SA Greenies

[SG1]

"Fran Snortilus" <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote in message
news85f20$gfu$1@dont-email.me...

On 16/02/2017 11:34 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**Dams only work if you have plenty of water, you clown. Australia is
the driest continent on Earth.

Not by any measure. By area, Antarctica has less rain and snow. By the
only sensible measure which is precipitation per capita, Australia has
ten times as much as Great Britain and three times as much as the
United States <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.PC>.
Rainfall is highly variable and
unreliable. Look at the wettest place in Australia - Tasmania.

Far North Queensland is wetter and there has been fairly consistent
rain
http://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/12569/GA14206.jpg>.
There is plenty of water in FNQ and it is time people and agriculture
were given incentives to move there.

Move to a place so far from civilisation and with high humidity????? Ya
gotta be pulling the chain......

Much better to implement the Bradfeild scheme and make western Qld drought
proof..

>

 

[Xeno]

On 16/02/2017 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:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 12:24 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:53 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/02/17 13:44, Je�us wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:09:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:24:48 +1100, Jeßus <j@j.net> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:00:01 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:


Repairs to Basslink cable were happenining and the hydro
dams
were
getting loow. But the survived

That Basslink cable is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Personally
speaking, I'd like to see it chopped up into a thousand
pieces
and
forgotten about. Tasmania would be, on the whole, far
better off
without it.

Well tasmania needs 100Mw generator without it.
Latest tech Wind Generation could do this?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/super-conductor-turbines-could-slash-australian-wind-energy-costs-84828/










https://is.gd/sbtNM1

Tasmania is perfectly capable of generating more power than it
needs
with just hydro and wind alone,

That was true before they had a ten-year drought.

It was all the fault of the liberals and AGW that the liberals
and
non greens caused

**Idiot. AGW has caused the drought in Tasmania. A fault in the
Basslink
cable caused the other part of the problem. It could be said that,
perhaps, Tasmania should consider another back-up system, should
both
problems occur again.

Wind generators on the west coast would be the most likely
source. The
west coast is the most consistently windy part of the state due
to the
Roaring Forties which blast onto the coast there. I used to work on
the
west coast of Tasmania some 4 decades ago and the most consistent
features of life there was the incessant rain and the equally
incessant
wind. They measure rainfall over there in metres.


**That would be unacceptable to Murtz. He has a pathological and
irrational hatred of any form of renewable energy system.

More Unprovable crap from the omniscient Trevor I have never said any
such thing.

**Lying cunt. Many times over many threads, you have expressed your
hatred of the Greens and renewable energy. You have consistently
expressed your banal view that coal and nukes are fine and that AGW
does
not exist. You seem to forget that the crap you write is available for
all to see.

Just put up your evidence that I hate renewable energy then we will see
who is the lying c***

**Examine all your posts in the threads you started. You hate
renewable energy and love coal and nukes, despite the very serious
drawbacks associated with those sources.

you've been hanging around aus.cars too long Trev. you've adopted their
practice of telling ppl what they think, because you think it's what
they think

**Nope. I just need to examine Murtz's posts. It's obvious.




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.

Not quite. There are costs involved, just not those associated with the
purchase of fuel.

<snip>


--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 11:48 AM, Xeno wrote:

On 16/02/2017 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:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 12:24 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:53 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/02/17 13:44, Je�us wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:09:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:24:48 +1100, Jeßus <j@j.net> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:00:01 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:


Repairs to Basslink cable were happenining and the hydro
dams
were
getting loow. But the survived

That Basslink cable is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Personally
speaking, I'd like to see it chopped up into a thousand
pieces
and
forgotten about. Tasmania would be, on the whole, far
better off
without it.

Well tasmania needs 100Mw generator without it.
Latest tech Wind Generation could do this?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/super-conductor-turbines-could-slash-australian-wind-energy-costs-84828/











https://is.gd/sbtNM1

Tasmania is perfectly capable of generating more power than it
needs
with just hydro and wind alone,

That was true before they had a ten-year drought.

It was all the fault of the liberals and AGW that the
liberals
and
non greens caused

**Idiot. AGW has caused the drought in Tasmania. A fault in the
Basslink
cable caused the other part of the problem. It could be said
that,
perhaps, Tasmania should consider another back-up system, should
both
problems occur again.

Wind generators on the west coast would be the most likely
source. The
west coast is the most consistently windy part of the state due
to the
Roaring Forties which blast onto the coast there. I used to
work on
the
west coast of Tasmania some 4 decades ago and the most consistent
features of life there was the incessant rain and the equally
incessant
wind. They measure rainfall over there in metres.


**That would be unacceptable to Murtz. He has a pathological and
irrational hatred of any form of renewable energy system.

More Unprovable crap from the omniscient Trevor I have never said
any
such thing.

**Lying cunt. Many times over many threads, you have expressed your
hatred of the Greens and renewable energy. You have consistently
expressed your banal view that coal and nukes are fine and that AGW
does
not exist. You seem to forget that the crap you write is available
for
all to see.

Just put up your evidence that I hate renewable energy then we will
see
who is the lying c***

**Examine all your posts in the threads you started. You hate
renewable energy and love coal and nukes, despite the very serious
drawbacks associated with those sources.

you've been hanging around aus.cars too long Trev. you've adopted their
practice of telling ppl what they think, because you think it's what
they think

**Nope. I just need to examine Murtz's posts. It's obvious.




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.

Not quite. There are costs involved, just not those associated with the
purchase of fuel.

**True enough, but associated costs are not great.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:24:05 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx ? xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 ? 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 ? xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

If you checked the web page it is blaming the latest earth axis as to
why the Atmosphere heats up cools down

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.

You need to read up about burning coal in PURE oxygen recycling the
"stack" gas adding pure oxygen to contain combustion. The waste given
out is solids not gaseous
--
Petzl
What perfect set of circumstances placed our Sun a Celestial ball of fire at just the correct distance from our little blue planet for life to evolve?
All simply conicidence? The very fact we exist is nothing but the result of a complex yet inevitable string of chemical accidents and biological mutations?
There is no Grand meaning; There is no purpose?

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:04:34 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> 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.

Not quite. There are costs involved, just not those associated with the
purchase of fuel.

**True enough, but associated costs are not great.

As I have said reknewable energy also gets better as time moves on.
Generators are now much more efficent

http://reneweconomy.com.au/super-conductor-turbines-could-slash-australian-wind-energy-costs-84828/
https://is.gd/sbtNM1
--
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.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 3:37 PM, F Murtz wrote:

Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut
down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/


https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.




methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

**You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's
dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Xeno wrote:

On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut
down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/

https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.

methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:37:13 +1100, Fran Snortilus
<nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 11:24 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.

Xeno, the person you're responding to will soon have you wondering how
he can walk and chew gum at the same time and you'll see frequent
responses from other posters asking how many goon bags he's consumed
today or....

Fran Snotilus
thinks by putting people down she looks smart
--
Petzl
Says a Liberal card carrying *SHILL*!
"FRAN" the Shill"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#Marketing

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead.

 

[SG1]

"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:kfpcacl3vlfudd5m30m853noseaaq1ac2q@4ax.com...

"SG1" <lost@the.races.com> wrote:


"Fran Snortilus" <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote in message
news85f20$gfu$1@dont-email.me...
On 16/02/2017 11:34 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**Dams only work if you have plenty of water, you clown. Australia is
the driest continent on Earth.

Not by any measure. By area, Antarctica has less rain and snow. By the
only sensible measure which is precipitation per capita, Australia has
ten times as much as Great Britain and three times as much as the
United States <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.PC>.
Rainfall is highly variable and
unreliable. Look at the wettest place in Australia - Tasmania.

Far North Queensland is wetter and there has been fairly consistent
rain
http://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/12569/GA14206.jpg>.
There is plenty of water in FNQ and it is time people and agriculture
were given incentives to move there.

Move to a place so far from civilisation and with high humidity????? Ya
gotta be pulling the chain......

Much better to implement the Bradfeild scheme and make western Qld drought
proof..

Variants of Bradfield's scheme to divert FNQ rivers into the
Murray-Darling basin would allow the residents of South Eastern
Australia to stay where they are. After driving home in what used to
be off-peak period I am more interested in moving half my fellow
Melbournians to FNQ. I agree that the climate is awful and I don't
want to live there but I am happy to pay others to do so.

Will do a swap with Toowoomba drivers, even worse than South Australians.

 

[Gordon Levi]

"SG1" <lost@the.races.com> wrote:

"Fran Snortilus" <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote in message
news85f20$gfu$1@dont-email.me...
On 16/02/2017 11:34 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**Dams only work if you have plenty of water, you clown. Australia is
the driest continent on Earth.

Not by any measure. By area, Antarctica has less rain and snow. By the
only sensible measure which is precipitation per capita, Australia has
ten times as much as Great Britain and three times as much as the
United States <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.PC>.
Rainfall is highly variable and
unreliable. Look at the wettest place in Australia - Tasmania.

Far North Queensland is wetter and there has been fairly consistent
rain
http://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/12569/GA14206.jpg>.
There is plenty of water in FNQ and it is time people and agriculture
were given incentives to move there.

Move to a place so far from civilisation and with high humidity????? Ya
gotta be pulling the chain......

Much better to implement the Bradfeild scheme and make western Qld drought
proof..

Variants of Bradfield's scheme to divert FNQ rivers into the
Murray-Darling basin would allow the residents of South Eastern
Australia to stay where they are. After driving home in what used to
be off-peak period I am more interested in moving half my fellow
Melbournians to FNQ. I agree that the climate is awful and I don't
want to live there but I am happy to pay others to do so.

 

[F Murtz]

Xeno wrote:

On 17/02/2017 3:37 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut
down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a
major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/



https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.




methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

Given that no one is now willing to invest in new coal burning power
generation, there is little *promise* involved.

Not strictly correct this one is recent


http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/10/worlds-first-clean-coal-commercial-power-plant-opens-in-canada.html

There is also this

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603302/a-coal-fired-power-plant-in-india-is-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-baking-soda/

There are more plans in the pipeline,for even cleaner plants
If trevor had his way there would be no research to see if there were an
acceptably clean way to use coal as it is a dirty looking black stuff.

 

[Xeno]

On 17/02/2017 4:16 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 17/02/2017 3:37 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut
down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a
major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/



https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.




methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

**You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's
dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal.

Indeed. I laugh when I see the pollies holding up a black lump of coal
and say that it's *clean coal*. I am also deeply saddened at the naivete
of the voting public if/when they fall for the bullshit that is *clean
coal*.

--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:21 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:37:13 +1100, Fran Snortilus
nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 11:24 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.
Xeno, the person you're responding to will soon have you wondering how
he can walk and chew gum at the same time and you'll see frequent
responses from other posters asking how many goon bags he's consumed
today or....
Fran Snotilus
thinks by putting people down she looks smart

it doesn't work..


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

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 8:40 AM, Petzl wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:49:38 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Dams only work if you have plenty of water, you clown. Australia is
the driest continent on Earth. Rainfall is highly variable and
unreliable. Look at the wettest place in Australia - Tasmania. They just
came out of a 10 year drought.
Not if you vole One Nation
**What does "vote" mean?
Typo for "vote"
One Nation is populated by and voted for by morons. One Nation is a
symptom of the appalling state of the education system in Queensland.
Their glib, simplistic answers to complex problems betrays their
combined stupidity.

So why are they gaining ground.

because they reflect the thinking and wishes of the average Australian

Seems the others are much worse!

As for drought One Nation is going to drought proof Australia
http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/water

Or you think a better investment French submarines
or sending Waleed Aly on a taxpayer funded (via the Department of
Foreign Affairs) trip to the Middle East.
or DFAT paying $11485 for young Yassmin to swan about the Middle East
on her book-flogging/consciousness-raising tour. That was for travel
allowance and air fares.

Turnbull and co treat us taxpayers like they have broken the bank of
Monte Carlo!

Won't have the "mates" actual owner operators pay tax, 2015 Murdoch
took $1.5 billion out of Australia paid zero tax, Murdoch's media
don't tell you Murdoch is also a major investor in selling properties
(make $10K out of every home sold), Then there is Murdoch's returns
from Government vaccination programs.
Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers
**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.

The downside is maintenance Geo-thermal is maintenance intensive (the
steam is corrosive). Then there is as you suggest transmission costs
There are geological problems of cooling volcanic supplies.
http://www.nationalminingchronicle.com.au/news/31-news/othernews/1152-parachilna-geothermal-play-hots-up
https://is.gd/e1hlBp
6 year old story?


Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which SA has
not
allowed for.
**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere bit by
bit when I would rather it not
**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.
**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.
They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down
**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations must
be shut down.
So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?
Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.
CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

Earth's axis tilt varies periodically. If it leans much, when the
northern hemisphere is turned towards the sun, is where the summers
are always so warm that the snow melts. Axis direction in the universe
determines which hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when its rays
are strongest.

Earth Line shape varies from elliptical to nearly circular. In the
latter case, the difference between winter and summer less, making
glacial possible.

Climate change due to natural variations over time in the sun's
activity in the earth's orbit shape of the Earth's axis tilt and the
cosmic radiation intensity.

Man can not control the climate. There will always be time varying due
to unavoidable, natural factors.

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

 

[felix]

On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 11:34 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:


**Dams only work if you have plenty of water, you clown. Australia is
the driest continent on Earth.
Not by any measure. By area, Antarctica has less rain and snow. By the
only sensible measure which is precipitation per capita, Australia has
ten times as much as Great Britain and three times as much as the
United States <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.PC>.
Rainfall is highly variable and
unreliable. Look at the wettest place in Australia - Tasmania.
Far North Queensland is wetter and there has been fairly consistent
rain
http://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/12569/GA14206.jpg>.
There is plenty of water in FNQ and it is time people and agriculture
were given incentives to move there.

you first..

They just
came out of a 10 year drought.

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

 

[felix]

On Friday, 17 Feb 2017 4:49 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 16/02/2017 5:55 PM, Petzl wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:56:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 16/02/2017 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 11:36 PM, F Murtz wrote:
felix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 Feb 2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Are you familiar with:

* Batteries.
* Solar/thermal.
* Geo-thermal.


Where is Australia Geo-thermal potential and how far from consumers

**Australia is geologically very stable and has easily accessible
geo-thermal capacity to supply power for the next several thousand
years. Distance from consumers is not a major issue, as HV DC power
transmission losses are less than 3% per 1,000km.





Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim
for but I
was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which
SA has
not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the
Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere
bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

**And the guys you hate (the Greens) tried to stop it.

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations
must be shut down.

Global warming is it? I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of
'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

Q: What did SA use for lighting before candles?

A: Electricity.

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

 

[felix]

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:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 8:50 PM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 12:24 PM, Xeno wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/02/2017 11:53 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 13/02/17 13:44, Je�us wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:09:38 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:24:48 +1100, Jeßus <j@j.net> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:00:01 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com
wrote:


Repairs to Basslink cable were happenining and the hydro
dams
were
getting loow. But the survived

That Basslink cable is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Personally
speaking, I'd like to see it chopped up into a thousand
pieces
and
forgotten about. Tasmania would be, on the whole, far
better off
without it.

Well tasmania needs 100Mw generator without it.
Latest tech Wind Generation could do this?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/super-conductor-turbines-could-slash-australian-wind-energy-costs-84828/










https://is.gd/sbtNM1

Tasmania is perfectly capable of generating more power than it
needs
with just hydro and wind alone,

That was true before they had a ten-year drought.

It was all the fault of the liberals and AGW that the
liberals
and
non greens caused

**Idiot. AGW has caused the drought in Tasmania. A fault in the
Basslink
cable caused the other part of the problem. It could be said
that,
perhaps, Tasmania should consider another back-up system, should
both
problems occur again.

Wind generators on the west coast would be the most likely
source. The
west coast is the most consistently windy part of the state due
to the
Roaring Forties which blast onto the coast there. I used to
work on
the
west coast of Tasmania some 4 decades ago and the most consistent
features of life there was the incessant rain and the equally
incessant
wind. They measure rainfall over there in metres.


**That would be unacceptable to Murtz. He has a pathological and
irrational hatred of any form of renewable energy system.

More Unprovable crap from the omniscient Trevor I have never said
any
such thing.

**Lying cunt. Many times over many threads, you have expressed your
hatred of the Greens and renewable energy. You have consistently
expressed your banal view that coal and nukes are fine and that AGW
does
not exist. You seem to forget that the crap you write is available
for
all to see.

Just put up your evidence that I hate renewable energy then we will
see
who is the lying c***

**Examine all your posts in the threads you started. You hate
renewable energy and love coal and nukes, despite the very serious
drawbacks associated with those sources.

you've been hanging around aus.cars too long Trev. you've adopted their
practice of telling ppl what they think, because you think it's what
they think

**Nope. I just need to examine Murtz's posts. It's obvious.

he seems to be saying that renewables should be introduced
systematically and slowly so they don't affect the reliability of the
electricity supply, it's cost to consumers, and the ability of the grid
to always meet demand, rather than introduced simply to meet some
ideologically imposed target, that will have less than a poofteenth of a
percent effect on climate anyway, and I agree

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

Solar PV works. Geo-thermal works. Solar/thermal works. They all work.
They all deliver energy at competitive prices. So much so, that no one
will invest of coal-fired power stations any longer.

pity, since we have lot of it we could sell

**It is, indeed, a pity. But the facts are:

* Coal is a major contributor to global warming.
* Investment in coal infrastructure is rapidly falling to zero.
* Best to leave it in the ground.


No insurance company on the planet will insure a nuclear reactor.
Wanna guess why?



I have a view that reliance on renewables to the exclusion of
any other methods when it is obvious that the current state of
renewable
energy generation is not enough except in some rare situations is
folly.

**Only because your kind continues to to support coal-fired power.
Australia could easily transition to fully renewable energy within a
couple of decades.

Renewable energy generation is definitely something to aim for but
I was
pointing out where it is not working because it is not up to the
point
yet and needs not so green assistance till such time,which SA
has not
allowed for.

**And again: The SA problems began when YOUR mates in the Lieberal
Party
of SA sold off electricity assets to private industry. Do you
understand
and acknowledge that?


I will acknowledge that the power has been sold off everywhere bit by
bit when I would rather it not

**And those sell-offs were fought against by the GREENS. The guys you
hate. You are an irrational idiot. You refuse to acknowledge the truth
when it is presented to you.



but if the Greens had their way Australia would be flat broke in no time

and we'd be all sitting around with no jobs and smoking pot..

**Prove it. Cite whatever you wish from their policy documents to
prove your claim.

Or just fuck off.

yep, been in aus.cars too long..

> Like Murtz, you are happy to criticise the Greens, without foundation

if they had had their way and blocked asset sales, the debt would be
triple what it is now, and our credit rating in the gutter


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

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:37:22 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com>
wrote:

**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/

https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.




methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

Right and showing more promise all the time.
--
Petzl
Says a Liberal card carrying *SHILL*!
"FRAN" the Shill"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#Marketing

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead.

 

[Xeno]

On 17/02/2017 12:48 PM, Petzl wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:24:05 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
snip

**All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of
coal-fired power.

You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)?

If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and
smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will
end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic
chemistry*!

snip

They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut down

**Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations must
be shut down.

So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down?

**They should simply be shut down.

Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2
emissions.


There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero
CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are
stating is a chemical impossibility.

http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey

Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane.

CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O

In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide
and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed.

Look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link;

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air

In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic
substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these
straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your
car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water
and carbon dioxide.

http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3

Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx ? xO2 + N2
Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 ? 2CO2
Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water:
CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 ? xCO2 + (x+1)H2O.

The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are.


Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply.

**I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally
screwed up.

oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever.

The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use
of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the
world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards?

CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming.

**It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a
problem.

[snip actual web page below]
**Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2
releases have caused the present warming!

Your credibility as a Climatologic is?

You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess
CO2 in the atmosphere.

Or you just copying Ordung?
Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor)
translated from Swedish
https://is.gd/NzPGOu
original
http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/
https://is.gd/7iZhfG

If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without
producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely.

If you checked the web page it is blaming the latest earth axis as to
why the Atmosphere heats up cools down

Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high
school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You
can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies.
Start with the links I supplied.

You need to read up about burning coal in PURE oxygen recycling the
"stack" gas adding pure oxygen to contain combustion. The waste given
out is solids not gaseous

Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen

Generally, the chemical equation for stoichiometric combustion of a
hydrocarbon in oxygen is:
CxHy + zO2 ⟶ xCO2 + y2H2O

The above is burning methane in pure oxygen.

Anyway, if you're talking about this; http://tinyurl.com/zqc3cjt
you really do need to realise that the technology is not proven nor is
it efficacious for all situations. Note the form of coal it is suitable
for. It is theoretical and assumes carbon sequestration which, at this
point in time, is neither possible to the level required nor is it
guaranteed. The best form of carbon sequestration known to mankind is
*trees* and we are cutting them down as fast as we a burning up the coal.


--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:16:34 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

methods that show promise,
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901

**You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's
dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal.

That is where you are wrong!
By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are
no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion.
oxyfuel coal combustion is what to look for
--
Petzl
Says a Liberal card carrying *SHILL*!
"FRAN" the Shill"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#Marketing

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead.