Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Take your pills

Please

I can't stomach anything within 24 hours of taking your nonsense and now the doctor is talking about putting me on bed rest, but I don't need it.

Says the fool who denies the last ice age and the holocaust

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Says the fool who denies the last ice age and the holocaust

I deny all ice ages. Where did you get the Holocaust denial? Should I call you "tswandles"?

Why should any rational adult believe that all moraines were under ice at the same time? You have made it clear why totally insane lunatics might believe it but why should a rational, independently-thinking adult who is not a complete moron believe it?

Actually you deny everything that you did not see happen, which as you say includes all ice ages and the holocaust as well.

CIAO

tswandles wrote:Actually you deny everything that you did not see happen,

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL I said that fossils do not burn, you would know this if you were not retarded. Yawn

You quite clearly implied that fossils burn fuel, that they specifically burn fossil fuel, and you were going to draw up a list of such fuels burned by fossils so I can throw that list in Into the Night's face and say "See, both Swan and I TOLD YOU that fossils burn ... fuels."

Just get me that list. I am *sooooo* ready to throw it in his face.

You are assuming that any of the nonsense here matters, when it does not. So again fossils do not burn, but fossil fuels do.

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

Fossil fuels burn very well, at least on Earth. Where do your people come from

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

Swan wrote:So you just rename anything on the Earth that annoys you

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL I said that fossils do not burn, you would know this if you were not retarded. Yawn

You quite clearly implied that fossils burn fuel, that they specifically burn fossil fuel, and you were going to draw up a list of such fuels burned by fossils so I can throw that list in Into the Night's face and say "See, both Swan and I TOLD YOU that fossils burn ... fuels."

Just get me that list. I am *sooooo* ready to throw it in his face.

You are assuming that any of the nonsense here matters, when it does not. So again fossils do not burn, but fossil fuels do.

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

Fossil fuels burn very well, at least on Earth. Where do your people come from

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

So you just rename anything on the Earth that annoys you instead of dealing with it and learning as you go.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:So you just rename anything on the Earth that annoys you

Wait ... you are the one who tried to redefine "amphibious" just because you find amphibious animals annoying.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL I said that fossils do not burn, you would know this if you were not retarded. Yawn

You quite clearly implied that fossils burn fuel, that they specifically burn fossil fuel, and you were going to draw up a list of such fuels burned by fossils so I can throw that list in Into the Night's face and say "See, both Swan and I TOLD YOU that fossils burn ... fuels."

Just get me that list. I am *sooooo* ready to throw it in his face.

You are assuming that any of the nonsense here matters, when it does not. So again fossils do not burn, but fossil fuels do.

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

Fossil fuels burn very well, at least on Earth. Where do your people come from

Irrational. Paradox. Fossils do not burn. They are not used as fuel.

So you just rename anything on the Earth that annoys you instead of dealing with it and learning as you go.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

sealover wrote:
Coal fired power plants could have their carbon dioxide emissions reduced by at least 40% (per BTU), just by retrofitting them to use methane instead.

About half the anthropogenic mercury entering the environment comes from coal fired power plants. Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

It's actually cheaper (per BTU) than coal now, and the supply is on the increase.

It is absurd to subsidize continued use of coal to compensate losses.

It makes more sense to subsidize retrofitting coal-fired power plants to use methane.

It makes more sense to subsidize impoverished nations to be able to purchase our natural gas at a better price than coal.

A HUGE reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved relatively rapidly by switching from coal to natural gas.

It would also help us get the lead out. And the mercury, arsenic, cadmium...

Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.

Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.

Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.

Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.

Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)

Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?

Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.

Amber is not a hydrocarbon and alone is not a fossil either.

Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.

The mosquito was the fossil, not the amber.

Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.

You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing.

There is no such thing as "remains of hydrocarbon resin.". There is no such thing as "fossilized hydrocarbons."

Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.

Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)

Amber is not a hydrocarbon.

Unlike hydrocarbons (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), amber's chemical structure is not homogeneous and includes oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?

Typically not. More information needs to be provided.

Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?

Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?

Is the goal of the word game obsession to confuse and derail discussions that run against the Marxist agenda ?

Amber is not a hydrocarbon, it is not a fossil and it is not burned for fuel..

.

Swan wrote:One composition of an amber variety is: oxygenated hydrocarbon (carbon 67-87%, hydrogen 8.5-11%, oxygen 15%, sulfur 0-0.46%).

Im a BM wrote:
8% of United States methane emissions are from coal mines.

Im a BM wrote:
Coal mines, operating or abandoned, account for 8% of US methane emissions.

Im a BM wrote:
Coal mines are always associated with methane.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane forms along with the coal during geologic metamorphosis of buried accumulations of terrestrial wetland organic matter.

Im a BM wrote:
Earlier in this thread it was noted that methane oxidizing bacteria can use oxygen, O2, to transform methane, CH4, into carbon dioxide and water, CO2 and H2O.

Im a BM wrote:
Given that the global warming potential of methane is 20-30 times that of carbon dioxide,

Im a BM wrote:
it could be of value to cultivate methane oxidizing bacteria and provide them with appropriate conditions to capture escaping methane, and turn it into carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Fun fact: As noted by a poster, "You can drill for oil in Hawaii".

Sure you can drill, but nobody has ever found any within a thousand miles of the islands. Easy to check out that little factoid.

The sea floor around Hawaii contains no remnants of continental shelf where petroleum could have formed from dead microorganisms in shallow seas.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, plate tectonics have driven places that used to be shallow seas up into the continents. Knowing where the shallow seas used to be the how a lot of oil gets discovered.

Iceland is pretty far from the North Sea oil fields, which is shallow sea on continental shelf to this day.

There is some continental shelf not too far from Iceland where oil is expected to be found soon.

Iceland itself formed from magma coming out of the splitting sea floor.

I guess it could be said, "You can drill for oil in Iceland". But you won't find it.

Im a BM wrote:
Yellowstone actually has places where some petroleum comes to the surface along with hydrothermal water.

But the nearby oil fields are relatively shallow, formed where ancient sea floor got pushed up into the continental plate a long, long time ago. Natural petroleum got picked up by rising geothermal water. Magic petroleum did not come up from many miles below ground.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons.

Amber is not a hydrocarbon and alone is not a fossil either.

Im a BM wrote:Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito.

The mosquito was the fossil, not the amber.

Im a BM wrote:Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago.

You are a moron. You don't know what a fossil is. How embarrassing.

There is no such thing as "remains of hydrocarbon resin.". There is no such thing as "fossilized hydrocarbons."

Im a BM wrote:Many trees produce polyterpene resin to protect themselves from wood-boring herbivores, and this often traps small insects and other organisms.

Terpenes are hydrocarbons with the basic formula C(5n)H(8n)

Amber is not a hydrocarbon.

Unlike hydrocarbons (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), amber's chemical structure is not homogeneous and includes oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:Is amber a "fossil"?

Typically not. More information needs to be provided.

Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?

Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?

Is the goal of the word game obsession to confuse and derail discussions that run against the Marxist agenda ?

Amber is not a hydrocarbon, it is not a fossil and it is not burned for fuel..

.

One composition of an amber variety is: oxygenated hydrocarbon (carbon 67-87%, hydrogen 8.5-11%, oxygen 15%, sulfur 0-0.46%). Although this composition was believed to be the hardened tree resin from the genus Pinus, chemical studies show these pines were not the source of Baltic amber.

Next doofus comment

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:One composition of an amber variety is: oxygenated hydrocarbon (carbon 67-87%, hydrogen 8.5-11%, oxygen 15%, sulfur 0-0.46%).

... which is itself not a hydrocarbon.

Medicines are made by processing snake venom. Processed snake venom is not snake venom.

