SA Greenies

[felix]

On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 9:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/02/2017 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
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:

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

**Yep:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/8444158c-3268-4730-ab8e-eaf50faf4bc2/1998-87.pdf


Page 23.

One would assume that since you are capable of quoting the act, you are
also capable of reading it. It does NOT give you 'cart blanche' a right
to kill cats on your property, viz...

Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 [NSW]
Part 4 Responsibilities for control of cats

(3) If a cat that is not under the effective control of some competent
person enters any
inclosed lands within the meaning of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act
1901 and
approaches any animal being farmed on the land, the occupier of the land
or any
person authorised by the occupier can lawfully injure or destroy the cat
if he or she
reasonably believes that the cat will molest, attack or cause injury to
any of those
animals.

(4) An authorised officer who finds a cat attacking or harassing an
animal (other than
vermin) within a wildlife protection area (as defined in section 30 (1)
(b)) can
lawfully injure or destroy the cat if there is no other reasonably
practicable way of
protecting the animal.

(5) A person who takes action under the authority of this section that
results in the injury
to or death of a cat must:
(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that an injured cat receives any
necessary
treatment, and
(b) report the matter to an authorised officer (unless the person is an
authorised
officer) and comply with such reasonable directions as the authorised
officer
may give for the purpose of causing the cat to be returned to its owner
or taken
to a council pound, and
(c) take reasonable steps to inform the owner of the cat.

(6) An authorised officer is not to give a direction under this section
for the purpose of
causing a cat to be taken to a council pound unless the authorised
officer is satisfied
that the owner of the cat cannot be identified.

(7) Nothing in this section authorises a contravention of the

(8) The authority conferred by this section to destroy a cat extends
only to authorising
the destruction of the cat in a manner that causes it to die quickly and
without
unnecessary suffering.
...................................................

firstly the property must comply with the meaning of inclosed land as
prescribed by the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, secondly the cat
has to be threat to a 'farmed animal', thirdly you need to comply with
the directions in section (5), and lastly nothing may be done that
contravenes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.

do you have any farmed animals on your property? does it constitute
'inclosed land'? if not, then you have no right to kill or injure any
cat on your premises. and if you do so, I would suggest you would be
subject to penalties under the provision of cruelty to animals legislation

Cats harbor disease, which can endanger the foetus of a pregnant woman.

Cats should be kept indoors at all times.

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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/02/2017 11:28 AM, felix wrote:

On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 9:27 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/02/2017 12:06 PM, felix wrote:
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:

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

**Yep:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/8444158c-3268-4730-ab8e-eaf50faf4bc2/1998-87.pdf


Page 23.

One would assume that since you are capable of quoting the act, you are
also capable of reading it. It does NOT give you 'cart blanche' a right
to kill cats on your property, viz...

Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 [NSW]
Part 4 Responsibilities for control of cats

(3) If a cat that is not under the effective control of some competent
person enters any
inclosed lands within the meaning of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act
1901 and
approaches any animal being farmed on the land, the occupier of the land
or any
person authorised by the occupier can lawfully injure or destroy the cat
if he or she
reasonably believes that the cat will molest, attack or cause injury to
any of those
animals.

(4) An authorised officer who finds a cat attacking or harassing an
animal (other than
vermin) within a wildlife protection area (as defined in section 30 (1)
(b)) can
lawfully injure or destroy the cat if there is no other reasonably
practicable way of
protecting the animal.

(5) A person who takes action under the authority of this section that
results in the injury
to or death of a cat must:
(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that an injured cat receives any
necessary
treatment, and
(b) report the matter to an authorised officer (unless the person is an
authorised
officer) and comply with such reasonable directions as the authorised
officer
may give for the purpose of causing the cat to be returned to its owner
or taken
to a council pound, and
(c) take reasonable steps to inform the owner of the cat.

(6) An authorised officer is not to give a direction under this section
for the purpose of
causing a cat to be taken to a council pound unless the authorised
officer is satisfied
that the owner of the cat cannot be identified.

(7) Nothing in this section authorises a contravention of the

(8) The authority conferred by this section to destroy a cat extends
only to authorising
the destruction of the cat in a manner that causes it to die quickly and
without
unnecessary suffering.
..................................................

firstly the property must comply with the meaning of inclosed land as
prescribed by the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901, secondly the cat
has to be threat to a 'farmed animal', thirdly you need to comply with
the directions in section (5), and lastly nothing may be done that
contravenes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.

do you have any farmed animals on your property? does it constitute
'inclosed land'? if not, then you have no right to kill or injure any
cat on your premises. and if you do so, I would suggest you would be
subject to penalties under the provision of cruelty to animals legislation

**You are correct. However, the local animal control officer provided me
sufficient information to deal with all that. Either way, I don't kill
them. I catch them and send them to the pound.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Fran Snortilus wrote:

On 20/02/2017 8:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

I've seen domestic cats eating my frogs (frogs are really easy
game for any predator) and I've seen them stalk magpies. Cats need to be
kept indoors at all times. I enjoy my native wildlife.

As you're interested in frogs, do you know of any decent sites that help
in identify them? We've got pobblebonk frogs which we enjoy during the
summer, but I've just found 3 small grey little frogs in a particular
hidey hole and would like to know what they are.

I have this strange little one that some have said is a perons tree
frog,but it is grey and some pictures are different,it is bright orange
under back legs and I can not find pic of underside on the net.
strange because one gets in my aluminium letter box every year round now
on the hottest days (put notice on letter box saying frog lives in here
sometimes for postman)also get loads in not so hot places, usually in
some sort of big box.

http://imgur.com/Jw7llq2

 

[Fran Snortilus]

On 20/02/2017 9:48 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 20/02/2017 9:18 AM, Fran Snortilus wrote:
On 20/02/2017 8:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

I've seen domestic cats eating my frogs (frogs are really easy
game for any predator) and I've seen them stalk magpies. Cats need to be
kept indoors at all times. I enjoy my native wildlife.

As you're interested in frogs, do you know of any decent sites that help
in identify them? We've got pobblebonk frogs which we enjoy during the
summer, but I've just found 3 small grey little frogs in a particular
hidey hole and would like to know what they are.


**I don't Fran. I have identified two species in my front yard. Perrins
Tree Frog (we used to call it 'The Predator' (from the movie), because
that is what it sounds like when it calls. And the far more common
Striped Marsh Frog, which, when there's lots of them (which I have)
sounds like a bunch of terrorists exchanging automatic gunfire at night.
The Striped Marsh Frog is a rather drab looking animal. Grey/Brown, with
a brown stripe down it's back. Easy to step on, because it blends in
with the soil. Check Google, but I will get back to you later. My
partner has done more research on this. Yours could be a Striped Marsh
Frog, because they are very common. Particularly if you have a water
source nearby. IOW: Stick a pond in your yard and they will come.

We've got lots of frogs and toads here (and that is no doubt why we also
have snakes), but these we've not seen before. I also couldn't see
anything online that looked like them. They could be juveniles I
suppose and so not like any adult one online. They are plain pale grey
all over and not very big. About the size of a woman's long fat thumb
nail - gorgeous little things.
>

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:21:26 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 20/02/2017 1:31 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:55:31 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

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.

Storing/recapture has nothing to do with fracking

If you think that, then I have some news for you.

http://tinyurl.com/jbtbaof

http://tinyurl.com/knrnlma

http://tinyurl.com/guz3zv3

http://tinyurl.com/z96pfgu

liquid CO2 pumped 10.000 feet or more is not going to find it's way up
unless drilled for

That's exactly what the proponents of CCS thought too. They were wrong.
When you remove pressure, and oil, from a well, you change the loadings
on the geological substructure. That causes minor earthquakes and
subsequent fracturing of the rock layers between the well head and the
CCS area deep in the earth.

Like fracking, CCS has collateral consequences. Add to that the fact
that any attempt to retrofit CCS technology to coal fired power plants
is hideously *expensive*. Far better to build a few base load gas fired
power generators for the short term and give coal, in any form, a huge miss.

Far better to invest the money into something that has a long term non
polluting future. For example, start with solar energy storage be it
battery, thermal heat sinks, or using the energy to pump water up into
hydro dams storage lakes. That way you start green and stay green with
minimal risk. The only big issue with renewables at this point in time
is in filling in the energy troughs. That is where the focus should be
placed, not in ultimately futile attempts to clean up what is
essentially a dirty industry.

