This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

I had a customer with a natural gas compressor. When they where doing their environmental certifications, the air coming out of the stack was cleaner than what was going into the engine. The guy doing the tests naturally questioned the reading, so he went to get another meter from his truck. Same results. That's good efficiency there!

(May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

Just had to throw a dig in, eh?

(May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

Without even looking at the article, I'm calling bullshit on this. First of all there is no energy conversion system known to man that is lossless, every power plant has some form of emission. Secondly what happens to the generated biproducts in the system?

If the company is claiming anything close to zero emissions on fossil fuels then it is lying plain and simple.

And then I looked at the article and I saw this:

Quote:"This is the biggest thing in carbon capture," says Howard Herzog, a chemical engineer and carbon capture expert at MIT. "It's very sound on paper. We'll see soon if it works in reality. There are only a million things that can go wrong."

The whole thing is simply at hypothesis stage, it has not been tried, it has not been tested. Fuck it, I wouldn't put it past them that this is simply a back of a fag packet diagram they've decided to bullshit into massive state funding for the greenbacks.

(May 24, 2017 at 5:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

Just had to throw a dig in, eh?

Yeah. I'm kind of a prick like that.

(May 24, 2017 at 5:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 5:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Just had to throw a dig in, eh?

Yeah. I'm kind of a prick like that.

You're 50% prick, 50% unlettered idiot. No wonder you fall for bullshit like this so often.

Yes it all has to be the evil environmentalists .And the contrary are perfect angels  . Who never engage in any kind of unreasonable  activity. Or hold in reasonable opinions  and or solutions

And looking at the paper I also call bullshit. Just another scam by the fossil fuel industry to save themselves and there struggling industry from the dust pin of history.

---

(May 24, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 5:23 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Yeah. I'm kind of a prick like that.

You're 50% prick, 50% unlettered idiot. No wonder you fall for bullshit like this so often.

No prick is to nice more like  long winded pompous asshole .

Lets do a hypothetical though, and say that fossil fuels could be brought down to close to 0 emissions. Do you still work towards the elimination of using oil? Why or why not?

(May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

Sure, zero emission coal would be a win for everyone. Except for those of us who object to coal sludge in our water, I mean.

Even if you whip ALL the emissions associated with fossil fuels, it is a notoriously dirty process to get them out of the ground in the first place. Mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, selenium, and a whole host of other contaminants you wouldn't want to get within a long mile of if you could help it are intrinsic to the extraction processes.

Granted, renewables have their own problems. We all remember the horror of the big Wind Spill Of 2005 - flags fluttered as much as 100 feet way and at least half a dozen birds were momentarily startled. Tragic.

Boru

(May 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 24, 2017 at 4:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: This could be BIG! zero-emission fossil fuels: Here

They started with coal but went to natural gas. Seems like it was to solve the easy problems first. It is reasonable to assume that eventually this could be extended to coal. That would be a win for everyone. Nevertheless, I'm sure the environmentalist groups will find something to scream about.

Sure, zero emission coal would be a win for everyone.  Except for those of us who object to coal sludge in our water, I mean.

Even if you whip ALL the emissions associated with fossil fuels, it is a notoriously dirty process to get them out of the ground in the first place.  Mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, selenium, and a whole host of other contaminants you wouldn't want to get within a long mile of if you could help it are intrinsic to the extraction processes.

Granted, renewables have their own problems.  We all remember the horror of the big Wind Spill Of 2005 - flags fluttered as much as 100 feet way and at least half a dozen birds were momentarily startled.  Tragic.

Boru

wind power is a big problem for birds actually, it kills thousands of birds a year. But the problem with it is that there isn't enough of it to power much of anything. If are willing to not use electricity then wind power is great.