Swan wrote:Actually pine sap (amber not yet hardened) burns very well

Swan wrote:and hydrocarbons are composed of decayed plant matter

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Actually pine sap (amber not yet hardened) burns very well

Hydrocarbons are not the only things that burn well. Did you know that paper is not a hydrocarbon?

Swan wrote:and hydrocarbons are composed of decayed plant matter

No they're not, but many morons believe they are for reasons not fully understood.

If I were to ask you how you believe that hydrocarbons get beneath impermeable rock, you will waste no time EVADING the question with a mistaken reference to amphibious animals.

So, let's do this. Swan, how do you believe that hydrocarbons get beneath impermeable rock?

.

Swan wrote:Paper burns well because it is made of hydrocarbon forming plant matter.

duncan61 wrote:When paper burns is there any CO2 created?

Geologists and geochemists believe that nearly all (more than 99 percent) of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil and natural gas are formed by the decomposition of the remains of living organisms, which were buried under layers of sediments in the Earth's crust, a region approximately 5-10 miles below the Earth's surface.

But hydrocarbons of purely chemical deep crustal or mantle origin (abiogenic) could occur in some geologic settings, such as rifts or subduction zones said Galli, a senior author on the study.

"Our simulation study shows that methane molecules fuse to form larger hydrocarbon molecules when exposed to the very high temperatures and pressures of the Earth's upper mantle," Galli said. "We don't say that higher hydrocarbons actually occur under the realistic 'dirty' Earth mantle conditions, but we say that the pressures and temperatures alone are right for it to happen.

Galli and colleagues used the Mako computer cluster in Berkeley and computers at Lawrence Livermore to simulate the behavior of carbon and hydrogen atoms at the enormous pressures and temperatures found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth. They used sophisticated techniques based on first principles and the computer software system Qbox, developed at UC Davis and LLNL.

HarveyH55 posted:Geologists and geochemists believe ...

HarveyH55 posted:Apparently, hydrocarbons are only 1% amphibian... Fossil-fuels (note the hyphen) come mostly from the decomposition of organic matter.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Paper burns well because it is made of hydrocarbon forming plant matter.

I explained this in my previous post. Paper burns because it is combustible, and hydrocarbons are not the only combustible substances.

Paper burning does not make it a hydrocarbon.

Wait! I forgot. My bad. We're supposed to accept that you are omniscient and that we should believe whatever you claim just because you are the one saying it.

Swan wrote:No one cares what a schizzo explains.

Swan wrote: Paper burns because it is made from plant matter which is the source of all hydrocarbons.

Swan wrote:You do know that hydrocarbons are made from corn and algae I do presume.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:No one cares what a schizzo explains.

... but the world cares about everything that is correctly explained.

Swan wrote: Paper burns because it is made from plant matter which is the source of all hydrocarbons.

Nope. Paper burns because it is combustible. I know you think that everything that is combustible is a hydrocarbon and that you can directly observe unobserved events of the distant past by quantumly teleporting through all dimensions.

I realize that you also believe that all moraines were under ice at the same time and that amphibian animals are not amphibian.

Swan wrote:You do know that hydrocarbons are made from corn and algae I do presume.

Ethanol is made from corn. It is not a hydrocarbon. It is an alcohol.

Algae biofuel is not a hydrocarbon. It is a combustible oil. Notice that being combustible is insufficient to transform this particular oil into a hydrocarbon.

.

HarveyH55 wrote:The crude oil, as pumped out of the ground, is not a hydrocarbon.

HarveyH55 wrote: Coal, isn't just a pure lump of carbon in the ground either. There are other elements mixed.

From Debunked: Coal is a Fossil

There are four types of coal: Anthracite, Bituminous, Subbituminous, Lignite

Anthracite: lustrous, deep black, excellent quality, rather hard, very low on impurities.

Bituminous: shiny and "layered", very good quality, the most prominent in the US for generating electricity.

Subbituminous: dull black, good quality.