They the company who drilled the hole did not use a blowout preventor
suitable for the high pressure required.

Do you know what they seal old wells with? It's concrete and, at best,
it's a cap. Any geological fracture below the concrete cap will seep CO2.

What is rarely noted is that the amount of old wells suitable for CCS is
severely limited. In fact, it would be lucky to be 10% of requirements.

blowout preventor is bolted to a steel lined concrete casing that is
pressure tested to significantly exceed well pleasure
--
Petzl
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Moslems by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Funny how that works.

 

[felix]

On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 9:48 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 20/02/2017 9:18 AM, Fran Snortilus wrote:
On 20/02/2017 8:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

I've seen domestic cats eating my frogs (frogs are really easy
game for any predator) and I've seen them stalk magpies. Cats need
to be
kept indoors at all times. I enjoy my native wildlife.

As you're interested in frogs, do you know of any decent sites that help
in identify them? We've got pobblebonk frogs which we enjoy during the
summer, but I've just found 3 small grey little frogs in a particular
hidey hole and would like to know what they are.


**I don't Fran. I have identified two species in my front yard.
Perrins Tree Frog (we used to call it 'The Predator' (from the movie),
because that is what it sounds like when it calls. And the far more
common Striped Marsh Frog, which, when there's lots of them (which I
have) sounds like a bunch of terrorists exchanging automatic gunfire
at night. The Striped Marsh Frog is a rather drab looking animal.
Grey/Brown, with a brown stripe down it's back. Easy to step on,
because it blends in with the soil. Check Google, but I will get back
to you later. My partner has done more research on this. Yours could
be a Striped Marsh Frog, because they are very common. Particularly if
you have a water source nearby. IOW: Stick a pond in your yard and
they will come.

"If we build it, they will come"

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

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:26:11 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 20/02/2017 1:21 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Petzl wrote:

----snip----

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

And dealing with Indian Mynahs is easy. Encourage Noisy Miners
into your yard.

Another good idea, Trev. But how do you do it?

**As soon as I saw my first Noisy Miner, I began feeding it. They eat
anything. They are meat eaters, insectivores and nectar feeders. I
pulped some dried mango and fed them small pieces. I also fed them small
pieces of minced meat, mixed with calcium. After 10 years we have a
rotating population of around 20 birds. Some years, there's more and
some years, there's less. They are astonishing animals. ANY critter that
they view as a threat, they issue an alert (I guess that's how they got
their name). Every other native bird recognises the Noisy Miner alert
signal buggers off. In fact, the alert for a threat from above (Eagles,
Cuckoos, etc) is quite different from a threat from below (cats, dogs, a
confused possum, or even a blue tongue). They are quite agressive with
any animal that they feel doesn't fit. The co-exist happily with other
native birds.

As usual barking up wrong tree
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-14/native-noisy-miners-cause-more-damage-than-introduced-species/5964328>
https://is.gd/l9DTiJ
Native noisy miners cause more damage than introduced Indian myna,
research finds
By Eric Tlozek
Updated 14 Dec 2014, 6:17pm

Composite image of noisy miner and Indian myna
PHOTO: The noisy miner, left, is regularly confused with the
introduced Indian myna, as both are similar in size and aggressive.
(Supplied: La Trobe University)
MAP: QLD
The native noisy miner is causing more damage than the invasive,
introduced species of myna bird, new research has shown.

The research paper, to be published next year, assessed the impact of
the native species on other native birds.

It found the noisy miner was taking over the declining woodlands from
smaller birds, causing steep declines.

The birds have become such a big problem they have been nominated as a
threat under the national environment protection act.

One researcher recommended a trial cull of the aggressive animal.

Dr Martine Maron from the University of Queensland said scores of
different species were being impacted.

"We're quite worried about the flow-on effects of that for ecosystems,
because without those small woodland birds, then there's the risk that
tree and woodland health could decline," Dr Maron said.

Dr Maron said while the introduced Indian myna – also known as the
common myna – tends to be the focus of control efforts, controlling
the noisy minor should be prioritised.

Noisy miner attacks
PHOTO: The noisy miner is particularly feisty and infamous for its
extreme communal aggression. (Supplied: La Trobe University)
A trapping program in Canberra for the Indian myna, which forces
native birds from their nesting hollows, was heralded as a success by
organisers who said it boosted native species.

