https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377950104_Arriving_the_optimum_retarder_dosage_level_of_sugar_on_the_setting_time_compressive_strength_and_microstructure_property_of_Portland_pozzolana_cement/fulltext/65be3b791e1ec12eff6f953f/Arriving-the-optimum-retarder-dosage-level-of-sugar-on-the-setting-time-compressive-strength-and-microstructure-property-of-Portland-pozzolana-cement.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

Actually it was a rephrasing of an actual scientific paper on concrete and sugar and the structural effects.

No source code. No buy.

Only support hardware with GPL drivers and kernel support.

When sugar is added to Portland cement paste at the onset of mixing, hardening may be delayed indefinitely.

Sugar is added to concrete to delay delay curing and improve compressive strength but after 0.06% sugar by weight, compressive strength starts to decrease and after 0.08% sugar by weight setting times dramatically increase.

If you add two pounds of sugar to literally one ton of concrete, it will ruin the concrete and make it unable to set properly. This was used by the French anarchists to resist prison construction.

My husband’s response: all of them

How exactly are they way off?

And there are multiple industrial processes that a thermal cycle would be better than producing electricity.

But I agree that we definitely are going to run into a great many issues during this time of transition and why we need as many thinking minds as possible to find solutions to them.

Just remove the execute bit and then it can’t run. (Or overwrite the first 4 bytes with nulls if you want to permanently disable it)

Are you familiar with Jevons paradox?

Basically the more efficiently a civilization uses a resource, the higher overall consumption of that resource becomes. It also applies to production. (The more efficiently something is produced, the lower the cost and ultimately greater the consumption of it occurs)

Well, as we don’t exist with perpetual abundance and ecological overshoot routinely occurs.

And the hares suffer the same fate as the bunnies.

https://bsidneysmith.com/writings/essays/all-the-bunnies-in-the-meadow-die

I agree that urban mixed neighborhoods are a good idea and I can even understand how putting regulations on advertising is a good idea (but it is not possible to ban as humans will recommend things to their friends and neighbors).

My hope is to help people through this time of transition because every mind saved is another mind that might be the key to our next set of problems.

Depending on several factors: Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro, And nuclear.

Formerly that list included oil, coal and natural gas but as they were extracted and they become more difficult to extract; the EROEI for them is collapsing.

Ok. So your question is about energy density (in terms of time). In which case, nuclear reactions simply produce much more. And is entirely reasonable to say that. Solar power, wind power and geothermal power are all methods of indirectly collecting energy from nuclear energy sources.

To which conversations about liquid thorium fluoride being used in thermal cycles in industrial processes is definitely a valid one.

The reason why most people discuss solar is because it scales down nicely to satisfy domestic energy needs (which reduces the total energy consumption of the more dense energy sources that are needed in industrial processes).

Dominating other civilizations is actually rather wasteful, it is much more efficient to just bring up the living standards and then they will happily incorporate themselves in your civilization. Which brings more useful minds and new perspectives that would enrich your scientific tapestry; which is likely the keys to the next sets of breakthroughs. (You don’t have to defeat your enemies militarily if you can bribe the right people and get them to destroy themselves for you).

Efficiencies free up resources to be utilized for whatever your civilization values. Much like how certain keystone crops (like corn, wheat, rice and potatoes) make up the hyper majority of calories consumed because they are the most efficient.

Only a foolish civilization would throw away efficiency and returns on investments. And the biggest return on investment has always been feeding people and public libraries.

Think of it as a black box. That if it has an EROEI of 4, then it would cost you 1 barrel of oil to make and you get 4 barrels of oil out of it (before you need to spend a barrel to replace it). Then assume that you can buy and sell oil for $100/barrel of oil (we are just using this as a placeholder for discussion, not that it represents the real value of oil but go with me here). Meaning that you can turn $100 into $400 every time you make the black box.

So people are naturally going to prefer energy sources that have as high EROEI as possible (an EROEI of 50 or higher means that you can get $5000 (or more) for your $100 investment.

Oil had an EROEI of around 80-120 and it has been going down ever since. (Currently it is below 30). So any energy source that has an EROEI of over 30 is a better investment than oil.

Well small to tiny personal farms; you’ll want to grow the things you like to eat. Just skip the staple crops (wheat,rice, potatoes, beans) as they are dirt cheap and not worth the trouble (except at scale)

To just look at the math and the physics of a proposed class of solutions makes me an unserious person?

You could have just pointed out the inefficiencies of various implementations and gone that it wouldn’t be viable to maintain an energy storage and distribution leveraging carbon molecules because of (useful technical details) and then we could have had a productive discussion about excess energy production and socially beneficial but wasteful energy consumption as part of grid planning.

Be sure to have something that you type before using physical keys (which can be seized); that way you combine what you know with what you have.

Yes, just like I looked into the energy costs of carbon capture and conversion into stable carbon forms. (Reverse coal mines etc). We can make oil from the carbon in the atmosphere if we have enough free energy to do so.

Hence why we need to fund scientists and engineers to build a future instead of just waiting to die.

Not exactly true. Electricity can be used convert abundant nitrogen into nitrate salts, power tractors and allow modern agriculture.

The question is about the Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) of the power sources that we do have. As long as we hit 50:1 or better, it is not a problem but when we go below that… that is when the mass starvation and death will occur.

He of all people should know better. In not on…

Improperly tagged thing appear in large libraries all of the time (humans make mistakes)