Lignite: brown, acceptable quality, with the least concentration of carbon (high amounts of impurities).

HarveyH55 wrote: Not to mention fossils (the rocks, that don't burn). Both go through some processing, before sold as fuel.

HarveyH55 wrote:I lean toward everything in nature gets recycled.

HarveyH55 wrote: We'd have run out of the stuff that supports life long ago.

HarveyH55 wrote: Every living thing stores energy. Plants do the most.

HarveyH55 wrote: Carbohydrates or stored energy.

HarveyH55 wrote:Decomposition doesn't create energy, just changes what's already there.

HarveyH55 wrote: 'Alligators are amphibian' was the tipping point.

HarveyH55 wrote: You chose to focus only on the habitat, and deny all else.

HarveyH55 wrote: Just for fun, or out of ignorance, who cares. Anything you sell, is a narrow-focus argument, ignoring significant details.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The crude oil, as pumped out of the ground, is not a hydrocarbon. It contains other elements, besides hydrogen and carbon. Coal, isn't just a pure lump of carbon in the ground either. There are other elements mixed. Not to mention fossils (the rocks, that don't burn). Both go through some processing, before sold as fuel.

I lean toward everything in nature gets recycled. We'd have run out of the stuff that supports life long ago. Every living thing stores energy. Plants do the most. Carbohydrates or stored energy. Decomposition doesn't create energy, just changes what's already there.

It's a complex world, that's been around a long time. We are just babies, and still have a whole lot to learn. Some are a lot slower learning, than others. 'Alligators are amphibian' was the tipping point. You chose to focus only on the habitat, and deny all else. Just for fun, or out of ignorance, who cares. Anything you sell, is a narrow-focus argument, ignoring significant details. The IPCC does the same, it's annoying. Mostly, because our tax dollars are donated to pay for the nonsense.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:The crude oil, as pumped out of the ground, is not a hydrocarbon.

Yes, the petroleum and the natural gas are hydrocarbons and any "other stuff" is other stuff besides the petroleum and the natural gas.

HarveyH55 wrote: Coal, isn't just a pure lump of carbon in the ground either. There are other elements mixed.

Absolutely correct. When discussing coal, any "other stuff" is referred to as "impurities." Coal is evaluated on the amount of impurities. The carbon in coal is what burns so the closer coal is to pure carbon, the better and cleaner it burns. The more impurities it has, the worse and dirtier it burns.

From Debunked: Coal is a Fossil

There are four types of coal: Anthracite, Bituminous, Subbituminous, Lignite

Anthracite: lustrous, deep black, excellent quality, rather hard, very low on impurities.

Bituminous: shiny and "layered", very good quality, the most prominent in the US for generating electricity.

Subbituminous: dull black, good quality.

Lignite: brown, acceptable quality, with the least concentration of carbon (high amounts of impurities).

HarveyH55 wrote: Not to mention fossils (the rocks, that don't burn). Both go through some processing, before sold as fuel.

There might very well be fossils in coal but they don't burn. Fossils are usually not rocks, however. Most of the time, fossils are merely impressions, i.e. there is nothing there. Obviously nothing doesn't burn very well.

Otherwise, any impurities in the coal that do not burn lower the grade of the coal.

HarveyH55 wrote:I lean toward everything in nature gets recycled.

I see that, and I can't fault you for having that outlook ...

*HOWEVER* ... in an absolute sense, your paradigm is incorrect. Entropy always increases and there is always something falling out of usability and falling beyond recyclability. Eventually, all of the earth's usable energy will become unrecyclable, unusable energy and the earth will become a dead planet. This won't happen tomorrow or next week, but that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and we can't avoid it and we can't get around it.

... but for all intents and purposes, at present, I appreciate your perspective because it's fundamentally accurate.

