SA Greenies

[felix]

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 11:23 AM, Peter wrote:

On 18/02/2017 11:07 PM, Xeno wrote:
snip
I have seen many cats bring home birds and mice that they have
absolutely no intention of eating. They hunt and kill for *sport*.

That's dreadful. But only to be expected of creatures much further
down the order of sentient creatures than us human beings.

don't underestimate their intelligence, and other perceptive
capabilities. the ancient Egyptians were the first, so history records,
to recognize the psychic abilities of cats, so much so that they deified
them

"The ancient Egyptians held cats in the highest esteem, the penalties
for injuring or killing a cat were severe. They worshipped a Cat
Goddess, often represented as half feline, half woman, whom they called
Bastet. The main center for the worship of Bastet was in northern Egypt
at the city of Bubastis."

http://www.catmuseumsf.org/egyptcats.html

https://www.petcentric.com/11-27-2012/why-ancient-egypt-worshipped-cats/

Next thing you know those bestial cats will be launching robotic
aerial vehicle attacks on pregnant females and kittens

--
"Golf is a sport where it's so easy to do everything wrong,
and so difficult to do everything right"

 

[felix]

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 1:02 AM, Ned Latham wrote:

felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.
Fuck me, that's a good idea!


**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.
what native animals are there in suburbia?

It's appalling.
you're appalling

Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.
you're an idiot

That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.
so he should be..
So you're a cat person, Felix? Or is it Felix?

Calling all Felices...

yes, I love my pussy..

--
"Golf is a sport where it's so easy to do everything wrong,
and so difficult to do everything right"

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:

On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced

**"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal.

There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal.


and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
> carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

**Great. And just how do you propose to GUARANTEE that all this captured
CO2 will NEVER escape? Never ever. Do you know how much space will be
required to store this dangerous stuff?

Hey, I've got an idea (I know, it's wild and whacky): Let's stop using
coal for making electricity and use, oh, I dunno, Solar PV or
Solar/thermal. Just a thought.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[felix]

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 9:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/02/2017 9:20 PM, felix wrote:
On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats
off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!




**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.

what native animals are there in suburbia?

**In my (tiny, 700 sq M) backyard?

* Sulfur Crested Cockatoo
* Magpies (a family of 7 - 3 generations)
* Kookaburras
* Crested Pigeons
* Noisy miners
* King Parrots
* Lorikeets
* Eastern Rosellas
* Crimson Rosellas
* Striped Marsh Frogs
* Perrins Tree Frogs
* Blue tongue lizards (at least 3 I know of)
* Leaf Tail Gekkos
* Ring Tail Possums
* Brush Tail Possums

All, with the possible exception of Cockatoos, are fair game for cats.


It's appalling.

you're appalling

**You're an idiot.

compared to you I rival Einstein

Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.

you're an idiot

**Cat owners are, in the main, thoughtless arseholes.

cats are animals you moron. you can't ascribe human moral judgements to
them.

That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.



so he should be..

**Why do you think that keeping cats is a good idea?

cats are wonderful pets. they give a lot of pleasure to many people.
never heard of a cat ripping a childs face open or killing a pet poodle
yet eg: http://www.mamamia.com.au/pitbull-attack-5yo-girl/

cats are also used therapeutically in hospitals and nursing homes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_cat

--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/02/2017 12:03 PM, felix wrote:

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 9:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/02/2017 9:20 PM, felix wrote:
On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats
off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!




**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.

what native animals are there in suburbia?

**In my (tiny, 700 sq M) backyard?

* Sulfur Crested Cockatoo
* Magpies (a family of 7 - 3 generations)
* Kookaburras
* Crested Pigeons
* Noisy miners
* King Parrots
* Lorikeets
* Eastern Rosellas
* Crimson Rosellas
* Striped Marsh Frogs
* Perrins Tree Frogs
* Blue tongue lizards (at least 3 I know of)
* Leaf Tail Gekkos
* Ring Tail Possums
* Brush Tail Possums

All, with the possible exception of Cockatoos, are fair game for cats.


It's appalling.

you're appalling

**You're an idiot.

compared to you I rival Einstein

**We'll come back to that very soon.

Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.

you're an idiot

**Cat owners are, in the main, thoughtless arseholes.

cats are animals you moron. you can't ascribe human moral judgements to
them.

**OK, Einstein, read what I wrote, you fucking moron. "Cat OWNERS....."

That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.



so he should be..

**Why do you think that keeping cats is a good idea?



cats are wonderful pets.

**Sure.

they give a lot of pleasure to many people.

**Sure.

never heard of a cat ripping a childs face open or killing a pet poodle
yet eg: http://www.mamamia.com.au/pitbull-attack-5yo-girl/

**Uh huh:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577997/Father-calls-911-help-enraged-cat-attacks-baby-bails-family-including-DOG-bedroom.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/870201/cat-attacks-baby-in-cot/

http://emj.bmj.com/content/22/4/260.full

http://ezinearticles.com/?Child-Injuries-From-Cats&id=3202667

You've managed to stray off-topic here. I was speaking about the damage
to indigenous animals from cats.

cats are also used therapeutically in hospitals and nursing homes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_cat

**And again: I have no problem with cats, PROVIDED they are never
allowed out doors. Never ever.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[felix]

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 10:20 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/02/2017 9:17 PM, felix wrote:
On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 7:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2017 5:04 PM, felix wrote:
On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 11:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 11:46 AM, felix wrote:
On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 5:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:







Renewable energy is good if it works, my problem is with it
when it
is a
waste of time or does not work efficiently,Coal is fine as a stop
gap
till the bugs are worked out in renewables.

**What bugs would they be? Wind turbines work.

when the wind blows, and not cost effective

**Once erected, they deliver power at no cost for decades.

except for maintenance, breakdowns, servicing, etc., and killing birds

**That old chestnut. Far more birds are killed by emissions from coal
fired power stations than from wind turbines.

failed to address the maintenance issue I see

**Coal-fired power stations require maintenance too. ALL power
generation equipment does.


In any case, if you are REALLY so fucking concerned about birds (I bet
you're not), then you should be killing cats. Cats kill 10,000 times
more birds than wind turbines do.

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

what a prick you are! it's not illegal to own a cat. do you also run
elderly drivers off the road coz they're too slow?

**Thanks to NSW state law, I am entitled to exterminate any cats I
find on my property.

I didn't know that

I don't. I catch them and send them to the pound, where they are
de-sexed, re-homed or returned to their stupid owners.



If the cat is chipped, it only costs the neighbour $100.00 to get it
back. They only do it once or twice. Cat owners are quite easy to
train. Hit them in the wallet.

train them to do what?

**To keep their fucking cats locked up. Dogs are not allowed to roam
the streets. I fail to see why cats should be.

--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[Xeno]

On 19/02/2017 5:02 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:33:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote:

“Because most of what we put into our combustor
is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and
therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,”

I'd like you to explain the above.

CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor?
Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*?

The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph.

Can you link to the research documents?

Not rocket science. When you burn coal in air 80% is nitrogen

That much I am aware of. After all, I deal with automotive diesel and
petrol engines and NOx emissions are of great concern.

When you burn coal in pure oxygen it is only CO2 produced at much ore
efficient combustion.

CO2 and Water. The issue here is that we are not burning a gas such as
methane. We are burning coal and there are *pollutants* in the coal.

That, however, is not the point I alluded to in the above excerpt. I
would like to know how CO2, being inert, is able to lower oxygen needs
in the combustor. After all, it will be adding nothing to the combustion
process save for dilution. Since NOx isn't an issue in the combustor,
why the need to dilute the fuel / oxygen mixture?

Emissions must therefore only be what the amount of oxygen is
converted to gas allowing economic recapture

What gas? CO2? The chemical processes are already available. I gave the
one for Methane in both air and oxygen in a past post. Coal, being a
solid, is a different beast - unless you convert it to something else
and purify it.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[felix]

On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 12:06 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/02/2017 12:03 PM, felix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 Feb 2017 9:58 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/02/2017 9:20 PM, felix wrote:
On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats
off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!




**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.

what native animals are there in suburbia?

**In my (tiny, 700 sq M) backyard?

* Sulfur Crested Cockatoo
* Magpies (a family of 7 - 3 generations)
* Kookaburras
* Crested Pigeons
* Noisy miners
* King Parrots
* Lorikeets
* Eastern Rosellas
* Crimson Rosellas
* Striped Marsh Frogs
* Perrins Tree Frogs
* Blue tongue lizards (at least 3 I know of)
* Leaf Tail Gekkos
* Ring Tail Possums
* Brush Tail Possums

All, with the possible exception of Cockatoos, are fair game for cats.


It's appalling.

you're appalling

**You're an idiot.

compared to you I rival Einstein

**We'll come back to that very soon.




Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.

you're an idiot

**Cat owners are, in the main, thoughtless arseholes.

cats are animals you moron. you can't ascribe human moral judgements to
them.

**OK, Einstein, read what I wrote, you fucking moron. "Cat OWNERS....."

Oops! but no, they're not. more dog owners are idiots than cat owners.
ppl don't buy cats to make themselves look (seem) tough

That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.



so he should be..

**Why do you think that keeping cats is a good idea?



cats are wonderful pets.

**Sure.

they give a lot of pleasure to many people.

**Sure.

never heard of a cat ripping a childs face open or killing a pet poodle
yet eg: http://www.mamamia.com.au/pitbull-attack-5yo-girl/

**Uh huh:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577997/Father-calls-911-help-enraged-cat-attacks-baby-bails-family-including-DOG-bedroom.html


https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/870201/cat-attacks-baby-in-cot/

http://emj.bmj.com/content/22/4/260.full

http://ezinearticles.com/?Child-Injuries-From-Cats&id=3202667

cat attacks are rare compared to dog attacks. I can't even recall ever
hearing a report of one

You've managed to stray off-topic here. I was speaking about the
damage to indigenous animals from cats.

which you've greatly overstated and exaggerated. you make it seem like
cats are decimating the native wildlife population. the major risk to
native species is from feral cats. in normal suburbia the most likely
'victims' of pet cats would be small birds and rodents. most pet owners
usually spoil their pets with kindness, making them less interested in
their natural predatory behaviour.

cats are also used therapeutically in hospitals and nursing homes -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy_cat


**And again: I have no problem with cats, PROVIDED they are never
allowed out doors. Never ever.

--
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
http://www.siotw.org

 

[Xeno]

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:

On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

Carbon capture where? In the ground? Is that permanent? I suspect not. A
gold mine in Canada used arsenic capture into the ground as a solution
for their waste issue. Unfortunately geology took them by surprise and
now there's a multi billion dollar waste control issue that the mining
company, now dissolved, has no interest in. Back to the taxpayer.

A start in natural carbon sequestration would be to reinstate forests
instead of removing them.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced

**"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal.

100%

There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal.


and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

**Great. And just how do you propose to GUARANTEE that all this captured
CO2 will NEVER escape? Never ever. Do you know how much space will be
required to store this dangerous stuff?

Hey, I've got an idea (I know, it's wild and whacky): Let's stop using
coal for making electricity and use, oh, I dunno, Solar PV or
Solar/thermal. Just a thought.

--
Petzl
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:16:15 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

Carbon capture where? In the ground? Is that permanent? I suspect not. A
gold mine in Canada used arsenic capture into the ground as a solution
for their waste issue. Unfortunately geology took them by surprise and
now there's a multi billion dollar waste control issue that the mining
company, now dissolved, has no interest in. Back to the taxpayer.

A start in natural carbon sequestration would be to reinstate forests
instead of removing them.

CO2 output is minimised with 100% liquified and put under ground and
will stay there as long as unmined coal does.
--
Petzl
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:23:57 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:20 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:58:03 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 18/02/2017 9:20 PM, felix wrote:
On Saturday, 18 Feb 2017 9:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/02/2017 9:20 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

So, what will you do? Kill a cat today? I send my neighbour's cats off
to the pound when I catch them.

