you’re probably talking about direct reduced iron and it’s really a problem that can be dealt with easily, just chuck a piece of coke when it’s molten for the second time in electric arc furnace (and maybe electrodes introduce enough carbon). substituting coke with hydrogen works also on “ingredient step” if you mean by that fuel needed to reduce iron ore to iron

maybe there’s a way to make electrowinning iron economical, and it’d be pretty green too, but i don’t know if it is workable

e: you can also avoid need for met coal if you use methane or syngas for direct reduced iron process

no we can’t make hydrogen everywhere, there will be regions with large excess of renewable energy compared to population. these places could export hydrogen. you also don’t need a lot of transport if crude is extracted near place where it’s used, like for example heavy crude from alberta

coal can be substituted to some degree with processes like direct reduction. hydrogen works but syngas from biomass or trash also works

file styrofoam under plastics

not now, but if hydrogen were to be used as an energy source/storage, then it’d be used plenty. same with batteries

We did it not because it was easy, but because we thought it will be easy

ikr, but that tweet implies that all of oil/gas/coal ships would be unnecessary

this is arguably fine, because this way ships make clouds of sulfate aerosols, which have slight cooling effect and no one is bothered by it when it’s released over sea

Some of these ships would carry green hydrogen and new lithium batteries and old lithium batteries (to be recycled) and whatnot. Also at least some oil would be still needed for fine chemicals like meds or (idk what’s proper english term for that) large scale organic synthesis like plastics, or even straight distillates like hexane (for edible oil extraction) or lubricants. Some of usual non-energy uses of oil can be easily substituted with enough energy like with nitrogen fertilizers but some can’t

“a major pay-for-win garbage science laundromat” you mean

there ya go https://x.com/primawesome/status/1178671690261286918

thank brexiters for that, it’s illegal in eu

dropped into titanium tetrachloride? Not much else fumes this badly

I think this could be benzoyl-something, and hexane was a crystallization solvent

That aint it chief. Judging by context and looks that flask is being cleaned with something that i wouldn’t use

there are a few, but these are small and new, and most of the time null results are published along positive results, not on their own

you can mirror entire scihub repository, it’s listed as hundreds of torrents somewhere, each is zip of 100000 pdfs. i think it’s under 200TB

would somebody think of the advertisers?

but if they just gave you pdf, how would they track every mouse movement for their bullshit metrics?

but uranium has 20 billion calories per gram

This comes from a long line of shoddy “research” exaggerating potential effects of nuclear war. With MAD in place, like it was for the last 70 years, there’s no need to make shit up, it’d be as bad as it can be. At first, they tried to convince people that NOx generated in fireball would strip atmosphere out of ozone; when proven wrong with experimental evidence (supersonic airliners generate some NOx; their output was big enough that it should have some effect on ozone layer according to their model, but it had none) they pivoted to “nuclear winter”:

Although never openly acknowledged by the multi-disciplinary team who authored the most popular 1980s TTAPS model, in 2011 the American Institute of Physics states that the TTAPS team (named for its participants, who had all previously worked on the phenomenon of dust storms on Mars, or in the area of asteroid impact events: Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) announcement of their results in 1983 “was with the explicit aim of promoting international arms control”.[91] However, “the computer models were so simplified, and the data on smoke and other aerosols were still so poor, that the scientists could say nothing for certain”.[91]

When proven wrong again with empirical evidence of oil fires of 1991 Gulf War, they shut up for some time:

When Operation Desert Storm began in January 1991, coinciding with the first few oil fires being lit, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Carl Sagan discussed the possible environmental effects of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan again argued that some of the effects of the smoke could be similar to the effects of a nuclear winter, with smoke lofting into the stratosphere, beginning around 48,000 feet (15,000 m) above sea level in Kuwait, resulting in global effects. He also argued that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the “Year Without a Summer”.

The idea of oil well and oil reserve smoke pluming into the stratosphere serving as a main contributor to the soot of a nuclear winter was a central idea of the early climatology papers on the hypothesis; they were considered more of a possible contributor than smoke from cities, as the smoke from oil has a higher ratio of black soot, thus absorbing more sunlight.[93][101]

In a 1992 follow-up, Peter Hobbs and others had observed no appreciable evidence for the nuclear winter team’s predicted massive “self-lofting” effect and the oil-fire smoke clouds contained less soot than the nuclear winter modelling team had assumed.[118]

The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires’ modest impact suggested that “some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis]… were probably a little overblown.”[119]

then came back again hoping that someone would not remember the former and believe them. Even one of authors (Owen B. Toon) is the same, they cite their old papers and use old wrong numbers. This is not somebody trying to figure out how reality works, this is somebody trying to sell you a story. That story tries to make them relevant, but they aren’t anymore, and more importantly they’re wrong

This all is also before noticing that 70s era nuclear arsenal doesn’t even exist anymore, so their predictions lack a plausible starting point in the first place. It’s horseshit start to finish

Ever since Desert Storm small concentration of Saddam particles is found in steel worldwide