EeeVees?
Unfortunately, as the teaser at the bottom of the article makes clear, now the IEEE is about ‘compliance’ rather than engineering:
In the next articles of this series, we’ll explore the changes that may be necessary to personal lifestyles to achieve 2050 climate goals.
As acoustic engineers are wont to say, “Fuck that noise.”
A few things here, and sorry for the lengthy post…
Firstly, I love the idea of using CO2 from the atmosphere, H2 from water and sunlight to produce fuel. Energy efficient, it is not. That said, if one set up their own such “e-fuel” plant and just had to feed it air, water and sunlight, perhaps it would eventually pay for itself. Such a mini fuel plant would just need sufficient land and investment capital…
To reiterate myself blue, however, I do believe a cost competitive alternative to extracting and refining oil is to use biomass as the initial feedstock in the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Biomass is available in nearly unlimited quantities, all over. As I type this, there are huge piles of pine wood and wood debris in the nearby forest. The forest “service” leaves these behind as part of their efforts to service the forest. After a few months, they are primed to become magnificent pyres if given ignition. Also, firefighters can often be found doing “prescribed burns” in order to reduce the possibility of a conflagration.
All wasted fuel. And this is just the natural growth!
A purposeful production of biomass could be pursued and be converted to hydrocarbon fuels. Brazil, for example, takes a different approach than the US to the production of ethanol. They grow, process and ferment sugarcane, which they can do easily because of their climate. These days, they use as much ethanol for fuel as they do gasoline. Their ethanol production doesn’t require subsidies, and they don’t diminish food production by their sugarcane cultivation.
In a similar way, there are many candidates for biomass to be cultivated and converted into gasoline and diesel. In Phoenix, I was astounded by the way mesquite grew. It would self-propagate everywhere, requiring me to periodically exterminate the saplings. And it grew like mad, as in several feet in a few months!
Ideally, you’d cultivate a fuel crop somewhere with decent precipitation, and send it to a nearby location with ample sunshine. I think some areas of Central America (where there is no winter) would be perfect. This would also give the local population abundant employment opportunities. But, the US would produce a considerable share as well.
Sunlight could be used for all the necessary energy to dry and distill the fuel to create charcoal and a number of useful byproducts, such as turpentine. The charcoal can be combined with water vapor an solar heat to produce water-gas, which feeds the Fisher Tropsch process. Alternatively, methane can be produced from the biomass be used to produce syngas. Both are mixtures of H2 and CO. Also, the biomass itself can be burned to produce heat for the process (still carbon neutral!).
I think that moving forward, this approach can definitely be cost competitive with extracted oil. An enterprising entrepreneur needs only to be clever with the engineering, and try not to be too greedy. This is because that, yes, there is likely plenty more oil in the Earth’s crust, but it is getting harder to obtain.
I consider it a possibility that oil may be abiotic in origin. Saturn’s moon Titan has actual OCEANS of methane and ethane, for example. But, now or later, drilling will need to be deeper and will be more difficult. Look at the Canadian oil sands. That’s being done, as difficult and inefficient as it is. Part of that has to do with government, doubtless, but the days of oil exploding from the ground are likely over.
Regardless of the naysayers, I’ll be moving forward with experimentation. One draw is simply the ability to produce gasoline and diesel in a decentralized way, even though I don’t have an oil pocket on my land. There will be glory.
Biodiesel is actually a great fuel, with a few drawbacks. But unfortunately your premise is flawed, in the real world there are no free lunches and no waste products.
That biomass is fertilizer, and all the corn grown for ethanol is depleting those vital nutrients from the soil.
On the other hand, small scale solutions for individuals work for individual cases. Solar and wind work great for remote installations with minimal power needs. I used to run my diesels on free fryer oil, until yuppie morons started buying it to try to make commercial diesel.
Hey Ernie,
I’m going to try extracting oil from sunflowers to use in powering my backhoe later this year. We’ll see how that goes.
On your other points, I think that yes, there are no “free lunches” (things take work), but I see people waste things all the time. I’ve seen landscapers haul colossal assloads of biomass to the dump, who MIGHT harvest some biogas from it (and sometimes just burn it at the site), but often times, it looks like it just gets packed into the earth. The closest transfer station offers their “green waste” as mulch for free, but I don’t know how many takers there are. I’ve also watched California go up in smoke year-after-year as they didn’t properly manage their forests. Much of that wasted fuel could’ve been harvested and used, sparing many forest homes from destruction, but it was, of course, not.