Fuck me, that's a good idea!




**It is indeed. Possum cages work well. A can of tuna or salmon and
the cat is caught. The average cat in Australia is reputed to kill
something like 7 native animals per year.

what native animals are there in suburbia?

**In my (tiny, 700 sq M) backyard?

* Sulfur Crested Cockatoo
* Magpies (a family of 7 - 3 generations)
* Kookaburras
* Crested Pigeons
* Noisy miners
* King Parrots
* Lorikeets
* Eastern Rosellas
* Crimson Rosellas
* Striped Marsh Frogs
* Perrins Tree Frogs
* Blue tongue lizards (at least 3 I know of)
* Leaf Tail Gekkos
* Ring Tail Possums
* Brush Tail Possums

All, with the possible exception of Cockatoos, are fair game for cats.


It's appalling.

you're appalling

**You're an idiot.


Cat owners are, in the main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity.

you're an idiot

**Cat owners are, in the main, thoughtless arseholes.


That said, not all are like that. A mate's wife owned a cat, so my
mate arranged for a large indoor/outdoor area to be securely fenced
with chicken wire, so the cat could play and not interact with any
native species. He is in the minority.



so he should be..

**Why do you think that keeping cats is a good idea?

No I don't own a cat but my nice neighbors do sometimes when they go
on holiday they ask me to feed them though, which I don't mind doing.

Domestic cats (fixed and mirochipped) are not as aggressive as feral
cats. And my neighbors cats often catch a rat BIG ones from the
reserve at the back.

**Not as aggressive? No. But there's a LOT more of them. Despite high
steel fences, my own backyard has been the scene of death and
destruction from domestic cats. Some of the animals killed and injured
include:

Magpies, Crested Pigeons, frogs, lizards (including blue tongues),
Superb, Blue Fairy Wrens, etc. I have no problem with domestic cats,
PROVIDED they are kept locked up at all times. They cannot be allowed
out doors. Ever.

As I have said and supplied evidence (you snipped) for suburbia's
greatest threat to rats are domestic cats.

A very much greater threat to bird life are rats and the greatest
threat to rats are cats both domestic and feral.

The greatest threat is "flying rats" (Indian Myna)
<http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/show-no-mercy-for-rats-of-the-sky/news-story/ec185744e2ead9b5fcb346b00dbee00a?nk=54f8cd15cac84bf213e945c15655edd2-1487473609>
https://is.gd/ostEIQ

Aside from you know the rat population in your suburb??

**There are rats. If the cats ONLY killed the rats, I wouldn't mind.
Trouble is they kill EVERYTHING they can.

If you don't have a outside cat you encourage a rat habitat!

**Bullshit.

When I moved here we backed on to farmland we had a rat problem two
cats fixed that problem they did kill the odd bird (Myna's mainly but
yes sometime others) but died maybe 20 years ago since then the farm
land is suburbia with many owning domestic cats I are also a avid bird
watcher and have seen in our reserve a very great increase of various
birds which were never there without my neighboirhood cat population.

Cats doing more harm to bird life than good is a proven myth
<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/australian-cats-and-foxes-may-not-deserve-their-bad-rep>
https://is.gd/RoXaoU
No doubt you will snip again
--
Petzl
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:15:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 1:53 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced

**"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal.

100%


**I call bullshit. Cite your proof.

Sounds like you have shit on your liver
Get a hose get flow to 1 litre a minute
Show it up yourse for one minute hold water there for a least one
minute (or longer and bend forward and back while waiting) and have a
crap/dump.

You can't google and snip out other cites of proof?
<https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/03/are-emissions-free-fossil-fuel-power-plants-too-good-to-be-true/>
https://is.gd/V5o2O7
A fossil-fuel power plant that will produce low-cost electricity with
zero emissions? It sounds too good to be true. And it is for the
forseeable future.

Carbon capture and storage technology, which can bury up to 90 percent
of the power plant emissions, according to the EPA shows promise but
still has huge hurdles to overcome. The technology is expensive and
unproven — the captured carbon must remain permanently trapped
underground — and in requires massive public subsidies. All of the
US-based projects, which are still in the demonstration phase, are
publicly-financed in part.

However, Net Power thinks it is on the road to success. “You’re
definitely not the first person to say that,” admits Walker Dimmig, a
spokesman for Net Power, when asked if the company’s technology is too
good to be true. Earlier this week the company said it is building a
zero-emissions plant in Texas, which it says is a “first-of-a-kind.”

“Every piece of equipment except for the turbine is already in
operation today,” Dimmig told Environmental Leader. “We’ve done
thousands of thermodynamic models, and others have done the same.
We’ve even tested the novel combustor that the turbine needs.
Everything indicates this works the way we believe it does. And now
we’re building the demo to confirm it. I guess you could say the only
downside is that it doesn’t exist yet and we’re having to go prove it.
We have a great deal of commercial interest, but since it’s a brand
new technology, everyone wants to see if it will work.”

Dimmig says the company says it expects its future utility-scale power
plants using Net Power technology will be able to sell electricity at
a comparable cost natural gas power plants.

Net Power is a collaboration between Exelon Generation, CB&I, and 8
Rivers Capital. Almost two years ago the company announced it had
secured funding for the $140 million project. This week it broke
ground on the 50-megawatt demonstration plant in in La Porte, Texas.

The power plant uses Net Power’s power generation technology with
inherent carbon capture, which means it doesn’t require expensive,
efficiency-reducing carbon capture equipment.

“Traditional carbon capture approaches begin by assuming today’s best
methods of power generation, such as natural gas combined cycle, are
also the best starting point for developing a carbon capture system,”
Dimmig explains. “So they design additive systems that bolt onto
traditional plants to capture, cleanup and then compress their
emissions streams. By their very nature, these systems will always be
cost-additive to existing technologies: if you add a bunch of
equipment, complexity, and processes that require energy, these
systems will by necessity lower the efficiency and increase the
capital cost of current plants. The only question is can we get those
increased costs to an acceptable level; so far, it hasn’t worked out.”

Net Power, on the other hand, produces a high-pressure, high-quality
CO2 stream that can be removed via a pipeline and sequestered or used
in various industrial processes, including enhanced oil recovery.

The company says this works because:

It uses CO2 (instead of steam) as the working fluid to drive a
turbine. “So, when we go to remove part of that working fluid, it’s
already in the condition needed to put it in a pipeline,” Dimmig says.
The power plant uses an oxy-combustion system, which means it burns
fuel with pure oxygen instead of air. This produces combustion
products of CO2 and water, while eliminating NOx and other impurities.
The system then removes water from this working fluid.
It recycles the majority of the CO2 working fluid back into the front
of the combustor, rather than using that hot CO2 to boil water and
drive a steam turbine. “Because most of what we put into our combustor
is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and
therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” Dimmig says.
The demonstration plant will generate power that will be fed to the
grid. Net Power expects commissioning to begin in late 2016 and be
completed in 2017. The company says the 50MW plant will also provide
the validation to begin constructing the first 295MWe,
commercial-scale Net Power plants.

Lux Research analyst Daniel Choi says the major advantage of Net
Power’s technology is that the emissions-free aspect. The company’s
primary competition comes from companies developing carbon capture
utilization and sequestration technologies; “however, because Net
Power has a bottom-up approach to cleaner power generation — whereas
CCU/CCS is fitted to traditionally designed plants — it is a promising
long-term solution for new projects,” Choi says.

The downsides to Net Power’s technology involve cost — because the
process requires an extremely pure oxygen stream, it needs to also
build a cryogenic air separation unit, which is very capital intensive
— and future finding, Choi says. Most of the $140 million Net Power
raised in 2014 will be spent on the demonstration project, which means
it will need to raise more money to build the 295 MW commercial
plants.

“Overall, the company is well positioned to capitalize on the overall
trend toward lowering carbon emissions,” Choi says. “The management
team has a solid technical background, and the company is supported by
major players. If the demonstration and planned commercial project are
successful, NetPower may be able to fully take advantage of the shift
from coal to natural gas power not only in the US, but possibly in
other countries as well.”


--
Petzl
In 2009, Buzz Aldrin commented on climate change by saying:
"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years.
If it's warming now, it may cool off later.
I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.
I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all,
I think the world is causing it.

 

[SG1]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:egs9m9F16moU1@mid.individual.net...

**And again: I have no problem with cats, PROVIDED they are never allowed
out doors. Never ever.

I also have no problem with cats as long as they are roadkill.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:32:17 +1000, "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:egs9m9F16moU1@mid.individual.net...


**And again: I have no problem with cats, PROVIDED they are never allowed
out doors. Never ever.

I also have no problem with cats as long as they are roadkill.

Sounds like you have shit on your liver
Get a hose, get flow to 1 litre a minute
Show it up your arse for one minute hold water there for a least one
minute (or longer and bend forward/sideways and back while waiting)
and have a
crap/dump.
--
Petzl
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Ba----rds." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
John Cleese,
British writer, Atheist, actor and tall person

 

[Xeno]

On 19/02/2017 1:55 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:16:15 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

Carbon capture where? In the ground? Is that permanent? I suspect not. A
gold mine in Canada used arsenic capture into the ground as a solution
for their waste issue. Unfortunately geology took them by surprise and
now there's a multi billion dollar waste control issue that the mining
company, now dissolved, has no interest in. Back to the taxpayer.

A start in natural carbon sequestration would be to reinstate forests
instead of removing them.

CO2 output is minimised with 100% liquified and put under ground and
will stay there as long as unmined coal does.

Liquified carbon, under pressure, will actually travel through rock
fissures. Coal tends to stay where it is.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Xeno]

On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote:

“Because most of what we put into our combustor
is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and
therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,”

I'd like you to explain the above.

CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor?
Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*?

The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph.

Can you link to the research documents?

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:21:33 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 1:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:16:15 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

Carbon capture where? In the ground? Is that permanent? I suspect not. A
gold mine in Canada used arsenic capture into the ground as a solution
for their waste issue. Unfortunately geology took them by surprise and
now there's a multi billion dollar waste control issue that the mining
company, now dissolved, has no interest in. Back to the taxpayer.

A start in natural carbon sequestration would be to reinstate forests
instead of removing them.

CO2 output is minimised with 100% liquified and put under ground and
will stay there as long as unmined coal does.

Liquified carbon, under pressure, will actually travel through rock
fissures. Coal tends to stay where it is.

Natural gas doesn't so why would CO2

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:33:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote:

“Because most of what we put into our combustor
is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and
therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,”

I'd like you to explain the above.

CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor?
Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*?

The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph.

Can you link to the research documents?

Not rocket science. When you burn coal in air 80% is nitrogen

When you burn coal in pure oxygen it is only CO2 produced at much ore
efficient combustion.
Emissions must therefore only be what the amount of oxygen is
converted to gas allowing economic recapture
--
Petzl
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew Henry

 

[Xeno]

On 19/02/2017 4:56 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:21:33 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 1:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 13:16:15 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:



But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed

(they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
liquid CO2)

You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
coal how can that be "little".

Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
"flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as
carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere

Carbon capture where? In the ground? Is that permanent? I suspect not. A
gold mine in Canada used arsenic capture into the ground as a solution
for their waste issue. Unfortunately geology took them by surprise and
now there's a multi billion dollar waste control issue that the mining
company, now dissolved, has no interest in. Back to the taxpayer.

A start in natural carbon sequestration would be to reinstate forests
instead of removing them.

CO2 output is minimised with 100% liquified and put under ground and
will stay there as long as unmined coal does.

Liquified carbon, under pressure, will actually travel through rock
fissures. Coal tends to stay where it is.

Natural gas doesn't so why would CO2

The natural gas is under very high pressure. Remove that pressure and
you create the potential for geological faulting. It's the change in
pressure and weight distribution. You get the same effect if you build a
dam and add the weight of the water catchment to a formerly stable area.

You will notice that fracking has the same issues though maybe not from
the same causes.

--

Xeno

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Mahatma Ghandi