However noisy miners are most effectively culled by shooting rather
than trapping and euthanasing.

"Direct control of the noisy miners should be trialled to see how
effective that can be and importantly, how cost-effective," Dr Maron
said.

Griffith University urban ecologist Professor Darryl Jones agreed.

Previous research had found culls of noisy miners could dramatically
increase the number of birds by up to 40 times and the number of
species by 10 times in some areas.

"There is just no question that if we could control the noisy miner we
could have a huge biodiversity impact straight away," Professor Jones
said.

"If you really wanted bang for your buck, controlling the noisy miner
is definitely the way to go."

The paper, done by 14 researchers, will be published in the Diversity
and Distributions journal.
--
Petzl
(Joel 2:3)
Fire devours before them,
and behind them a flame burns.
The land is like the garden of Eden before them,
but behind them a desolate wilderness,
and nothing escapes them.

 

[SG1]

"Ördög" <devil@hell.net> wrote in message
news:a4ag37.r50.17.1@news.alt.net...

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> live on stage:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:52:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**OK, so it DOES produce shit-loads of CO2. The burying of the CO2 is a
different process. How will you guarantee that the CO2 will NEVER
escape?

Do you realise how much space will be required to store all the CO2?

Who will pay to store all that CO2 forever (while ensuring it is never
released)?

CO2 is liquefied and pumped under high pressure 10''s of 1000's of feet
underground. And can remain there indefinitely like oil, natural gas.

Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is an interesting gas in that it freezes directly
from a gas into a solid—dry ice—at normal atmospheric pressures, bypassing
the liquid phase entirely. At a pressure of 1 atmosphere, CO2 becomes dry
ice at temperatures below –109.3 degrees Fahrenheit. However, you can
liquefy CO2 if you increase the pressure on it to 5.1 atmospheres, which is
about 75 pounds per square inch, and keep the temperature below minus 69
degrees Fahrenheit. At these conditions, known as the triple point, CO2
coexists in the solid, liquid and gaseous states. On an industrial basis,
manufacturers need sophisticated equipment to create and store liquid CO2.
However, you can make it yourself at home, although the CO2 will remain in
the liquid state for a few seconds only.

So you are putting it underground where the temperature increases as you go
down. Now mad scientist how are you
going to solve this?

What is the equivalent of alchemistry regarding physics...metaphysics???
That is what you need to seal all that the CO2 leaks forever....
Or ask the devil if he had use for huge amounts of dry ice all of a
sudden???? He won't be burning away your sins in purgatory...he will
deep freeze them instead.

--
Ördög

"Ut sementem feceris, ita metes"(Cicero)

 

[Xeno]

On 20/02/2017 4:50 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:21:26 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 20/02/2017 1:31 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:55:31 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

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.

Storing/recapture has nothing to do with fracking

If you think that, then I have some news for you.

http://tinyurl.com/jbtbaof

http://tinyurl.com/knrnlma

http://tinyurl.com/guz3zv3

http://tinyurl.com/z96pfgu

liquid CO2 pumped 10.000 feet or more is not going to find it's way up
unless drilled for

That's exactly what the proponents of CCS thought too. They were wrong.
When you remove pressure, and oil, from a well, you change the loadings
on the geological substructure. That causes minor earthquakes and
subsequent fracturing of the rock layers between the well head and the
CCS area deep in the earth.

Like fracking, CCS has collateral consequences. Add to that the fact
that any attempt to retrofit CCS technology to coal fired power plants
is hideously *expensive*. Far better to build a few base load gas fired
power generators for the short term and give coal, in any form, a huge miss.

Far better to invest the money into something that has a long term non
polluting future. For example, start with solar energy storage be it
battery, thermal heat sinks, or using the energy to pump water up into
hydro dams storage lakes. That way you start green and stay green with
minimal risk. The only big issue with renewables at this point in time
is in filling in the energy troughs. That is where the focus should be
placed, not in ultimately futile attempts to clean up what is
essentially a dirty industry.

They the company who drilled the hole did not use a blowout preventor
suitable for the high pressure required.

Do you know what they seal old wells with? It's concrete and, at best,
it's a cap. Any geological fracture below the concrete cap will seep CO2.

What is rarely noted is that the amount of old wells suitable for CCS is
severely limited. In fact, it would be lucky to be 10% of requirements.

blowout preventor is bolted to a steel lined concrete casing that is
pressure tested to significantly exceed well pleasure

You're not listening to what I am saying. You can cap the well head and
pressure test all you like but if a rupture occurs *below* the cap
*after* the testing regime, then all bets are off. I might add, that an
increased likelihood given the changing pressure status of the
geological formation.

Any pressure testing would be unlikely to detect a very slow seep anyway.

--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:23:27 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 6:46 PM, Je?us wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:58:03 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


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

Nice. I think any shred of a friendship between us is dead and gone at
this point.


**BTW: I did not say "ALL cat owners". Just most. As long as the pet cat
cannot kill and main native wildlife, I have no issue with them or their
owners. I enjoy the native critters that live and visit my backyard. I
see no reason to accept visiting cats, which threaten the lives of those
native animals. Here's (partly) why:

Some of the birds that visit are Noisy Miners, Magpies and Butcher
Birds. All are insectivorous. Flies, mozzies, roaches and other annoying
bugs are fair game for all these birds. As a consequence, annoying
insects are kept at bay. What those birds don't eat, my frogs polish off
at night. I've seen domestic cats eating my frogs (frogs are really easy
game for any predator) and I've seen them stalk magpies. Cats need to be
kept indoors at all times. I enjoy my native wildlife.

But your standards tend to be inconsistent and unrealistic. Life
isn't so black and white as you so often seem to proclaim it to be
(firearm users, AGW, cats for example). You enjoy wildlife and care
for the environment, and have zero tolerance for cats being outdoors.
And yet you live an urban lifestyle, don't produce your own power,
water and it's safe to assume little to no food. You also bought a
Stagea, which isn't essential to your life. Your lifestyle isn't
conducive to being environmentally responsible, IMO. That doesn't
particularly bother me but the double standards do.

My cats are free to roam outdoors any time they like. Having said
that, they spend most their time in bed, in front of the fire, or on
my lap (as one is right now).

The older one has no interest in hunting, except for mice, rats and
rabbits for some reason, My tabby can and does kill birds,
unfortunately. But they both keep the rodents at bay, which is a
serious problem here if not dealt with (baits don't eliminate them).
So its a tradeoff, between the good and the bad aspects of cats (as it
is with anything else). I have no guilt about it, because on the whole
I'm doing a lot more for the environment by producing my own food,
power and water than by being a generic consumer with an
insular/distorted view on the real world.

BTW, you don't seem to be concerned about dogs for some reason?

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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



**OK, so it DOES produce shit-loads of CO2. The burying of the CO2 is a
different process. How will you guarantee that the CO2 will NEVER escape?

It may stay there till tomorrow when someone invents a way to use it.

Do you realise how much space will be required to store all the CO2?

Who will pay to store all that CO2 forever (while ensuring it is never
released)?

 

[Xeno]

On 20/02/2017 1:31 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:55:31 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

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.

Storing/recapture has nothing to do with fracking

If you think that, then I have some news for you.

http://tinyurl.com/jbtbaof

http://tinyurl.com/knrnlma

http://tinyurl.com/guz3zv3

http://tinyurl.com/z96pfgu

liquid CO2 pumped 10.000 feet or more is not going to find it's way up
unless drilled for

That's exactly what the proponents of CCS thought too. They were wrong.
When you remove pressure, and oil, from a well, you change the loadings
on the geological substructure. That causes minor earthquakes and
subsequent fracturing of the rock layers between the well head and the
CCS area deep in the earth.

Like fracking, CCS has collateral consequences. Add to that the fact
that any attempt to retrofit CCS technology to coal fired power plants
is hideously *expensive*. Far better to build a few base load gas fired
power generators for the short term and give coal, in any form, a huge miss.

Far better to invest the money into something that has a long term non
polluting future. For example, start with solar energy storage be it
battery, thermal heat sinks, or using the energy to pump water up into
hydro dams storage lakes. That way you start green and stay green with
minimal risk. The only big issue with renewables at this point in time
is in filling in the energy troughs. That is where the focus should be
placed, not in ultimately futile attempts to clean up what is
essentially a dirty industry.

They the company who drilled the hole did not use a blowout preventor
suitable for the high pressure required.

Do you know what they seal old wells with? It's concrete and, at best,
it's a cap. Any geological fracture below the concrete cap will seep CO2.

What is rarely noted is that the amount of old wells suitable for CCS is
severely limited. In fact, it would be lucky to be 10% of requirements.

--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/02/2017 1:21 PM, Ned Latham wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Petzl wrote:

----snip----

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

And dealing with Indian Mynahs is easy. Encourage Noisy Miners
into your yard.

Another good idea, Trev. But how do you do it?

**As soon as I saw my first Noisy Miner, I began feeding it. They eat
anything. They are meat eaters, insectivores and nectar feeders. I
pulped some dried mango and fed them small pieces. I also fed them small
pieces of minced meat, mixed with calcium. After 10 years we have a
rotating population of around 20 birds. Some years, there's more and
some years, there's less. They are astonishing animals. ANY critter that
they view as a threat, they issue an alert (I guess that's how they got
their name). Every other native bird recognises the Noisy Miner alert
signal buggers off. In fact, the alert for a threat from above (Eagles,
Cuckoos, etc) is quite different from a threat from below (cats, dogs, a
confused possum, or even a blue tongue). They are quite agressive with
any animal that they feel doesn't fit. The co-exist happily with other
native birds.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 02:21:56 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Petzl wrote:

----snip----

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

And dealing with Indian Mynahs is easy. Encourage Noisy Miners
into your yard.

Another good idea, Trev. But how do you do it?

Grow native plants in garden
http://plantsandlandscapes.com.au/prov_site/topten_bird_attracting

They out-compete Indian Mynahs easily. I have
a large group of Noisy Miners in my area and I have not seen
a single Indian Mynah in my local area in more than a decade.

----snip----

Ned

--
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

 

[Petzl]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 23:55:31 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

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.

Storing/recapture has nothing to do with fracking

If you think that, then I have some news for you.

http://tinyurl.com/jbtbaof

http://tinyurl.com/knrnlma

http://tinyurl.com/guz3zv3

http://tinyurl.com/z96pfgu

liquid CO2 pumped 10.000 feet or more is not going to find it's way up
unless drilled for

That's exactly what the proponents of CCS thought too. They were wrong.
When you remove pressure, and oil, from a well, you change the loadings
on the geological substructure. That causes minor earthquakes and
subsequent fracturing of the rock layers between the well head and the
CCS area deep in the earth.

Like fracking, CCS has collateral consequences. Add to that the fact
that any attempt to retrofit CCS technology to coal fired power plants
is hideously *expensive*. Far better to build a few base load gas fired
power generators for the short term and give coal, in any form, a huge miss.

Far better to invest the money into something that has a long term non
polluting future. For example, start with solar energy storage be it
battery, thermal heat sinks, or using the energy to pump water up into
hydro dams storage lakes. That way you start green and stay green with
minimal risk. The only big issue with renewables at this point in time
is in filling in the energy troughs. That is where the focus should be
placed, not in ultimately futile attempts to clean up what is
essentially a dirty industry.

They the company who drilled the hole did not use a blowout preventor
suitable for the high pressure required.
--
Petzl
(Joel 2:3)
Fire devours before them,
and behind them a flame burns.
The land is like the garden of Eden before them,
but behind them a desolate wilderness,
and nothing escapes them.

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:52:59 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**OK, so it DOES produce shit-loads of CO2. The burying of the CO2 is a
different process. How will you guarantee that the CO2 will NEVER escape?

Do you realise how much space will be required to store all the CO2?

Who will pay to store all that CO2 forever (while ensuring it is never
released)?

CO2 is liquefied and pumped under high pressure 10''s of 1000's of
feet underground. And can remain there indefinitely like oil, natural
gas.
--
Petzl
(Joel 2:3)
Fire devours before them,
and behind them a flame burns.
The land is like the garden of Eden before them,
but behind them a desolate wilderness,
and nothing escapes them.

 

[Ned Latham]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

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

And dealing with Indian Mynahs is easy. Encourage Noisy Miners
into your yard.

Another good idea, Trev. But how do you do it?

They out-compete Indian Mynahs easily. I have
a large group of Noisy Miners in my area and I have not seen
a single Indian Mynah in my local area in more than a decade.

----snip----

Ned

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:39:18 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/02/2017 2:16 PM, Petzl wrote:
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

**And dealing with Indian Mynahs is easy. Encourage Noisy Miners into
your yard. They out-compete Indian Mynahs easily. I have a large group
of Noisy Miners in my area and I have not seen a single Indian Mynah in
my local area in more than a decade.

Have a lot here already but still see heaps of Indian Myna apparently
can only be trapped.

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

**Nope. Cats kill native birds. I've seen the result.

Not denying this when I got here though plenty of rats, not much bird
life except for a few cockatoos
Now the domestic cats have removed the rats and the birds eggs are
safe. Now are no native birds are in abundance.
Took a photo of a Frogmouth a month ago
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50667687/Frogmouth.png
--
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

 

[felix]

On Monday, 20 Feb 2017 8:15 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/02/2017 12:38 PM, felix wrote:
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.





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

**Irrelevant. Most cat owners do not keep their disgusting, filthy
animals in their homes.

how would you know what 'most' cat owners do? you don't of course. in my
opinion most cat owners have their cats inside some of the time, and
outside some of the time. mine is only outside a few hours a day, unless
no one is home. cats don't like to be cooped up inside all the time,
just like ppl don't. it's not unlawful to allow a cat to be outside. and
do you also consider dogs to be 'disgusting, filthy animals'? and if not
why not

They allow them out to crap all over the neighbourhood and kill native
animals.






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

**And yet, I just provided you with a bunch of cites. Did you bother
reading them?

I saw them. doesn't change the fact that cat attacks are rare compared
to dog attacks.

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.

**I've SEEN, FIRST HAND, the results of domestic cats on wildlife in
my own backyard.

and you're just one resident in a country of 22 million ppl, so why
would you think your experience is typical and commonplace?

you make it seem like
cats are decimating the native wildlife population. the major risk to
native species is from feral cats.

**And just how do you imagine those feral cats arrived into this
country? By magic? Or could it be by irresponsible cat owners, who
fail to have their animals de-sexed and then allow them to wander
around the suburbs?

so? some cat owners are irresponsible. but most pet owners are not cos
they love their animals and take good care of them.

in normal suburbia the most likely
'victims' of pet cats would be small birds and rodents.

**And by what logic do you imagine a small bird has less rights to
exist than a pet cat?

now you're being silly. better stop using that mouthwash, germs have a
right to live too you know! but fact is a cat is someone's pet. wild
birds are just that

most pet owners
usually spoil their pets with kindness, making them less interested in
their natural predatory behaviour.


**And yet, that is NOT what happens. Cats kill. They can't help it. If
they're well fed, they still kill. They just don't eat their prey.

bullshit! you don't know what you're talking about. being a non cat
owner, why would you? there are four doves who have taken up residence
on the property here, and they're often wandering on the lawn picking at
whatever they pick at, while the cat is basking herself in the sun only
several meters away, without the slightest interest in them. cats adapt
to their environment.

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.

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

 

[Petzl]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:18:39 +1000, "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> wrote:

CO2 is liquefied and pumped under high pressure 10''s of 1000's of feet
underground. And can remain there indefinitely like oil, natural gas.


Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is an interesting gas in that it freezes directly
from a gas into a solid—dry ice—at normal atmospheric pressures, bypassing
the liquid phase entirely. At a pressure of 1 atmosphere, CO2 becomes dry
ice at temperatures below –109.3 degrees Fahrenheit. However, you can
liquefy CO2 if you increase the pressure on it to 5.1 atmospheres, which is
about 75 pounds per square inch, and keep the temperature below minus 69
degrees Fahrenheit. At these conditions, known as the triple point, CO2
coexists in the solid, liquid and gaseous states. On an industrial basis,
manufacturers need sophisticated equipment to create and store liquid CO2.
However, you can make it yourself at home, although the CO2 will remain in
the liquid state for a few seconds only.

So you are putting it underground where the temperature increases as you go
down. Now mad scientist how are you
going to solve this?

update your theory talking about pressure
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212010624

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