Not sure if you read my whole post, but I certainly didn’t indicate that corn-ethanol is good idea for a fuel. Good for whiskey, but otherwise… Also, for any fuel crop, the nutrients left in the ash or other byproducts can be returned to the soil, if you have any gumption or sense.
I built a biodiesel still for a customer who does commercial water treatment. You really only need to filter to crud out of it and boil away the moisture.
He started buying every barrel of used fryer oil in town and we made tanker trucks of the stuff. His whole operation runs on it.
I tried it on my TDI, it ran great.
That’s awesome, Alex. Can’t wait to see how it treats my iron dinosaur.
BOL.
Seriously. 🙂
and do keep us posted…
Thank you, Adi! And I will.
“Ideally, you’d cultivate a fuel crop”
So in addition to ethanol, we would mine our topsoil for this too? No civilization or nation has ever outlived its top soil.
Hey Mr. Kable,
Did you read my commentary? Soil can’t be managed poorly, it must be renewed by the re-addition of the ash produced in the process. Plants are mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and it’s the carbon we’re after. The hydrogen and oxygen will come from the air and water. The rest can be found in the ash: elements which originated in the soil. It might take processing, but I’m sure this can be done without destroying the topsoil.
Also, I was talking about mesquite trees in Phoenix. That concrete-hard cocktail of rocks and dirt could hardly be called topsoil, and those trees would take to it like flies to feces!
A pirate government with a crooked legal system
Peter Wilson interviews Peter Stone of the sovereign project
@ 4:25 in video common law…equity law…contract law
@ 16:00 schwab says you will own nothing…it is already true…
@ 19:00 court case example
@ 47:30 The legal reason the control group want to get rid of the man or woman label…..so you will lose all your rights…. you will just be a slave property belonging to the government
@ 48:50 the difference between law and legal
@ 51:45 legal or illegal always refers to a contract
@ 56:17 contempt of court
@ 1:00:00 government is based on assumption
@ 1:01:30 traffic laws haven’t been proclaimed
@ 1:11:45 use only written communication
@ 1:22:40 we don’t need the government…the government needs us….
https://odysee.com/@thesovereignproject:7/Peter_Wilson_Interview:4
The peasant’s revolt in 1381
@ 10:33 schwab wants us to eat synthetic food and insects…the new synthetic food would use crisp gene editing technology so mrna or whatever desired can be built into the food….and there will be no labeling on the food….
@ 14:00 The royal family is another corporation….it is working with the wef/ccp/globalists too
@ 19:30 the global warming hoax was invented in 1972 at the club of rome as a tool of control….
@ 22:40 protecting small farmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nvm8P0txjg
I think this is they way it all plays out. As Eric posted, this eFuel is just the long and expensive way to create gasoline. In Europe it is being used as a dodge to keep the EU Greens from destroying the Auto Industry But the problem remains, there are a lot of Dentists and Managers with Porsches and lesser exotics who vote. So they will run the ethanol scam, blend 5-10% of this magic eFuel into regular gasoline and Presto-Chango you have “Green Gasoline.” The Politicians can feel virtuous that they did something, the Industries aren’t destroyed so the Bankers can keep on making money and the Greens are placated because they created “change.”
5 to 10% of this stuff added to gasoline, at $20/gallon for 100% synthetic gasoline will still raise the price by $1-$2 per gallon, at least without subsidies. Just like ethonol added fuel should be much more expensive than the unadulterated stuff. But because Iowa voters apparently count more than everyone else, the subsidies stay.
I think they should just have AlGore apoint a few priests to say the incantations and pass the blessed sceptre of Gaia over a few gallons of fuel to render it holy, and therefore beneficial to the world. Through the science of transubstantiation, its power would transfer to all the oil the tank, and would fix all these problems while only dragging down the economy by 10% or so, depending on how literally the parishioners interpret tithing.
From holy water to holy fuel…
What a concept!
Well spoken, RK.
Thou hast anointed my [cylinder] head with oil; my tank runneth over. 🙂
David,
It’s a play for time.
And time is on our side.
I’m not opposed.
