Biofuels a Greater Greenhouse Threat

[Gawain 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html

Frankly, I'm amazed that the NYT even reported it. No one else did.

Of course, it was the same guys that were advocating this stuff that are now wrong about it...except the climate change part...that part they say they're still right...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Channman 2]

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html

Frankly, I'm amazed that the NYT even reported it. No one else did.

Of course, it was the same guys that were advocating this stuff that are now wrong about it...except the climate change part...that part they say they're still right...

Good article, but are we trying to stir the pot, with our enviro friends this morning?

Off topic, but are the same guys that were advocating Bio fuels the same individuals complaining about all the money the Oil Companies are making? The average profit per gallon being about .08 cents as were our government that does nothing to bringing a gallon of gas to the pump takes the consumer for .59 cents per gallon.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html

Frankly, I'm amazed that the NYT even reported it. No one else did.

Of course, it was the same guys that were advocating this stuff that are now wrong about it...except the climate change part...that part they say they're still right...

Good article, but are we trying to stir the pot, with our enviro friends this morning?

I have no problem with people that advocate environmental responsibility. I do have a problem with those that do so at "any cost" and allow nothing to be done.

Quote

Off topic, but are the same guys that were advocating Bio fuels the same individuals complaining about all the money the Oil Companies are making? The average profit per gallon being about .08 cents as were our government that does nothing to bringing a gallon of gas to the pump takes the consumer for .59 cents per gallon.

Honestly, I didn't read that deeply into it. I do know that many of those that want alternative energy sources to be establish refuse to allow that to happen. The wind farm off of Martha's Vinyard in Massachusetts is a prime example of that. The refusal to allow any more nuclear power plants to be built is another. The energy bill signed late last year is another...

I was just reading that the country of Cameroon was hoping to lease 800,000 hectares of land surrounded by national parks to an environmental type organization for about $1.6M per year. That's $2 per hectare. Well, the Ministry may have to lease it to a company for logging if they can't find someone to help preserve it. The country needs money, they have resources and when they step up to be environmentally sensitive, organizations like WWF don't seem to have the ability to help.

I have half-a-mind to start my own little fundraiser..think I could find a million people to spare $2? I bet I could...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,132]

In that case, it's lucky that CO2 does not cause global warming, eh?

[DJL 235]

Can't get something for nothing. I've trying to figure out how anyone thought it would be cheaper or cause less damage to grow and make energy vs tapping into something that already exists.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,132]

>I've trying to figure out how anyone thought it would be cheaper or
>cause less damage to grow and make energy vs tapping into something
>that already exists.

That's why cellulosic ethanol is going to be the key to any US ethanol effort. Cellulose is something that _does_ already exist, and that we throw out by the ton. Until we switch to that, corn is (at best) a stopgap that primes the pump so to speak.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In that case, it's lucky that CO2 does not cause global warming, eh?

Everyone is convinced about one argument or the other. I do not believe that climate change is pinned solely to our activities.

In fact, we, as humans have done far worse things to our environment the past 60 years, with surprisingly minor impact. Take the US and USSR's combined 350+ atmospheric nuclear tests during the cold war. Oil spills. Iraq's scorched earth retreat from Kuwait. I can't even scratch the surface...

The environmental movement, as it currently exists, is more about control than the environment. Those that spend all their energy to protest, set a Hummer dealership on fire, etc., then get in their 1974 VW Van and leave an oil trail from Berkley to Seattle...they have become NIMBYs, insisting on sacrifice and offering none.

With all the extreme weather over the US over the past few months, the eco-crazies have been quite quiet...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I've trying to figure out how anyone thought it would be cheaper or
>cause less damage to grow and make energy vs tapping into something
>that already exists.

That's why cellulosic ethanol is going to be the key to any US ethanol effort. Cellulose is something that _does_ already exist, and that we throw out by the ton. Until we switch to that, corn is (at best) a stopgap that primes the pump so to speak.

While it may reduce emissions, it takes more processing to make. When the land mass accounting is included, I don't know if that will be the advantage everyone is seeking.

I believe the Ethanol is a critical component to the US energy policy, but it will not be a full replacement, it isn't efficient enough.

To reduce the emissions everyone is talking about, the it is consumption as a whole that must be looked at, ethanol can be the component to reduce tradition gasoline consumption by levels comparable to hybrid systems, for far less money.

It accomplishes every goal:
1. It reduces traditional gasoline reduction by 20-30%
2. It inserts ethanol into the game without over taxing the supply from our food sources
3. Reduced consumption means reduced emissions
4. Reduced consumption means more stable fuel supply/demand
5. Frees diesel demand to the industrial sector where its use is critical
6. Easier maintenance since there is one power source, not an engine/battery combo
7. Environmental concerns from battery pack disposal virtually eliminated

Ethanol boosting could be implemented within 3-5 years. Couple that with a "Manhattan Project" -style initiative to drill in ANWR and stabilize supply within 10 years, build 10 new nuclear plants in 20 years, build a Hydrogen infrastructure within 20 years, clean coal plants and expand every interstate in the country by 25% within 30 years.

I just laid out a comprehensive strategy that makes more sense than outlawing light bulbs.

This country could be energy independent within 50 years if we wanted to. The politics and foreign influences are the fear factor that must be faced if we are to continue to prosper and remain at the forefront of civilization.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,132]

>In fact, we, as humans have done far worse things to our environment
>the past 60 years, with surprisingly minor impact.

"Worse?" That's one of those judgment calls. Bombing the crap out of Iraq/Nagasaki/(pick your favorite target) is certainly disastrous for the people there, and devastates the environment nearby. But compared to even a small volcanic eruption, it's not even noticeable.

The interesting thing about increasing the CO2 concentration is that it affects every single square foot of the planet, something we have never achieved before on this scale.

>With all the extreme weather over the US over the past few months,
>the eco-crazies have been quite quiet...

And with a bunch of high temperature records set this week in Socal, the deniers here have gone quiet as well. In both cases, of course, it's silly to look at one or two data points and ignore the trend.

>I believe the Ethanol is a critical component to the US energy policy, but
>it will not be a full replacement, it isn't efficient enough.

I agree. Even when we get to cellulosic ethanol, it will be just one part of the solution.

>ethanol can be the component to reduce tradition gasoline consumption
>by levels comparable to hybrid systems, for far less money.

Agreed.

>Ethanol boosting could be implemented within 3-5 years. Couple that
>with a "Manhattan Project" -style initiative to drill in ANWR and stabilize
>supply within 10 years, build 10 new nuclear plants in 20 years, build a
>Hydrogen infrastructure within 20 years, clean coal plants and expand
>every interstate in the country by 25% within 30 years.

Agreed on some of them. Expanding interstates and drilling ANWR will INCREASE consumption, though, so they don't fit with your stated goal. Hydrogen will only work out if we have a cheap source of it, like HTGR nuclear reactors, so that's a ways out.

>This country could be energy independent within 50 years if we wanted
>to. The politics and foreign influences are the fear factor that must be
>faced if we are to continue to prosper and remain at the forefront of
>civilization.

I see no reason to be "at the forefront of civilization." I think our goal should be to live well and let others live well. Who cares who's "at the front?"

The 50 year goal could indeed be achieved. One plan to do so:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Ethanol boosting could be implemented within 3-5 years. Couple that
>with a "Manhattan Project" -style initiative to drill in ANWR and stabilize
>supply within 10 years, build 10 new nuclear plants in 20 years, build a
>Hydrogen infrastructure within 20 years, clean coal plants and expand
>every interstate in the country by 25% within 30 years.

Agreed on some of them. Expanding interstates and drilling ANWR will INCREASE consumption, though, so they don't fit with your stated goal. Hydrogen will only work out if we have a cheap source of it, like HTGR nuclear reactors, so that's a ways out.

The ANWR piece is to stabilize supply in the face of fluctuating currencies, economies, etc. It's not to "replace" any single source. If ANWR is implemented after new engines designs are available, the impact will not be as drastic. The auto makers can narrow their choices and force market acceptance without a single law going into effect.

Hydrogen supplies more along the line of public transportation where rail is not viable, and for inner city next-gen hybrid markets.

Quote

I see no reason to be "at the forefront of civilization." I think our goal should be to live well and let others live well. Who cares who's "at the front?"

Well, we just disagree on the US role in the world. So often, when we do nothing, the world yells at us. When we do something, the world yells at us. I'd just assume that we do something instead of sitting idly by (not to mention that past attempts to do so have had detrimental affects on us, which we are still paying the price for).

Quote

The 50 year goal could indeed be achieved. One plan to do so:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Yeah...great...only need the land space the size of Maryland to make it work. Did you read the plan?

Solar is better if it's local. Homebuilders and designers could more easily integrate solar and other "renewables" without massive infrastructure build outs, relying on massive subsidies at the expense of whole industries.

They are advocating solar as a practical alternative, but there is no public awareness. Make the public aware by putting it on their roof. Reduce consumption.

If every new house built incorporated 30% of what you spent on your solar array, how much would demand off the grid be reduced?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,132]

>The ANWR piece is to stabilize supply in the face of fluctuating
>currencies, economies, etc.

I don't see how that would work.

We currently import about 60% of our oil. If we replace those sources with ANWR, two things will happen:

1) We drain ANWR dry in under three years

2) Prices will drop (no OPEC effects and increased supply) and our consumption will go up accordingly.

Fast forward three years. We now have no significant reserves, we are more dependent on oil, and are completely at the mercy of foreign powers to give us the fuel we need to run both our military and our economy. That is not a good place to be.

> If ANWR is implemented after new engines designs are available,
> the impact will not be as drastic. The auto makers can narrow their
> choices and force market acceptance without a single law going into
> effect.

?? Why would car companies build expensive diesels and hybrids when gas gets cheaper again? Who would buy them?

>Well, we just disagree on the US role in the world. So often, when we do
>nothing, the world yells at us. When we do something, the world yells at
>us. I'd just assume that we do something instead of sitting idly by . . .

If doing nothing nets us the same as doing something, I'd rather save a few trillion dollars and a few thousand US soldiers from violent deaths. But that's just me, and is a completely different discussion.

>Yeah...great...only need the land space the size of Maryland to make
>it work. Did you read the plan?

Yes, I did. An array 200 miles on a side would do it. That's less than half the desert in Nevada. You could build it out there and few people would even _see_ it unless you flew over it.

Not to say that's the best way to do it, of course. You could cover our interstates instead, and also protect the roads from sun damage, rain and snow.

>Solar is better if it's local.

In many places, I agree. In Phoenix, LA, Tucson, Las Vegas etc local generation makes a lot of sense. In New York it might make more sense to have Midwest power sources and better transmission systems.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I've trying to figure out how anyone thought it would be cheaper or
>cause less damage to grow and make energy vs tapping into something
>that already exists.

That's why cellulosic ethanol is going to be the key to any US ethanol effort. Cellulose is something that _does_ already exist, and that we throw out by the ton. Until we switch to that, corn is (at best) a stopgap that primes the pump so to speak.

You may want to research this a little more before making statements such as this.

The effects of removing cellulosic materials from corn fields has started huge debate in Iowa and rightfully so. However minimal, this material is part of the fertilizer needed for the next season. The effects of removing what becomes compost (humas) is not totoally known either. Removing it will cause (some say and I dont know) more cost to the enviornment because of the increase fertilizer needs. Crops like switch grass where no grain is involved would be only slightly different.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Paper is also cellulosic material, and we're just throwing that stuff away by the megaton.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[happythoughts 0]

Bagasse

Quote

Bagasse (sometimes spelled bagass) is the biomass remaining after sugarcane stalks are crushed to extract their juice.[1]

Agave bagasse is a similar material which consists of the tissue of the blue agave after extraction of the sap.

Thus, making it of interest to sugar growers in the southern US.

Quote

A sugar factory produces nearly 30% of bagasse out of its total crushing.

There used to be huge piles of it near the south Florida sugar plants.

Quote

Many research efforts have attempted to use bagasse as a renewable feedstock for power generation and for the production of bio-based materials. One successful example has been to cultivate edible mushrooms, such as oyster or shiitake, on blocks or bags of chopped up bagasse.

Bagasse is often used as a primary fuel source for sugar mills[2]; when burned in quantity, it produces sufficient heat energy to supply all the needs of a typical sugar mill, with energy to spare. To this end, a secondary use for this waste product is in cogeneration, the use of a fuel source to provide both heat energy, used in the mill, and electricity, which is typically sold on to the consumer electricity grid.

Quote

Ethanol produced from the sugar in sugarcane is a popular fuel in Brazil. The cellulose rich bagasse is now being tested for production of commercial quantities of cellulosic ethanol. Verenium Corporation (VRNM) is currently building a cellulosic ethanol plant based on cellulosic by-products like bagasse in Jennings LA.

[PLFXpert 0]

And sticky-fingers should beware of dropping a CFL light-bulb!

I always thought they were funny-looking anyways.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

>The ANWR piece is to stabilize supply in the face of fluctuating
>currencies, economies, etc.

I don't see how that would work.

We currently import about 60% of our oil. If we replace those sources with ANWR, two things will happen:

1) We drain ANWR dry in under three years

2) Prices will drop (no OPEC effects and increased supply) and our consumption will go up accordingly.

Fast forward three years. We now have no significant reserves, we are more dependent on oil, and are completely at the mercy of foreign powers to give us the fuel we need to run both our military and our economy. That is not a good place to be.

> If ANWR is implemented after new engines designs are available,
> the impact will not be as drastic. The auto makers can narrow their
> choices and force market acceptance without a single law going into
> effect.

?? Why would car companies build expensive diesels and hybrids when gas gets cheaper again? Who would buy them?

Have to agree.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Fast forward three years. We now have no significant reserves, we are more dependent on oil, and are completely at the mercy of foreign powers to give us the fuel we need to run both our military and our economy. That is not a good place to be.

This is how bill changed my mind on ANWR. We want to have our own oil in the bank so that we're the only ones with it when it runs out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

The ANWR thing has always been really fucking obvious to me (i.e. silly "solution").

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,132]

>The effects of removing cellulosic materials from corn fields . . .

Why take it from corn fields? Why not use paper, cardboard, rice hulls, waste wood or grass clippings? Why not grow switchgrass (which grows anywhere) and use that?

As we've said before, there will be no one magic bullet that solves all our fuel problems. Corn based ethanol isn't a very good solution; it's just marginally better than oil from a source perspective. Cellulosic ethanol is a lot better. Biodiesel, biogas and syngas will also be options.

>The effects of removing what becomes compost (humas) is not totoally
> known either.

So replace it with sterilized manure from sewage processing plants, hog farms and dairies.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I just laid out a comprehensive strategy that makes more sense than outlawing light bulbs.

Technical advisory comments on your strategy, I would strongly recommend you consider photovoltaics playing a more prominent role.
(There was a silly part of me that was tempted to do this in 13pt INFO MEMO format. )

The theoretical limit of energy conversion from plants (biofuels) is 10% efficiency. Pragmatically, the best conversions rates for biomass are non-corn-based, e.g., switch grass & sugar beets … living in the southern US, I’ve wondered about kudzu. Algae is another renewable biomass energy source.

The globally requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW) currently. By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW.

Otoh, 165,000 TW of sunlight hit the Earth every day.

Because fossil fuels have been relatively ‘cheap and easy’ (to put it crudely) there hasn’t been the incentive to invest in development of PVs. Plus the solar community does not traditionally have a substantial industrial lobbying base.

W/r/t 2nd generation PVs: just last Friday, 18.6% efficiency on a polycrystalline silicon (Si) PV from Mitsubishi was confirmed by Japan’s version of NIST, which represents the world record for the thin film PV.

Particularly promising are the 3rd generation PVs – Gratzel-type cells, dye-sensitive ITOs, organic polymers, etc, which are not based on semi-conductor technology but mimic photosynthesis, e.g., the work of Dan Nocera and Angela Belcher at the basic research level and commercially Konarka’s flexible PVs, which are even available in a camouflage pattern, and Global Photonic.

From an economics/investor perspective, it’s a hugely untapped market. Investment in basic and applied research in photovoltaics is paltry and should be increased substantially. From a citizens' interest perspective, a 2006 study by the independent Program on International Policy Attitudes found that a majority of the public wants the federal budget for renewable energy research like solar cells to increase by 10-fold.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,132]

>W/r/t 2nd generation PVs: just last Friday, 18.6% efficiency on a
>polycrystalline silicon (Si) PV from Mitsubishi was confirmed by Japan’s
>version of NIST, which represents the world record for the thin film PV.

Some notes on that:

There are a lot of different kinds of solar cells.

Single crystal cells are cut from a block of intrinsic silicon crystal and doped. They represent most modern cells. A good commercial panel (the Sanyo HIPs) gets you about 20% cell efficiencies. Space grade cells get you about 30%. Since you have to slice them from nearly perfect crystals they're expensive and energy-intensive.

Polycrystalline silicon cells are made from blocks of silicon that are melted and then allowed to harden in any old orientation. Much cheaper in terms of time/energy, but not as efficient in use. The 18.6% efficiency is a decent efficiency there, but I've seen numbers as high as 20%. Maybe 18.6% means "commercially viable."

Thin film cells are made on an inert substrate like glass or steel, and have a film printed/laminated/sprayed onto them. The material can be silicon, cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide etc. These are cheap to make but typically have efficiencies around 8%. Lab cells have gotten to 20%.

More exotic cells are often made from materials like gallium arsenide. Lab cells have gotten to over 42%; these cells are generally only used in concentrators (and on extraterrestrial rovers/spacecraft) because of their very high cost.

See attached for a timeline.

[Gawain 0]

I know I'm shooting from the hip on a lot of this.

A transitional requirement in my mind would mean that ANWR has to be in the picture, as does reserves that may be found in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. Solar is viable to be sure, but I don't think that would be a wide-spread solution, where nuclear and other established energy sources can be a better suited for the "slower" growth areas (like the north).

The current cost of oil is tied 100% to the weak dollar. Recent regulations that force higher CAFE standards have to be considered. With the weird energy bill just passed, the increase in ethanol production will have its role to play as well.

Quote

?? Why would car companies build expensive diesels and hybrids when gas gets cheaper again? Who would buy them?

Did you miss my point about ethanol boosting and diesels for the commercial sector? The fact that ethanol boosting is far less expensive than hybrids, while still getting real power and reducing consumption.

Everyone is still looking at this in terms of dollars first. The paradigm has to be changed. Look at consumption first and apply real cost. Everyone has been whining about $3-4/gal gas here, they're still pumping the same amount of fuel into their vehicles. If they look at how much they're using versus how much their spending, they can make real changes.

It's no different than why you drive hybrids, the cost is a by-product of your reduced consumption.

Quote

If doing nothing nets us the same as doing something, I'd rather save a few trillion dollars and a few thousand US soldiers from violent deaths. But that's just me, and is a completely different discussion.

You're misconstruing my meaning behind the US remaining a world leader for "military leader". Though, the two may go hand-in-hand.

Quote

In many places, I agree. In Phoenix, LA, Tucson, Las Vegas etc local generation makes a lot of sense. In New York it might make more sense to have Midwest power sources and better transmission systems.

Add to my list, a "Manhattan Project" style initiative to build out the power grid too...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There are a lot of different kinds of solar cells.

Single crystal cells are cut from a block of intrinsic silicon crystal and doped. They represent most modern cells.

The 1st generation cells that you described represent ~70% of terrestrial PVs.

Quote

The 18.6% efficiency is a decent efficiency there, but I've seen numbers as high as 20%. Maybe 18.6% means "commercially viable."

Yep. As I *noted* (1) 2nd gen PV, (2) confirmed by the national testing facility, and (3) Mitsubishi, i.e., commercial.

Quote

More exotic cells are often made from materials like gallium arsenide. Lab cells have gotten to over 42%; these cells are generally only used in concentrators (and on extraterrestrial rovers/spacecraft) because of their very high cost.

90% of space-based power is generated via 2nd gen PV cells.
I’m not sure what you mean by “exotic.” Maybe 2nd Gen non-Si (Group III-V/chalcogenide CVD) PVs were “exotic” 10 years ago or are still considered “exotic” in some large scale commercial applications (?) Gratzel cells aren’t even “exotic” anymore.

The truly “exotic” are the quantum dots, the CNT-conjugated systems (e.g., that Richard Smalley (RIP) advocated), Group III-V inorganic nanowires, diamond films (maybe), & fullerenes (non-Gratzel applications).

At this point my recommendation remains significant investment in basic and applied research on 3rd Gen PV and DT&E on most promising 2nd Gen.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>

More exotic cells are often made from materials like gallium arsenide. Lab cells have gotten to over 42%; these cells are generally only used in concentrators (and on extraterrestrial rovers/spacecraft) because of their very high cost.

See attached for a timeline.

The compund semiconductors like GaAs have a direct gap, so the photon energy can go directly to e/h pair production. Problem with GaAs is that its band gap energy does not match the peak in the solar spectrum at ground level. In Si the band gap is indirect so a large fraction of the photon's energy goes into a lattice vibration in order to conserve momentum and is not available for pair production. None of the elemental semiconductors have direct band gaps.

How about high efficiency piezo crystals embedded in all vibrating/moving/flapping objects. We could even generate electricity from flags waving in the wind, or parachutes opening...? (I just spent the morning at a fabrication facility for Pb-Mg-Nb- titanate "giant piezo" single crystals. They grow them in huge platinum crucibles).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

How about high efficiency piezo crystals embedded in all vibrating/moving/flapping objects. We could even generate electricity from flags waving in the wind, or parachutes opening...? (I just spent the morning at a fabrication facility for Pb-Mg-Nb- titanate "giant piezo" single crystals. They grow them in huge platinum crucibles ).

Yes! (In addition to 3rd Gen PVs!)

As well as on the other end of the size scale – wearable piezoelectric ZnO nanowires arrays (e.g., Georgia Tech’s ZL Wang) or other piezoelectric inorganic nanowires intercalated w/polymer(s) at/near metabolic or environmental Tg’s ('glass' transition temperatures), (e.g., LLNL’s Alex Noy).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying