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

[Doug Bank]

Axel,

I agree with your point, but I have a counter-point.

What if we all agree that there is a problem, but cannot agree how to solve it? What if we say that we cannot afford to wait and must do what looks like the best alternative now in order to prevent an imminent problem? And what if that best alternative actually sucks and causes bigger problems?

My example for all this is controversial and relates to the very poorly named "nutrition science". In the 60’s and 70’s they felt that heart disease was a disaster in the making and there was some evidence implying that some dietary changes might help reduce that disaster. They literally said that we could not afford to wait to decide what should be done, but should make a change now. They went with low fat diets and vilified saturated fat and cholesterol etc. Were they right with respect to heart disease? Did we try to fix one problem and accidentally create a bigger problem? I have an opinion, but I certainly don’t have an answer. But the incidence of obesity and diabetes and cancer and hypertension have all increased, some to epidemic proportions. Coincidence???? The human body is complicated. The planet earth is even more complicated….

My point is that while I definitely agree that there is global warming and we should do something about it (and I have three hybrids in my garage and I also wonder about thorium reactors), I don’t think we should do anything really drastic to try to fix the problem without a lot of study and experimentation to make sure we don’t screw things up worse in the process. 

Doug

On May 22, 2017, at 9:15 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