Eric, hope the crud is on the way out and you feel better soon. Our language has been corrupted by those who are corrupt as a means for control. It’s a good thing to be multi-lingual, helps with seeing many sides and points of view, such as here. Keep up the good work! I ran across this today, lots to ponder. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2659602311
Cristal champagne is at least $500 a bottle now, no longer $300 — inflation. Trump’s fault. I’d have thought you were a Ripple or MD2020 man.
Remember Boones Farm…I think.they still make Strawberry Hill
Mad Dog 20/20! Some memories there, Richard!
Congresscritter Doug Lamalfa (Calif) asked some expert witnesses how much of the atmosphere is CO2. Their answers were 5 and 7 percent. These are the people that are driving the extinction of all life on this planet. The answer,,, found in any childrens encyclopedia,,, is 0.04 percent. Not one of the ‘WITNESSES’ knew this!
It has been determined that if CO2 drops to .02 percent or lower all plant life will die. Of course when that happens all higher level life goes with them. So we are within 0.02 percent of all life dying!
Most ignorant Americans don’t know (don’t care) that their very life depends on CO2. CO2 is involved in controlling our heart rate among other things.
We are allowing the absolute stupidest of society to rule us. Freaking incredible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJfrKNR3K2k
I doubt if most adults would know the CO2 level is 4420ppm, and far fewer would know that means 0.042%
Plants do not die at 200ppm CO2
180ppm CO2 was repeatedly reached in the 800,000 year era of Vostok, Antarctica ice core climate reconstructions. Plants survived.
It is estimated that C3 photosynthesis plants (85% of 300,000 plant species) would die with atmospheric CO2 under 150ppm.
Given that we are at 420ppm today, with a rise rate of about 2.5ppm a year from manmade CO2 emissions, there is not much chance of getting back to 150ppm again … or even getting under 400ppm.
CO2 is the staff of most life on this planet and I have advocated for a minimum 800ppm CO2 level since 1997. That 800ppm level is based on reading about 300 CO2 enrichment — C3 plant growth scientific studies in the past 25 years. Greenhouse owners usually CO2 enrich to the 1000ppm to 1500ppm range, spending their own money to do that, so that range is probably better. But the studies I’ve read rarely experimented with over 800ppm (0.08%), so I can’t recommend over 800ppm.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm so can not cause much global warming as it increases. Not that global warming is bad news. The “poster child” for global warming should be Warmer Winter Nights in Siberia. That climate change, which happened since the 1970s, is good news, not bad news. We also love the warmer winters here in Michigan.
https://climateilluminated.com/media/History/Slide3.JPG
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OjoQQVlo2xU/Vu63ofzIaiI/AAAAAAAAEnk/0S8rIQ93sqIEabWYF7jTfnfsDxe8d2mFg/s1600/CO2%2BMake%2BPlant%2BGrow.jpg
I think that CO2 could double or triple from current levels and temperature would not change, based on this chart:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/whyclimatemodelsfail-140903151559-phpapp01/95/why-climate-models-fail-31-638.jpg?cb=1409760577
Note how almost all the warming caused by CO2 happens in the first 20 ppm
Previous ice age unaffected by high CO2 level:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-54b6c903f07aed553f59ec2a71329daa
The difference between politicians and other parasites? Other parasites naturally, per natural selection, become less dangerous. The most successful parasite spreads easily and does not kill its host. Politicians, on the other hand, appear to revel in the destruction of their host, and spread easily. A recipe for extinction of the parasite, and possibly the host as well if we don’t eradicate it.
Politician: One most adept getting the most people to believe the most preposterous lies the most often. Almost always a sociopath if not a psychopath.
How long will this go on before we learn that politicians are nothing more nor less than professional liars, and assume everything they say is a lie?
I sometimes think we are hardwired for masochism.
Very astute observations. I would add this caveat – since the creations of central banks with unlimited money creation, the entire political class soon became owned – politicians are not elected, they are selected, by those with the trillions, like the Rothschilds.
The purpose of this selected slimeball whore of this money power has one job, using a big smile and charisma, to sell the elite goals and plans to the gullible public, which still foolishly thinks their votes count. The media is also owned, and works with the politicians to sell the elite agenda.
For some reason, people think the greedy elite would share their power with you, and let you make a decision of who is in power. That is laughable on the face of it, they do not give a shit about the common man, or what the common man wants, they only care about getting more money and power and you, Joe Sixpack, can just shut the hell up and die.
