[ExI] LinkedIn weirdness

Tue Mar 3 19:47:58 UTC 2026

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:04 AM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> LinkedIn is not a very good place for useful discussions. That site produces more fertiliser than an ordinary milk farm.  It is hard to notice anything good in the fertile flow......
>
> Anyway,  how does this syngas process handle contamination with ie PVC that usually insist on making dioxines out of every attempt to break it down?

This process is oxygen-free, and the gas cleanup is subjected to about
1500 deg C to convert the biotar to more syngas.  At that point, we
should have HCl, which is easy to get out of the gas stream.  Oxygen
that leaks in with the trash or is contained in paper and wood should
combine with hydrogen and make water, which is used up in making
syngas.  In any case, the gas flow is much smaller than an incinerator
stack and is not released to the atmosphere.  I think you have to get
the HCl out to protect the turbine blades or the catalysts if you are
making liquid fuels.  I think keeping the inside of the gasifier above
100 deg C will keep the HCl from chewing up the refractory, but this
point needs checking.

Dioxins are a real concern.  And you just can't keep children's toys
or discarded wiring out of the trash.  Good catch.

> /Henrik
>
>
> Den tis 3 mars 2026 11:15BillK via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev:
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 08:20, Keith Henson via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I posted this on LinkedIn.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> According to LinkedIn, almost 1000 people read it, including people in
>>> the utility industry.  There were no comments except my comment,
>>> giving my email.  No emails.
>>> Is the idea so strange that people can't understand?  75 years ago,
>>> the US made town gas from coke at a similar scale.  Is invoking
>>> chemical reactions from the Victorian era simply rejected?
>>> Any thoughts on the results?  I am mystified.
>>> Keith
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> I asked Gemini 3.1 Pro Thinking to discuss this and suggest improvements.
>> Interesting comments?
>> BillK
>>
>> Gemini said
>>
>> It’s a bit of a gut punch when you get the reach (1,000 views is actually great!) but no engagement. It’s like giving a speech to a full room and having everyone just stare back blankly before walking out.
>>
>> Here is a breakdown of why that likely happened and how we can fix it.
>>
>> Why the "Silence"?
>>
>> The "Textbook" Trap: Your original post reads like a technical abstract. On LinkedIn, people are usually "micro-learning" between tasks. If it looks like work to parse the data, they’ll keep scrolling.
>>
>> The Math Friction: You provided a lot of variables (4 MWh, 11 MWh, 6 MWh, 100,000 tons). When readers see a string of numbers, their brains often tune out unless they are specifically looking for a white paper.
>>
>> Missing "The Hook": You started with the problem, but the "Victorian" reference—while cool—might make people think "obsolete" before they get to the "innovative" part.
>>
>> No Call to Action (CTA): You didn't ask the audience to do anything. Without a question or a prompt for debate, most people will just think "Huh, interesting," and move on.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> The Rewrite: "The Waste-to-Grid Revolution"
>>
>> To get engagement, we need to frame this as a massive unlock for the energy crisis. We’ll use formatting to make it scannable and replace the dense math with a "value proposition."
>>
>> Headline: Could 1860s technology solve our 2026 energy storage crisis? ��
>>
>> Body: The biggest hurdle for renewables isn't generation—it's long-term storage.
>>
>> While everyone is looking for the next "miracle" battery, the answer might be sitting in our trash cans and Victorian history books.
>>
>> The Concept: Gasification 2.0 By reviving the process of making syngas—but replacing coal with municipal waste and heating it with surplus wind/solar—we create a "Chemical Battery" that actually scales.
>>
>> The "Magic" of the Math:
>>
>> Input: 1 Ton of Carbon (Waste) + 4 MWh of "Excess" Green Power.
>>
>> Output: 11 MWh of Syngas (Stored energy).
>>
>> Recovery: Over 6 MWh of electricity on demand via turbines.
>>
>> Why this is a game-changer for cities like LA: LA produces 100,000 tons of waste daily. If we diverted just a fraction of that into gasifiers during peak solar hours, we could absorb 20 GW of excess grid power and store it as 240 GWh of dispatchable energy.
>>
>> We don't just solve the storage problem; we solve the landfill problem simultaneously. ♻️
>>
>> What do you think? Is syngas the "missing link" for a 100% renewable grid, or are we right to keep chasing lithium and hydrogen?
>>
>> #RenewableEnergy #EnergyStorage #Sustainability #Cleantech #GridModernization
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Tips for the "Post" button:
>>
>> Tag a few people: If you know energy experts or environmental engineers, tag 2–3 in the comments to start the conversation.
>>
>> The First Comment: Post the first comment yourself. Maybe a link to a study or a "Fun fact" about Victorian town gas. This signals to the algorithm that the post is "active."
>>
>> Use an image: If you have a chart or even a photo of a gasifier, use it. Posts with images get significantly higher engagement.
>>
>> Would you like me to refine the technical math further, or perhaps create a more "provocative" version to stir up a debate?
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat