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

Mon May 22 08:36:35 PDT 2017

Absolutely Albert, if you think there's enough logic there to make a difference 😉
Please do.
Let me know when and where, will you?

Best regards
Axel

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Rockhounds [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at rockhounds.drizzle.com] Namens Albert McCann
Verzonden: maandag 22 mei 2017 16:50
Aan: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors <rockhounds at rockhounds.drizzle.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [Rockhounds] was: New "Energy Miracle" substance - NOW: Minerals and climate change

Axel,

May I have permission to post this on my Facebook page for the few family and friends I have?

There are both believers and deniers :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rockhounds [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at rockhounds.drizzle.com] On 
> Behalf Of Axel Emmermann
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:16 AM
> To: 'Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem collectors'
> <rockhounds at rockhounds.drizzle.com>
> Subject: [Rockhounds] was: New "Energy Miracle" substance - NOW: 
> Minerals and climate change
> 
> 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.d
> rizz
> le.com
> List Usage Policy:
> http://Tomaszewski.net/Kreigh/Rockhounds/Rockhounds.shtml
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rockhounds mailing list
> Subscription Services:
> http://rockhounds.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/rockhounds_rockhounds.d
> rizz
> le.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