For those who state the truth, that CO2 is not doing what they say it is doing, well you are a “denier”, a heretic, a conspiracy theorist.
Each time the BBC mentions “climate change” in the narrative, ka-ching into the media corporate coffers. The political whores work hand in hand with the media whores to push the agenda, but that is not all, for scientists who want grants, they too must play ball and prove CO2 is a deadly warming gas. Thus all three institutions work together to work over the public – enslaving themselves and their families as well.
They are all the same outfit. Politicians, news talking heads, “scientists”, etc. all work for the same boss, and they are all professional liars, including the boss.
“…nothing more nothing less…”
Yeah, I think most politicians these days are way more than just professional liars. Yes, they ALL lie, but a lot of them also steal, cheat, assault, rape, murder — and I’m talking about in their personal lives. Of course, they also do all those things as representatives of the USSA cartel.
It is amazing what low moral character these “esteemed” congressmen, senators, and presidents are.
Check a podcast by Legalman called The Quash. Best hard-hitting talk on this topic.
“Carbon dioxide is a non-reactive trace atmospheric gas”
So is H2O. When you burn any fuel, wood, oil, gas the bi-products of combustion are reduced to their lowest energy state, which is why they are non-reactive. You always get about 50/50 of each. CO2 and H20 will not react to anything, they just exist as themselves forever, unless a plant uses both of them and sunlight to break them down and turn them into cellulose.
How that is done is near miraculous. Molecular machines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A
When you make an explosive, you use acids to make a compound highly reactive, so that it explodes when triggered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KRl0lg7XmQ
Like wood burning, an explosive “burns” but much faster. Gunpowder to C4. TNT. When you burn/explode anything you it is called oxidation -oxygen attaches to the hydrogens or the nitrogens or the carbons in the lowest energy state possible.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Trinitrotoluene.svg/220px-Trinitrotoluene.svg.png
To make TNT you reduce (vs. oxidize) – take toulene, add nitric acid, very carefully in an ice bath, to make a carbon ring with 3 NO2 attached to it. This molecule is very unstable, a shock wave can make it go off. Don’t do this at home.
Governments are using the Covid scam and the Carbon scam to lock us down, take away our cars, turn our money into digits, pollute our food, etc. They are literally trying to kill us, and thus some of the population will soon be a learnin’ how to make those explosive molecules to fight back.
They’ve made movies about this, futuristic movies about the coming dystopia, like Brazil.
You are talking trinitrotolulene, TNT.
In the lab, you can distill to dinitrotoluene, DNT, not an explosive chemical, though a precursor to trinitrotoluene. Too old to remember the experiment details, but it is done.
Tolulene was used in the carpet industry, cleaning any glaring mistakes on the finished carpet top.
Toluene, correct spelling.
“Carbon dioxide is a non-reactive trace atmospheric gas. The italics part is important because the attribute that makes a combustion byproduct a pollutant is precisely that is reactive.”
Ding Ding Ding
JUNK SCIENCE ALERT !
Carbon monoxide is a non-reactive gas,
AND IT IS A DEADLY POLLUTANT.
CO2 is also invisible
So what?
C2 also has no smell
So what?
CO2 is also 1.5 times heavier than air
So what?
Is CO2 a non-reactive gas?
Also known as inert gases—are gases that do not undergo chemical reactions under specific conditions such as oxidization. These include argon, carbon dioxide, helium, and nitrogen.
Scientific illiterate ALERT !
Carbon monoxide is a non-reactive gas,
AND IT IS A DEADLY POLLUTANT.
Carbon MONOXIDE is a highly reactive toxic gas. Carbon DIOXIDE is inert and good for life, unless in very high concentrations where you can “drown” in it.
Carbon monoxide – non-reactive gas.
The Man in the High Castle is an amazing piece of writing; the show started off well but then completely fell apart in the last season(Rufus Sewell as Obergruppenfuhrer Smith was by far the best part). The part where Childress goes to see his Japanese contact regarding manufacturing trinkets to sell in South America so the slaves would have hope is truly a work of art. After reading that part of the book take a look at our world and the crap that people buy in order to feel better, i.e. Jesus Fish, We believe in science signs, BLM flags; all crap that means nothing but makes someone a shit ton of money. Philip Dick was a prophet of our times and society is starting to resemble his work.
Indeed, Doctor G –
PDK was masterful. Brilliant prose and keen insight woven into a tapestry of streaming consciousness so real-seeming you can (and I have) lost myself in it.
EVs will go the way of Covid madness, at least like the way it has happened in my locality where if you mention it (covid) people give you a strange look bordering hostility.
This logically follows the ethanol mandate, which was sold as a way to stretch the gasoline supply. Too bad it’s a net loser energy wise, but Archer Daniels Midland and Big Ag are very happy with their guaranteed income stream.
How do people not realize that when they are pushing this stuff every day that it’s bunk. Same with corona.
An excellent summation of the “climate change” nonsense that we’ve been subjected to.
The energy expended to create the safe and effective unleaded Cristal necessarily must exceed its energy content. Hydrolysis is a very energy intensive process, as I’m sure is separating Co2 from the atmosphere. Oh, and by the way, where does the energy come from? I guess we’re just supposed to believe that Fischer and Tropsch have created some sort of perpetual motion machine? This is yet another sham.
ML,
We’re to believe in the existence of a Green energy unicorn. Those who say otherwise will likely be called CLIMATE DENIERS!
King Louis XVI, Czar Nicholas II, and Shah Reza Pahlavi were not available for comment.
There are people out there blaming Trump for gas prices going back up. What they conveniently forget is that Joe Biden, during his run for President in 2020, actually pledged an END to “fossil fuels”, and upon his getting into office in 2021, he and his regime effectively launched a war on AMERICAN oil production. I thought these people would be happy about that, as they’ve been brainwashed into believing that gasoline CAUSED climate change. Not only that, on a trip overseas last year, Biden even all but said that high gas prices were INTENTIONAL as part of an “Incredible transition to green energy”.
President potato’s war machine runs on oil. As does the fleet of suburbans, helicopters, 747s, etc that ferry his ass around.
Mike,
How much “Carbon footprints” would you say is emitted by the DC War Machine? Oh wait, they’ll say that they’re justified in having such LARGE carbon footprints by claiming it’s to “Protect demooooooocracy”.
Now there’s the key word.
Incredible = not credible = bullshit.
Just distill corn mash and water, you’ll have 190 proof alcohol that can be used as a fuel.
Get yourself a Model T Ford and you can get to the action.
Right Jim,
The impact of EVs is conveniently ignored. The government says it is important for us to drive golf carts for the environment.
They also said:
– “safe & effective”
– Russia blew up their own pipeline
– 15 days to slow the curve
– riots are ok during a “pandemic”
– Saddam funded 9/11
That’s how we know it is all a lie. All this alternative stuff is inefficient, unwanted, and ultimately unsustainable without a butt ton of your tax $$
Dan,
Here’s something else that’s ignored. We’ve been told ad nauseum for years that coal mining was DIRTY & “Baaaaaaaaaaaad for the environment”, and yet, not a peep from those same people about the MASSIVE mining that would be required to obtain the necessary minerals for building EVs and the lithium ion batteries they’re equipped with, nor do they say anything about children in Africa mining for such minerals.
‘Being tethered to a cord and enduring endless waits … are “for the little people.”’ — eric
On Lewrockwell.com today, where a link to Eric’s article “The Bespoke’d New Car” is featured, another essay cites investor Harris Kupperman:
‘You have this concept called ERoEI [Energy Return on Energy Invested], which is the return on energy you put in. An EV, you put more energy in than you get out. And so as a result, it’s just like a thermodynamic rule—it won’t work unless you subsidize it.
‘What’s the reason for EVs? It’s because it supposedly produces less carbon. But through the full life cycle of owning an EV, because so much carbon has to go into the stupid thing, it doesn’t use less carbon. You’re better off having a gas guzzler.’
Amen, Kuppy. But negative ERoEI undoubtedly applies to $20 a gallon Cristal eFuel for future Porsches, Lambos and Ferraris too. Its astronomical price reflects the wanton expenditure of energy needed to produce the magical carbon-neutral elixir.
Yesterday, protesters in Paris forced their way into the headquarters of luxury giant LVMH, on the day shares in the company – which owns brands such as Louis Vuitton and Moët – jumped to a record high.
No doubt Cristal eFuel will seamlessly complement LVMH’s portfolio of luxury products, even as the sans culottes occasionally smash shop windows to liberate a few precious bottles for their unworthy selves.