[Rockhounds] was: New "Energy Miracle" substance - NOW: Minerals and climate change

Mon May 22 08:16:16 PDT 2017

Hayek addressed this nihilistic theory:

"It is worth our while to consider for a moment what would happen if
only what was agreed to be the best available knowledge were to be
used in all action. If all attempts that seemed wasteful in the light
of generally accepted knowledge were prohibited and only such
questions asked, or such experiments tried, as seemed significant in
the light of ruling opinion, mankind might well reach a point where
its knowledge enabled it to predict the consequences of all
conventional actions and to avoid all disappointment or failure. Man
would then seem to have subjected his surroundings to his reason, for
he would attempt only those things which were totally predictable in
their results (emphasis added). We might conceive of a civilization
coming to a standstill, not because the possibilities of further
growth had been exhausted, but because man had succeeded in so
completely subjecting all his actions and his immediate surroundings
to his existing state of knowledge that there would be no occasion for
new knowledge to appear. ...

In the past, the spontaneous forces of growth, however much
restricted, could usually still assert themselves against the
organized coercion of the state. With the technological means of
control now at the disposal of government, it is not certain that such
assertion is still possible; at any rate, it may soon become
impossible. We are not far from the point where the deliberately
organized forces of society may destroy those spontaneous forces
which have made advance possible."

BK

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of
avoiding reality"
 – Ayn Rand

J Bryan Krämer       North Florida, USA
photos at: http://pbase.com/photoburner

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Axel Emmermann
<axel.emmermann at telenet.be> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First a word of caution: it is NOT my intention to start a "flame". Should you feel that your heart rate and blood pressure are rising in the cause of this discussion, please do not engage in it 😉 I just think that there is room for debate and minerals can be VERY useful in our attempts to push back the ill effects of  industry.
>
> My first point to be made is this:
>         If you consider the future, only one of two opinions can be correct (for the greater part, and grossly generalizing)
> 1) the believers
> 2) the deniers
>
> Case 1:
> a) If the believers are right and their opinion prevails in global policy making IN TIME, they will have saved the human race (or will have bought time to endeavor in attempts to reverse greenhouse effects).
> b) If they are proven to be wrong... ok, they will have set back economic growth somewhat and they'll be the laughing stock of all entrepreneurs and politicians for the next few hundred years.
>
> Case 2:
> a) If the deniers are right: see case 1b
> b) If the deniers are wrong and their opinion prevails in global policy making we'll have won the prize for the "dumbest creature on earth" . We'll be our own Chicxulub and follow the dodo and the dinos into oblivion.
>
> Completely devoid of emotion, this summarizes the possibilities.
> There may be some discussion about time frames and such but eventually it boils down to this.
> Now: is there an option that we absolutely don't want to see realized?
>
> Lithium IS the better element when it comes to storing energy in batterie.
> However: HUGE economic interest are sitting in already established manganese mines (ye olde stuff). Lithium will struggle upstream like a salmon.
> The same is true for thorium. Nuclear reactors that "burn" thorium are much safer than uranium fission reactors. They simply cannot melt-down and the radioactivity of their waste products cools much quicker than those of uranium. They are not being built because thorium cannot be made into "weapon-grade" and vast financial interests are put into exploiting uranium deposits.
> Same is true for mercury in various applications...
>
> Cheers
> Axel
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Rockhounds [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at rockhounds.drizzle.com] Namens Mike Flannigan
> Verzonden: zondag 21 mei 2017 23:52
> Aan: rockhounds at rockhounds.drizzle.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Rockhounds] New "Energy Miracle" substance
>
>
> Hogwash.  Fair warning - I am a denier (oh, my), even though I don't deny that we are experiencing global warming, as we have for the last ~16,000 years.  Personally I think global warming is good, but I admit I may be wrong about that.  Regardless, the people who are pushing the global warming spectacle would consider me a denier.
>
> If this Lithium Carbonate improves the performance of batteries, that could be a huge benefit to people.  If it actually produces or converts electricity or energy, please provide the reaction used and the exothermic KW per lb or joules per kg or But per lb, or whatever it actually produces (or converts).
>
> People also exalt the great "energy producing" potential of fuel cells.  Nope, they just convert energy that is already there.
> Almost at the same efficiency as burning hydrocarbons, but not quite.  But they keep trying.
>
> Thanks for keeping us informed Larry.
>
>
>
> Mike
> Houston, TX
> 24 ft above sea level
>
>
>
> On 5/21/2017 2:00 PM, rockhounds-request at rockhounds.drizzle.com wrote:
>> There has been quite a bit of stir in the energy futures stock market these days, pushing a ?revolutionary? new energy source, which is touted to replace oil, gas, etc. as a new ?super fuel? in the future. There is a lot of hype by these ?Penny Stock? pushers, who do not disclose what exactly this fuel is.
>>
>> By digging around (no pun intended), on the Web, and reading the technical papers available, I personally believe that this new energy source is Lithium Carbonate, with a much higher ability to produce energy than the present pegmatitic lithium compounds.
>>
>> The ore is found in brines, in deep deposits of old marine sediments, similar to the Trona deposits  in California. Not much for a mineral collector to get excited about here, unlike holding specimens of lepidolite, lithiophyllite, spodumene, etc., that we can free from pegmatites.
>>
>> But, from a mineralogists point of view, this material, if it lives up to the hype, will be a new, important raw material for the next generation.
>>
>> List member geologists or chemists, please correct any misstatements I put forth here?.there is a lot of speculation, and not a lot of hard facts on this subject as yet.
>>
>> Larry Rush
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rockhounds mailing list
>> Subscription Services:
>> http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.d
>> rizzle.com List Usage Policy:
>> http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Rockhounds Digest, Vol 5, Issue 14
>> *****************************************
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds mailing list
> Subscription Services:  http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.drizzle.com
> List Usage Policy: http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds mailing list
> Subscription Services:  http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.drizzle.com
> List Usage Policy: http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml