I’ve recently replaced my 12v 400ah agm battery bank with lifepo4 batteries. I dropped 400lbs in weight and essentially doubled usable capacity. The negatives in that blog don’t seem all that bad unless your specific use case would be specifically affected by them. In my case, the energy density of the new batteries is irrelevant. I’m not overly concerned about cold weather performance, as this is for a recreational vehicle, and we don’t use it often in the winter. Even when we do it’s only a night or two, so reduced capacity in that moment wouldn’t be a problem. It seems the biggest concern is buying your batteries from a reputable source with a decent warranty in the event you get one with manufacturer defects.

At the end of the day, all the various chemistries have their pros and cons. For me, the lifepo4 batteries seemed to fit the nice middle ground between agm and li-ion batteries in regards to weight and price, being both affordable and significantly lighter than agm batteries.

All that said, I’m just some random person on the Internet, with my personal perspective clouding my opinion.

This is what I came for.

Sorry for not being more clear in my response. There is a magazine in the second one. It is a 5 round magazine (The standard option for this particular model). However, for example, here are the readily available options for the mini 14: https://themagshack.com/product-category/rifle-magazines/ruger-mini-14-magazines/

As I said this picture points out that many people don’t know the difference (as you acknowledged you yourself don’t know the difference). My point is semi auto rifles as a category of firearm are more deadly. It doesn’t matter what semi auto. The mini-14 vs AR-15 argument is used to illustrate the general ignorance many people have about various firearms. The mini-14 is very much as dangerous as an AR-15, but it doesn’t get the same attention because it’s a gun that can easily look innocuous. The photo used in this post is intentionally disingenuous to highlight this point.

For example, here are the “tactical” models of the Mini-14: https://ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Ruger literally highlights the following benefits to the tactical models: Their short barrels and overall short length make them favorites in any application where maneuverability and ease of handling are priorities.

Many people argue one way or the other while fully acknowledging their own ignorance, and it makes it difficult to find a solution to an issue. As an owner of more than one semi auto rifle, it is frustrating when this particular argument comes up because of how ridiculous it can be. The AR-15 looks scarier, and is therefore deadlier to many people. There are numerous other semi autos that are just as deadly, but don’t get demonized because they don’t look scary. The AK and SKS are a similar example, though less hyperbolic. The argument to be made is to get rid of semi autos, not demonize particular ones.

This picture is often used to draw out all the points you’ve made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can’t do).

A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn’t, even though they’re functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.

The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.

Damnit, my eyes are leaking…

Yep! There are two types of oil wells, producers and injectors. Producers produce raw production fluids and gas. Those production fluids/gases need to go through a 3-phase separate vessel to separate the oil, water, and gas. The water and gas is sent back into the ground with the injection wells. The reason for this is to maintain the pressure of the reservoir underground, and to dispose of the fluids/gases.

Some amount of gas is flared (burned) off from the separation facility, and also from refineries. The purpose of the flare is for process safety. If there’s an overpressure event, or an equipment shutdown, all the gas production from the field needs to go somewhere while the production wells are shutdown. For that time period, any gas is burned off to prevent a catastrophic failure in the facility.

The amount of gas being flared is monitored and regulated, and any flare event is recorded and reported to the appropriate agencies, generally the EPA, and Relevant state agencies.

Natural gas comes out of the ground naturally, and isn’t necessarily a by-product of gasoline refinement. I can’t speak from experience on the refinery side of things, but I can speak from experience on the upstream production side of things. The natural gas we use for power generation, and heat at the facility I work at essentially comes straight out of the ground with minimal processing. Any excess is put back in the ground. That’s specific to where I work. I imagine other places, the gas is separated out like we do and sent to “the market.”

I very much enjoy his game. Nice way to spend 30 minutes to an hour here and there.

It would be interesting to see what the actual stats are for pedestrian deaths vs miles driven for non autonomous cars. I’m willing to bet autonomous cars will ultimately be safer, but it will take time to get to that point.

Edit: Apparently, according to the transportation safety in the US article on Wikipedia, the average is 1.25 pedestrians killed per 100 million miles driven.