SA Greenies

[Xeno]

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.

--

Xeno

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

Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Fran Snortilus]

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....

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:32:55 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

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.

The PDF file is older tech the latest have fluidized beds and just
inject pure oxygen. It is true they capture what CO2 there is for
underground storarage but none goes to atmosphere.
<http://www.register-herald.com/news/pollution-free-coal-fired-plant-process-in-works/article_6a589b13-12ea-5d82-b016-017a6538d8c9.html>
https://is.gd/t5yMcI
"Pollution-free coal-fired plant process in works"
By Daniel Tyson REGISTER-HERALD REPORTER Sep 26, 2016
--
Petzl

--
Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22­ years,
and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
"The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
the religion of Christ."

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:31:46 +1100, felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote:

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..

She makes more enemies than friends!
--
Petzl
"First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you, and then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 4:37 PM, Petzl wrote:

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

**Bullshit. Burning coal for electricity emits more CO2 than gas and ALL
renewable sources. Coal is dirty, due to the CO2 released.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 6:14 PM, F Murtz wrote:

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.

**Renewable energy is now cost competitive with regular coal-fired
power. CCS adds more to the cost and elevates coal-fired power way past
renewables.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Ned Latham]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Petzl wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Petzl 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"

Fuck me, that's one Hell of a typo.

LOL.

Really. I did.

Ned

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 5:04 PM, felix wrote:

On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 11:52 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/02/2017 11:46 AM, felix wrote:
On Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 5:23 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 15/02/2017 12:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
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,

**They don't. Solar/thermal plants generate power 24/7. As does
geo-thermal.


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

**EVERY SINGLE human on this planet will need to act to reduce CO2
emissions.

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

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

when the wind blows, and not cost effective

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

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

**That old chestnut. Far more birds are killed by emissions from coal
fired power stations than from wind turbines. 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. If the cat is chipped, it only costs the
neighbour $100.00 to get it back. They only do it once or twice. Cat
owners are quite easy to train. Hit them in the wallet.

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..

**Or, we could have the planet's biggest Solar/thermal industry, Solar
PV industry, Wind turbine industry.... Oh wait, those fuckwits in the
Lieberal Party have chased all the talent to the US and China. Real
smart. NOT!

**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

**Bullshit. Dump the Diesel fuel rebate, tax the multi-nationals and
ramp up our renewable energy industry. Problem solved.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Ned Latham]

felix wrote:
> Petzl wrote:

----snip----

Fran Snotilus
thinks by putting people down she looks smart

it doesn't work..

There's a reason she thinks otherwise, guys.
And it does not reflect well on the way her abuses are dealt with.

Ned

 

[Ned Latham]

Petzl wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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!

No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal
is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been
boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use
is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the
alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which
is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You
can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute.

By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are
no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion.

That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain
that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting
from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that
burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon
dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.

----snip----

Ned

 

[Ned Latham]

felix wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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

I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that
those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials
that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that
those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in
mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a
very large carvon footprint.

----snip----

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..

That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure.

----snip----

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

If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales
would not be required for balancing the budget.

Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately
and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately
and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our
national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell;
what then?

Ned

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

Petzl wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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!

No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal
is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been
boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use
is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the
alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which
is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You
can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute.

By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are
no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion.

That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain
that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting
from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that
burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon
dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.

----snip----

Ned

Even Australia are experimenting with the process called "oxyfuel coal
combustion process"
<http://www.callideoxyfuel.com/What/CallideOxyfuelProject.aspx>
--
Petzl

--
Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22­ years,
and his last year was AD 37. wrote:
"The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of
Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received
the religion of Christ."

 

[Ned Latham]

Petzl wrote:

Ned Latham wrote:
Petzl wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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!

No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal
is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been
boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use
is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the
alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which
is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You
can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute.

By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there
are no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion.

That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain
that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting
from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that
burning carbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon
dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.

Even Australia are experimenting with the process called "oxyfuel
coal combustion process"
http://www.callideoxyfuel.com/What/CallideOxyfuelProject.aspx

The thing is, as I said, nothing will change the fact that burning
carbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon dioxide,
which is a greenhouse gas.

All they can do is make it, as Trevor said, slightly less dirty.
It's not good enough.

There's another reason we should eschew the burning of coal: like oil,
it's a fossil product, and burning it destroys it forever. OTOH, like
oil, it is already the basis of many types of manufactured product.
That can expand greatly, and the products cam be made recyclable.

Ned

 

[Ned Latham]

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!

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

----snip----

Ned

 

[Petzl]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

Petzl wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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!

No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal
is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been
boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use
is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the
alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which
is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You
can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute.

By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are
no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion.

That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain
that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting
from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that
burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon
dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.

Yes Australian coal miners get away with murder in not treating their
"coal wash"

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)
Diagram
<http://www.power-technology.com/uploads/project/callide-coal/images/1-oxyfuel-project.jpg>
--
Petzl
In 2009, Buzz Aldrin commented on climate change by saying:
"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years.
If it's warming now, it may cool off later.
I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.
I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all,
I think the world is causing it.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:

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?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

I thought that mantra was abandoned in favour of

'Climate Change' after it was discovered that warming predictions were
not being met

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

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. It's appalling. Cat owners are, in the
main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity. 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.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/02/2017 8:28 PM, Ned Latham wrote:

felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
felix wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

----snip----

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

I don't know this for a fact, but I read somewwhere (ages ago) that
those turbines are efficient because they're built using materials
that make for building the strongest magnets possible, and that
those materials are rare earths, which are energy intensive in
mining, refining, and manufacture; IOW, those turbines have a
very large carvon footprint.

**Possibly. Research in the US suggests a payback period as short as 8
months:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

----snip----

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..

That sounds so bad that I think we should try it, just to be sure.

**LOL.

----snip----

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

If the Laborals were to manage the economy responsibly, asset sales
would not be required for balancing the budget.

Asset sales have two very serious consequences: first, they immediately
and permanently reduce government revenue (and usually also immediately
and permanently increase government costs); second, they diminish our
national asset base; sooner or later there'll be nothing left to sell;
what then?

**Indeed. It is insane to kill the cow, yet Labor and Lieberals have
been doing it for years.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:37:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 17/02/2017 5:12 PM, felix wrote:
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?

**The planet is warming rapidly, due to excessive CO2 emissions.
Therefore, we can refer to it as 'Global Warming'.

Fakenews
I see Turnbull is making fake Churchill Quotes
"Winston Churchill never said that politicians complaining about the
newspapers is like a sailor complaining about the sea."
Next he will be advocating windfarms (not known as a turncoat for
nothing)

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

**No. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was set up in
1988, in response to the observed change in the climate. It was
determined that the panel should investigate the following:

* What was changing
* BY how much
* What can be done to mitigate the effects
* What can be done in order for us to best survive the change.

As it happens, the IPCC determined that the planet was warming. Hence:
GLOBAL WARMING.

Do they actually name CO2 as the cause not the earths axis being
aligned to the sun?
https://www.ipcc.ch
--
Petzl
Our parliaments need to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law
"Dieu et mon droit" God is my legal right

 

[Petzl]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:43:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> 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. It's appalling. Cat owners are, in the
main, a disgusting sub-set of humanity. 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.

Microchipped desexed cats pose little problem towards birds, feral
cats yes.
The greatest bird threat in suburbia is rats.
Looks like cats will be extinct in Sydney shortly in any case.
<http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/02/08/cats-at-risk-from-deadly-virus-outbreak.html>
https://is.gd/eyvE4O
--
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.