I don't wan't you to abandon your view, but I would highly recommend you modify it slightly in the following way: instead of pinning your paradigm of nature's global recycling on violations of physics (i.e. dead organisms somehow dig their way downward into the earth, drill through impermeable rock and once they are underneath the rock, rot into a higher form of energy), that you view the once living organisms as simply decaying their way into becoming part of the earth's crust, and that the earth, with its ominous geological power, simply continues churning away like the ocean but on a far grander time scale.

The earth has plenty of energy to give and plenty of time to recycle whatever is in the earth's crust.

HarveyH55 wrote: We'd have run out of the stuff that supports life long ago.

Nope. As long as there is geological activity, there is energy to be shared with terrestrial life.

HarveyH55 wrote: Every living thing stores energy. Plants do the most.

I disagree. Animals have fat cells, and fat cells are concentrated energy stores.

HarveyH55 wrote: Carbohydrates or stored energy.

No argument there.

When animals consume carbohydrates, they become converted into fat cells if not burned right away. It's why marbled steaks are so tasty.

When humans consume high-glycemic carbohydrates, the body produces greater quantities of insulin that shoehorn more of that energy into fat cells.

HarveyH55 wrote:Decomposition doesn't create energy, just changes what's already there.

I think that is a very poor characterization. Popping a water balloon doesn't create water, and it doesn't somehow change the water that is there ... it just simply causes you to lose that water, making it unavailable for another water balloon.

Decomposition changes the matter, and causes a loss of usable energy.

HarveyH55 wrote: 'Alligators are amphibian' was the tipping point.

I stated that alligators are amphibious. You do not disagree. You simply deny the word "amphibious" in the same way tmiddles denies the daytime side of the moon, i.e. it instantly and quite conspicuously kills your argument. It's how the English language works.

HarveyH55 wrote: You chose to focus only on the habitat, and deny all else.

Nope. I chose to focus on English, the language of the discussion. The word "amphibious" has a definition which you have not yet disputed. The English language has rules which you have not yet disputed.

You opted to deny the word "amphibious" and pretend it doesn't exist. Let me know if I have omitted anything.

HarveyH55 wrote: Just for fun, or out of ignorance, who cares. Anything you sell, is a narrow-focus argument, ignoring significant details.

I'm not selling anything. You were the one who got twisted panties over my correct usage of the words "hydrocarbon" and "amphibious/amphibian".

Even then, I thoroughly supported the correct usage of "hydrocarbons" and "amphibious/amphibian" as correct terms and you still have not provided any sort of rational argument as to why any rational adult should accept your view.

Nonetheless, I don't begrudge you having whatever beliefs you wish to have, but you should be aware that if you are going to assert that I am wrong, you really should have some rational support prepared or we are just going to repeat the same conversation.

.

Swan wrote:Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons when it is pumped out of the ground.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons when it is pumped out of the ground.

... as is natural gas.

The crude happens to be a mixture of liquids which can be separated, and the natural gas is a mixture of gases which can also be separated.

I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea?

Does the term "dog food" mean food for a dog?
Does the term "baby formula" mean formula for a baby?
Does the term "car alarm" mean an alarm for a car?
Does the term "jet fuel" mean fuel for a jet?
Does the term "cheese grater"mean a grater for cheese?

Swan wrote:... you should be explaining is how you know that the last ice age never happened to a psychiatrist

Swan wrote:On the other hand I like having idiots explain how the ice age never happened because you were not there to see it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... you should be explaining is how you know that the last ice age never happened to a psychiatrist

Why would an ice age ever happen to a psychiatrist?

Swan wrote:On the other hand I like having idiots explain how the ice age never happened because you were not there to see it.

My not being there has nothing to do with why it never happened. Perhaps you can explain why you believe that all moraines were under ice at the same time.

You still never have explained why you believe such silly things.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Perhaps you can explain why you believe that all moraines were under ice at the same time.

You still never have explained why you believe such silly things.

SAYS THE DELUSIONAL SCHIZZO THAT DENIES THAT THE LAST ICE AGE EVER HAPPENED.

SEE YOUR SHRINK PRONTO