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

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. > Page 9

Page 9 of 10

20-09-2022 13:51
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:First, what is an ice age? Hopefully your definition will be unambiguous. Swan wrote:It's when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time — millions to tens of millions of years — that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface. So we're in an ice age right now, and the term is meaningless. Swan wrote:We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. Nope. By your definition, the earth has been in one insanely long ice age. Swan wrote:So why isn't the Earth covered in ice right now? It's because we are in a period known as an "interglacial." Nope. According to your definition, we are still in that one, never-ending ice age. This is what happens when you render a term meaningless with ambiguity. Swan wrote:What is it like during the ice age? I think we can all look outside and see for ourselves . You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles). At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the "Ice Age," peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder. What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles. Four fairly regular glacial-interglacial cycles occurred during the past 450,000 years. The shorter interglacial cycles (10,000 to 30,000 years) were about as warm as present and alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacial cycles substantially colder than present. Notice the longer time with jagged cooling events dropping into the colder glacials followed by the faster abrupt temperature swings to the warmer interglacials. This graph combines several ice-core records from Antarctica and is modified from several sources including Evidence for Warmer Interglacials in East Antarctic Ice Cores, 2009, L.C. Sime and others. Note the shorter time scale of 450,000 years compared to the previous figure, as well as the colder temperatures, which are latitude-specific (e.g., Antartica, Alaska, Greenland) temperature changes inferred from the Antarctic ice cores (and not global averages). Four fairly regular glacial-interglacial cycles occurred during the past 450,000 years. The shorter interglacial cycles (10,000 to 30,000 years) were about as warm as present and alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacial cycles substantially colder than present. Notice the longer time with jagged cooling events dropping into the colder glacials followed by the faster abrupt temperature swings to the warmer interglacials. This graph combines several ice-core records from Antarctica and is modified from several sources including Evidence for Warmer Interglacials in East Antarctic Ice Cores, 2009, L.C. Sime and others. Note the shorter time scale of 450,000 years compared to the previous figure, as well as the colder temperatures, which are latitude-specific (e.g., Antartica, Alaska, Greenland) temperature changes inferred from the Antarctic ice cores (and not global averages). One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth's ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion. Today's ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents. Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth's orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth's surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth's axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth's axis (precession). How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms. Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores. Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth's two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet. Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Simplified chart showing when the five major ice ages occurred in the past 2.4 billion years of Earth's history. Modified from several sources including Dynamical Paleoclimatology: Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change, 2002, by Barry Saltzman. Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend. On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last? All of the above is verified by science, now take your lithium IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 18:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium.
20-09-2022 19:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:First, what is an ice age? Hopefully your definition will be unambiguous. Swan wrote:It's when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time — millions to tens of millions of years — that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface. So we're in an ice age right now, and the term is meaningless. Swan wrote:We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. Nope. By your definition, the earth has been in one insanely long ice age. Swan wrote:So why isn't the Earth covered in ice right now? It's because we are in a period known as an "interglacial." Nope. According to your definition, we are still in that one, never-ending ice age. This is what happens when you render a term meaningless with ambiguity. Swan wrote:What is it like during the ice age? I think we can all look outside and see for ourselves . ...deleted repetition... All of the above is verified by science, now take your lithium Repetition fallacy (chanting). Copying your post over and over mindlessly is pointless. Argument from randU fallacies. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is pointless. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Buzzword fallacies. Base rate fallacies. Science is not a proof. There are no proofs in science. Science is an open functional system. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-09-2022 22:21
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 22:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacies (chanting). No argument presented. Trolling. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

20-09-2022 23:15
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacies (chanting). No argument presented. Trolling. Says the mental 5 year old who has not yet learned to respond. The fact is if you could respond then you would. Must be sad being you IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-09-2022 23:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacies (chanting). No argument presented. Trolling. Says the mental 5 year old who has not yet learned to respond. The fact is if you could respond then you would. Must be sad being you Insult fallacies. No argument presented. Trolling. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2022 00:03
Swan★★★★★ (5710)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacies (chanting). No argument presented. Trolling. Says the mental 5 year old who has not yet learned to respond. The fact is if you could respond then you would. Must be sad being you Insult fallacies. No argument presented. Trolling. You should be insulted at your own inability to respond to any situation, other than Miller Time that is. Silly IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-09-2022 04:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Swan wrote:You should be insulted at your own inability to respond to any situation, other than Miller Time that is. You were going to explain how you verified the ice age. Now would be a great time. . Attached image:
23-09-2022 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:You live in a silly putty world where you merely do as you are instructed by the voices in your left toe. I have five left toes and I ignore the voices in three of them. Swan wrote:An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold There is no such thing as a global temperature. Regarding your use of the term "relatively cold," I realize I asked you to be unambiguous but you didn't have to get that specific. Swan wrote: ... and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. That's what earth has had for all of the existence of humanity. Congratulations. You single-handedly rendered the term "ice age" meaningless. Swan wrote:All of the above is verified by science All of the above can only be verified by time travel, now take your lithium. Says the simpleton who denies the existence of both glaciers and ice ages when they grew Circular argument fallacies (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacies (chanting). No argument presented. Trolling. Says the mental 5 year old who has not yet learned to respond. The fact is if you could respond then you would. Must be sad being you Insult fallacies. No argument presented. Trolling. You should be insulted at your own inability to respond to any situation, other than Miller Time that is. Silly I don't drink alcohol, dumbass. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. Trolling. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: fossil fuel use with NEGATIVE "carbon footprint"02-06-2023 02:23
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	This thread was originally about substituting natural gas for coal wherever possible. That would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions per BTU, and eliminate emissions of mercury, lead, etc. associated with coal. Let's consider another way to change the way we use fossil fuel that could do more than just reduce the "carbon footprint"? How about creating a NEGATIVE carbon footprint? How about using fossil fuel in a way that removes more carbon dioxide than it adds to the atmosphere? Even if you don't believe in greenhouse gases, it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in sea water. First approach is purely by chemical engineering without live organisms. CH4 + SO4(2-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S + energy Methane + sulfate = carbonate ion + water + hydrogen sulfide + energy This exothermic reaction oxidizes the methane to release energy. But rather than carbon dioxide, the inorganic carbon product is carbonate ion. The energy yield is significantly less than if oxygen is used for methane combustion. But the waste product can be added to the sea where it directly offsets the uptake of carbon dioxide by the ocean. This source of carbonate ion would benefit marine ecosystems. It would enable the sea to absorb more carbon dioxide without adverse impact. It would be a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy. That pesky hydrogen sulfide product can be bubbled up into low oxygen wetland sediment. It will be transformed into iron pyrite. Or it could be burned to get energy, but the product is sulfuric acid. A sea water mist could remove sulfuric acid from the exhaust plume. That acidified water could be directed to a constructed wetland where it gets neutralized.
02-06-2023 08:18
James_ ★★★★★ (2218)	Im a BM wrote: This thread was originally about substituting natural gas for coal wherever possible. That would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions per BTU, and eliminate emissions of mercury, lead, etc. associated with coal. Let's consider another way to change the way we use fossil fuel that could do more than just reduce the "carbon footprint"? After this you become one of them. What emissions are associated with CO2?
02-06-2023 08:22
James_ ★★★★★ (2218)	Into the Night wrote: I don't drink alcohol, dumbass. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. Trolling. You're not Duwamish or Pilchuk, still, you need to be a person.
02-06-2023 08:36
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Im a BM wrote: This thread was originally about substituting natural gas for coal wherever possible. That would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions per BTU, and eliminate emissions of mercury, lead, etc. associated with coal. Let's consider another way to change the way we use fossil fuel that could do more than just reduce the "carbon footprint"? How about creating a NEGATIVE carbon footprint? How about using fossil fuel in a way that removes more carbon dioxide than it adds to the atmosphere? Even if you don't believe in greenhouse gases, it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in sea water. First approach is purely by chemical engineering without live organisms. CH4 + SO4(2-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S + energy Methane + sulfate = carbonate ion + water + hydrogen sulfide + energy This exothermic reaction oxidizes the methane to release energy. But rather than carbon dioxide, the inorganic carbon product is carbonate ion. The energy yield is significantly less than if oxygen is used for methane combustion. But the waste product can be added to the sea where it directly offsets the uptake of carbon dioxide by the ocean. This source of carbonate ion would benefit marine ecosystems. It would enable the sea to absorb more carbon dioxide without adverse impact. It would be a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy. That pesky hydrogen sulfide product can be bubbled up into low oxygen wetland sediment. It will be transformed into iron pyrite. Or it could be burned to get energy, but the product is sulfuric acid. A sea water mist could remove sulfuric acid from the exhaust plume. That acidified water could be directed to a constructed wetland where it gets neutralized. CO2 is essential to life on this planet. Every living thing is made up of carbon-based molecules. Where does all that carbon come from in our diet? Only from eating plants, or some critter that eats plants. Plants get the carbon from CO2, not the soil... This attack on CO2 makes no sense, specially coming from scientists... We are only at about half the ppm CO2 considered ideal for plant growth. Must be some reason why plants are genetically optimized for much higher CO2 levels...
RE: fossil fuel oxidation versus fossil fuel combustion05-06-2023 10:03
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Fossil fuel oxidation versus fossil fuel combustion. During fossil fuel combustion oxygen is used to oxidize organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as carbon dioxide. Note: Organic carbon is carbon in chemically reduced form. Energy is released when it gets oxidized. Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form. Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are all forms of inorganic carbon. The field of organic chemistry is dedicated to all the organic carbon compounds. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized. It does not have to be combustion. Our cells can do the respiration thing without high heat, spark, or flame. And it does not have to be oxidized by oxygen in order for organic carbon oxidation to yield energy. Microorganisms under low oxygen conditions can acquire energy by oxidizing organic carbon with broad range of naturally occurring oxidants. Sulfate, nitrate, and ferric iron top the list, but the list is long. However, when other oxidants are used, carbon dioxide is not the inorganic carbon product of organic carbon oxidation. I've placed a lot of emphasis on sulfate reduction because it is the most important source of alkalinity entering the sea. On the other hand, a battery based on manganese reduction or iron reduction might be more feasible from a chemical engineering standpoint. The point is that we could be using fossil fuel to our heart's delight, and rather than generating a greenhouse gas that becomes carbonic acid in the sea (i.e. CO2), we would be generating carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions for the sea. Enabling the sea to absorb more CO2 without adverse impact would essentially create a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy.

05-06-2023 22:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Im a BM wrote:Fossil fuel oxidation versus fossil fuel combustion. What is this "fossil fuel" stuff? How do you define it? Im a BM wrote:During fossil fuel combustion Do fossils even need fuel? How do fossils even combust anything? Do they burn the wick at both ends? Im a BM wrote:oxygen is used to oxidize organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as carbon dioxide. Isn't this a description of all combustion? It's not just for whatever fossils burn but for everything that burns, right? Im a BM wrote:Note: Organic carbon is carbon in chemically reduced form. The cells of my body have a lot of carbon (atoms). Is that carbon organic carbon? Im a BM wrote: Energy is released when it gets oxidized. When what gets oxidized? Not the fossils, right? It's something else, right? Does the global climate oxidize? Does it release energy upon oxidation? Is that what causes "forcings" and "feedbacks"? Im a BM wrote: Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form. Is a diamond or a piece of graphite therefore organic? Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are all forms of inorganic carbon. Is coal therefore organic before it is burned? Im a BM wrote: The field of organic chemistry is dedicated to all the organic carbon compounds. It is not "dedicated" to them. It "includes" them. Im a BM wrote:Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized. Why are you using the words "organic" when you should be using "oxidized" and using "inorganic" when you should be using "unoxidized"? I claim that the correct statements are "Energy is released when unoxidized carbon is oxidized" and "Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are all forms of oxidized carbon." I claim that "organic" pertains mostly to carbon-based compounds of living (or previously living) things ... but to complicate matters, the new generation of millennials has decided that organic chemistry needs to stop being systematically RACIST! and be more INCLUSIVE of plastics and other ANTHROPOGENIC materials. Im a BM wrote:I've placed a lot of emphasis on sulfate reduction because it is the most important source of alkalinity entering the sea. Why is it important? Why do you believe that the ocean is somehow losing alkalinity? Im a BM wrote:The point is that we could be using fossil fuel to our heart's delight, and rather than generating a greenhouse gas that becomes carbonic acid in the sea (i.e. CO2), we would be generating carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions for the sea. Do you really believe in "greenhouse gas" that somehow causes "greenhouse effect"? Hint: You're not doing your credibility any favors by including this apparently needless mention. If your point is that the ocean can obtain alkalinity through combustion of hydrocarbons, you should just use this wording. Your need to use the language of the scientifically illiterate does not help you. Im a BM wrote:Enabling the sea to absorb more CO2 without adverse impact would essentially create a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy. The sea can handle all the CO2 that comes its way. CO2 is a good thing.
06-06-2023 02:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Im a BM wrote: Fossil fuel oxidation versus fossil fuel combustion. During fossil fuel combustion oxygen is used to oxidize organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as carbon dioxide. Note: Organic carbon is carbon in chemically reduced form. Energy is released when it gets oxidized. Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form. Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are all forms of inorganic carbon. The field of organic chemistry is dedicated to all the organic carbon compounds. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized. It does not have to be combustion. Our cells can do the respiration thing without high heat, spark, or flame. And it does not have to be oxidized by oxygen in order for organic carbon oxidation to yield energy. Microorganisms under low oxygen conditions can acquire energy by oxidizing organic carbon with broad range of naturally occurring oxidants. Sulfate, nitrate, and ferric iron top the list, but the list is long. However, when other oxidants are used, carbon dioxide is not the inorganic carbon product of organic carbon oxidation. I've placed a lot of emphasis on sulfate reduction because it is the most important source of alkalinity entering the sea. On the other hand, a battery based on manganese reduction or iron reduction might be more feasible from a chemical engineering standpoint. The point is that we could be using fossil fuel to our heart's delight, and rather than generating a greenhouse gas that becomes carbonic acid in the sea (i.e. CO2), we would be generating carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions for the sea. Enabling the sea to absorb more CO2 without adverse impact would essentially create a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy. Combustion releases a lot of energy, quickly. Only a spark is required. How does your chemical release of energy compare? Takes longer, less control, more consumables (reactants), and waste product to manage. True, internal combustion engines aren't great on efficiency. Lot of the energy released from the fuel, is wasted as heat. No big deal, the fuel is plentiful. The price would be cheap, if so many people weren't so keen on making maximum profits, cash, power & control, politics. It's not just the oil companies. Government does pretty well on taxes and fees. Climate-change is just a political tool. No real change in fuel usage, since that reduces a good revenue source. Climate-change does provide a tool, so politicians can make a little side money, just to drag their heels a little. Sometimes in their personal bank account, but usually in funding for pet projects. Bribes are illegal, donations are virtue-signaling...
07-06-2023 02:33
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]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...
07-06-2023 02:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal. It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel. As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel. South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane. Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel. Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal. On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production. Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum. We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel. It actually makes a whole lot of difference.
07-06-2023 02:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal. What makes you think a glut lasts forever? sealover wrote: It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel. Why do so? sealover wrote: As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel. No, it wasn't. They used carbon monoxide. sealover wrote: South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane. No, they didn't. They used carbon dioxide. sealover wrote: Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel. Why? Coal is already fuel. sealover wrote: Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal. Why are you so afraid of carbon dioxide? sealover wrote: On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production. Yes it would. We don't have to synthesize oil or natural gas. sealover wrote: Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum. Why not just use the methane? sealover wrote: We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel. Neither fuel is a fossil. Fossils don't burn. sealover wrote: It actually makes a whole lot of difference. You don't get to choose what energy people want. You are not the king. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would love to learn more about how the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as raw material to make fuel. No coal was involved? It would be even more interesting to learn how South Africans used carbon dioxide as raw material to make methane. With carbon monoxide, at least the Germans had partially reduced carbon to start with. So, the South Africans were able to use fully oxidized carbon (carbon dioxide) to make methane. No coal was involved? Did the South Africans have a perpetual motion machine to provide the energy? I guess it's just one of those irrational fears I have, carbophobia, that makes me so afraid of carbon dioxide. Heck, we should just be turning the carbon dioxide into methane like they did in South Africa. How long will it take before you figure out that I AM the king? --------------------------------------------------------------------- In South Africa, they called it "coal gasification". They hydrogenated the organic carbon in coal to generate methane. They did NOT use inorganic carbon dioxide as starting material. It would have been a huge waste of energy to reduce carbon dioxide and hydrogenate it, if organic carbon is already available in the form of coal.
07-06-2023 02:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: . Buzzword fallacy. Coal is carbon. Just carbon. sealover wrote: Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment. Nope. Just carbon. [b] You are not the king. [quote][b]sealover wrote: And the mercury, arsenic, cadmium... What lead? What mercury? What arsenic? What cadmium? Coal is carbon. Just carbon. --------------------------------------------------------------------- There are always more than one point of view in a discussion of this kind. On the other hand, the chemical composition of coal isn't really a matter of opinion. There is a reason some coal has so much more than just carbon in it, they call it "dirty coal". They even made rules against using it in a few places. "Acid rain", another great buzzword, was primarily from sulfur in the coal we were burning. When the sulfides in coal burn with oxygen, they become sulfuric acid. Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment. Mercury used in gold mining operations is the other half. These really aren't just matters of opinion
07-06-2023 02:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: Why be AGAINST this? The United States is sitting on enough natural gas to supply the whole world. Fracking can be improved to minimize unintended methane emissions. The cleanest fossil fuel of all is becoming more and more available. What possible HARM could come from switching from coal to methane? MANY benefits could come from it. Why be AGAINST this? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]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...
07-06-2023 02:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank. A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems. A septic tank starts with ANAEROBIC decomposition. Lots of chemical reduction reactions generated by organic carbon oxidation under low oxygen conditions. The effluent from a septic tank then flows into AEROBIC conditions. Lots of chemical oxidation reactions from the reduced metabolic products of anaerobiosis. No kind of "fish food" then flows out to surface waters. In between advanced degree programs, I had a one-year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. NOT AT ALL LIKE A SEPTIC TANK. Let me tell you about it. Step one is to provide AEROBIC conditions. Mix in as much oxygen as possible. Burn up the organic matter under AEROBIC conditions, with OXIDATION reactions controlling the chemical output. Burn up all the organic nitrogen and all the ammonium to nitrate. Step two, create ANAEROBIC conditions so that nitrate reducing bacteria can ensure there is no nitrate, and therefore no nitrogen fertilizer, in effluent to surface waters. One time, the ecology of the system got really messed up. A badly timed pulse of toxic input killed off the nitrificans bacteria. The nitrosomonas were still alive and well. So, ammonia was being oxidized to NITRITE, but there was nobody left alive to oxidize the NITRITE to NITRATE. As far as effluent to surface water goes, NITRITE is much much much worse than nitrate. So, given the reality that wastewater treatment depends on the cultivation and nurturing of nitrate reducing bacteria, they had to buy the nitrosomonas culture and reinnoculate the system. To Exxon's credit, they were completely honest about the incident. Nitrite in the river water was NOT COOL. They did the right thing and didn't lie about it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]HarveyH55 wrote: Oh please. please educate us on the biogeochemical aspects of a septic tank... First, manure piles, not septic tanks. Biogeocemistry seems like a really 'crappy' field to wade into... Never had a septic system, but have a fair understanding. Toilet contents get flushed through a sewage pipe, into a tank, where solids sink to the bottom, and break down with the help of bacteria. Releasing tonnes of planet killing methane greenhouse gas. Basically, every toilet flush, and well any water that goes down any drain, fills the septic tank, which of course can only hold so much. Basically, the excess liquid overflows into the drain field, where it's absorbed into the soil. Not all of the solids will break down, become liquefied, or greenhouse gas. Occasionally, the sludge at the bottom of the septic tank needs to be pumped out by a biogeochemist tank truck. Not sure where they empty their tank. Probably the nearest river, or storm drain... [quote]Im a BM wrote: you don't know how a spetic tank works, do you? At least your daddy knows how to SPELL it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]HarveyH55 wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is. Fracking does have its downside. There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations. There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped. The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry. For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria. In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas. The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply. More on this one later! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]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...
07-06-2023 02:42
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: Working for the World's Largest Oil Company. Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work. Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency. The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof. There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans. Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite. But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium.
07-06-2023 02:43
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: From the guy who got Exxon out of a tight spot Call me a "liar" if you want. It doesn't trigger any insecurities. So, between advanced degrees programs in biogeochemistry I did a one year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. Well, half the job was wastewater chemistry analysis, and methods updates. The other half was to implement the basic QA/QC program for the hydrocarbon lab. I took advantage of the opportunity. Health and safety improvements fell under the mandate of QA/QC. One of the diesel fuel tests involved use of toluene. It emitted toluene vapor directly into the air being breathed by the technician. One guy there actually died of liver cancer, but they couldn't prove that the toluene caused it. So, using the QA/QC mandate and budget, the toluene vapors from that test got piped away to a fume hood to be vented to the atmosphere. So many people there thanked me for making the air better to breathe... There was also a basic oil and grease test that had to be done on all treated wastewater effluent. It involved the use of freon, an ozone destroyer. The way everyone at Exxon ever did the test before, they simply allowed the freon to vent to the atmosphere, and then weigh the oil and grease extracted by it. It was a LOT of freon. So, sealover set up the glassware for a water-cooled distillation apparatus. The freon could then be recaptured and recycled for reuse in the oil and grease test. This saved MONEY as well as a little relief for the ozone layer. Word got around and other Exxon refineries adopted the practice. Why tell this story of a real thing that happened in the real world? Well, imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that technicians don't have to breathe toluene vapor. Surely they would be ATTACKED. After all, everyone knows that toluene is just as harmless as lead or radon. It would be WRONG to WASTE MONEY piping the toluene away from the apparatus to a fume hood where nobody has to breathe it. Imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that freon is recycled rather than vented to the atmosphere during the standard oil and grease test. Surely they would be ATTACTED. After all, everyone knows that freon is harmless to the ozone layer. It would be WRONG to WASTE MONEY recycling the freon... wait, that actually saves money.... But it would still be WRONG because it buys into the HOAX that freon harms the ozone layer. It would send the wrong message if we change the procedure. Goddamn liberal democrats want to ruin EVERYTHING!
07-06-2023 02:45
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]duncan61 wrote: Sealover/Im a BM Wrote Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank. A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems. A septic tank starts with ANAEROBIC decomposition. Lots of chemical reduction reactions generated by organic carbon oxidation under low oxygen conditions. The effluent from a septic tank then flows into AEROBIC conditions. Lots of chemical oxidation reactions from the reduced metabolic products of anaerobiosis. No kind of "fish food" then flows out to surface waters. In between advanced degree programs, I had a one-year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. NOT AT ALL LIKE A SEPTIC TANK. Let me tell you about it. Step one is to provide AEROBIC conditions. Mix in as much oxygen as possible. Burn up the organic matter under AEROBIC conditions, with OXIDATION reactions controlling the chemical output. Burn up all the organic nitrogen and all the ammonium to nitrate. Step two, create ANAEROBIC conditions so that nitrate reducing bacteria can ensure there is no nitrate, and therefore no nitrogen fertilizer, in effluent to surface waters. One time, the ecology of the system got really messed up. A badly timed pulse of toxic input killed off the nitrificans bacteria. The nitrosomonas were still alive and well. So, ammonia was being oxidized to NITRITE, but there was nobody left alive to oxidize the NITRITE to NITRATE. As far as effluent to surface water goes, NITRITE is much much much worse than nitrate. So, given the reality that wastewater treatment depends on the cultivation and nurturing of nitrate reducing bacteria, they had to buy the nitrosomonas culture and reinnoculate the system. To Exxon's credit, they were completely honest about the incident. Nitrite in the river water was NOT COOL. They did the right thing and didn't lie about it.
07-06-2023 02:46
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products As this thread has already deviated into wastewater treatment. At least one of the posts implied that chlorine was used in wastewater treatment. The problem with chlorine, and why its use in wastewater treatment has largely discontinued, was the unanticipated adverse environmental and public health impacts of TRIHALOMETHANES generated by chlorine treatment. Chlorine is still widely used to disinfect drinking water, hypochlorite, aminochlor, etc. TRIHALOMETHANES generated are considered to be a big problem. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, a concerted effort is being made to minimize the export of dissolved organic carbon from drained peatlands into surface waters used as source of drinking water. The less organic carbon in the input water, the fewer trihalomethanes generated during chlorine disinfection of drinking water supplies. Folks who know what trihalomethanes are might want to ask more about how to mitigate them. Trihalomethanes - Chlorine Disinfection By Products
07-06-2023 02:47
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Im a BM wrote: Nitrite versus Nitrate - VERY different chemicals. The 10 mg per liter USEPA standard for drinking water is for NITRATE. The release that Exxon had to report was NITRITE. Check the drinking water standard for NITRITE rather than NITRATE. There must be something very different about the two "chemicals". "Chemical" is in quotation marks because there is only one genius who understands words well enough to know what a chemical really is. Nitrate, NO3-, is a monovalent oxyanion composed of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrite, NO2-, is a monovalent oxyanion, composed of nitrogen and one less oxygen. May the super genius invoke "valence electrons" to refute these facts. NitrATE is only toxic at high concentrations. Even then, only toxic because some of it gets transformed to nitrITE in the low oxygen, organic carbon rich guts. NitrITE is toxic at far lower concentrations. Look up the USEPA drinking water standard for proof. But use the word "nitrite", like the Exxon thing was about. And what helped mitigate the discharge was to enable the existing treatment pond ecology to operate WITHOUT the organism that transforms NITRITE into nitrogen gas. Instead, carbohydrate and molybdenum were added to enable the surviving bacteria that turned the nitrate into nitrite to do something else. They had no nitrate left to work with anyway. And the organic carbon was all burned up in the aerobic step of the process Using the freshly added organic carbon as their energy, these same bacteria turned the nitrite they made into ammonium. Ammonium isn't so great in a treated wastewater discharge, but it beats the hell out of toxic nitrite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ duncan61 wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]sealover wrote: Working for the World's Largest Oil Company. Maybe as a clerk... sealover wrote: Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work. You don't get to speak for the dead. You don't get to speak for Exxon either. Omnisicience fallacy. sealover wrote: Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency. Your story is made up, dude. sealover wrote: The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof. No such chemical. sealover wrote: There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite. No such chemical. sealover wrote: But you know what? Nitrosomonas can actually take back the nitrite they generated, given the right conditions, a little organic carbon, and a little molybdenum. They started turning nitrite into ammonium. Carbon isn't organic. No such chemicals. Buzzword fallacies. sealover wrote: Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me? You don't get to speak for Exxon. Omniscience fallacy. No one here hates you. You are just begin paranoid. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 milligrams of nitrate (measured as nitrogen) per liter of drinking water (mg/L). * Drinking water with levels of nitrate at or below 10 mg/L is considered safe for everyone. Look what I copied and pasted.Yay me
07-06-2023 02:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]sealover wrote: Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel. The methane oxidizing bacteria discussed so far are those that use oxygen as oxidant. They can be used to scavenge for leaked methane, turn it into CO2, and reduce its global warming potential twenty fold. Among the most ancient bacteria are some that use SULFATE as oxidant to get energy from methane. These bacteria do not turn methane into CO2. They turn methane into ALKALINITY. There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking. A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria. Methane can be used to feed cultured bacteria under anaerobic conditions. They will transform the methane into alkalinity (bicarbonate and carbonate). A bacteria farm next to the ocean could discharge alkalinity directly to the sea. The moles of alkalinity generated will be 1:1 ratio with moles of methane oxidized. Eventually the bacteria can be harvested for biofuel, animal feed, and fertilizer. It could even be burned as biofuel to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will be outweighed by the alkalinity generated during culturing of the bacteria. A little CO2 added to the sky, offset by a lot of alkalinity added to the sea. We just need to rethink the concept of oxidants for fossil fuel "combustion". Methane Oxidizing Sulfate Reducing Bacteria for Acid Neutralizing Biofuel.
07-06-2023 02:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	Virtually everyone who uses the term "fossil fuel" understands it to mean the coal, petroleum, and methane contained in underground deposits. Virtually everyone who studies earth science in any advanced capacity understands how these underground deposits of fossil fuel were formed. Coal is always found where terrestrial wetlands accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through photosynthesis. The waterlogged, low-oxygen conditions prevented aerobic decomposition and the stuff just piled up. Eventually it got buried. And eventually, geologic metamorphosis transformed it into coal. Petroleum is always found where shallow seas on continental shelves accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through marine photosynthesis. Eventually it got buried. And eventually, geologic metamorphosis transformed it into petroleum. Wetland organic matter, derived from land plants, is chemically different than shallow sea floor organic matter, derived primarily from microorganisms. Terrestrial plants leave organic carbon compounds that are relatively poor in hydrogen, and relatively rich in oxygen - compared to sea floor microorganisms. During coal forming metamorphosis, hydrogen consumes the oxygen to form water and relatively pure carbon. During petroleum forming metamorphosis, more hydrogen is available to form hydrocarbons and relatively pure carbon (coke).[/quote]

07-06-2023 02:51
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: "Magic" petroleum Let's debunk an utterly absurd theory about how magic petroleum forms. There is a fairy tale being bandied about which asserts that petroleum did NOT form from organic matter produced by photosynthesis at the surface. It suggests that way deep underground, hydrogen combines with carbon dioxide to produce hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons are then pushed under pressure toward the surface. When they reach an impermeable layer, they get trapped. The theory suggests that the process continues to this day. According to the fairy tale, petroleum deposits occur beneath impermeable rock formations. Without having been blocked by the impermeable rock, the oil could presumably get closer to the surface. If this were true, two things should be the case: 1. New hydrocarbons being produced should be flowing up along the path of least resistance toward the surface. Therefore, they should be spewing up out of the sea floor along the mid Atlantic ridge, and they should be coming out with every volcanic eruption. There would be nothing to stop them from flowing along with the magma, bypassing any impermeable entrapment. Being so much lighter and less viscous than magma, hydrocarbons should be among the first material that get ejected from the underground. This does not happen. 2. Petroleum deposits should be found beneath the most impermeable rock formations where they got trapped. Basalt flows and almost any igneous rock formation would be the most difficult material to penetrate. But that is not where you find oil. The rock material that overlies oil fields in the real world is virtually always of sedimentary origin. These are the most permeable rock formations of all, where there would be the least resistance to prevent hydrocarbons from getting past. But the stuff started from the top, not the bottom. Made by photosynthesis.
07-06-2023 02:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Both coal and petroleum formation also produce natural gas, primarily methane. Carbohydrate such as cellulose is a major component of the raw material that turns into coal. General formula Cn(H2O)2n take out the water and you get coal. Lipids and other hydrocarbons are a major component in the raw material that turns into petroleum. General formula CnH(2n+2) its already most of what petroleum is made of. But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]Im a BM wrote: "Magic" petroleum Let's debunk an utterly absurd theory about how magic petroleum forms. There is a fairy tale being bandied about which asserts that petroleum did NOT form from organic matter produced by photosynthesis at the surface. It suggests that way deep underground, hydrogen combines with carbon dioxide to produce hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons are then pushed under pressure toward the surface. When they reach an impermeable layer, they get trapped. The theory suggests that the process continues to this day. According to the fairy tale, petroleum deposits occur beneath impermeable rock formations. Without having been blocked by the impermeable rock, the oil could presumably get closer to the surface. If this were true, two things should be the case: 1. New hydrocarbons being produced should be flowing up along the path of least resistance toward the surface. Therefore, they should be spewing up out of the sea floor along the mid Atlantic ridge, and they should be coming out with every volcanic eruption. There would be nothing to stop them from flowing along with the magma, bypassing any impermeable entrapment. Being so much lighter and less viscous than magma, hydrocarbons should be among the first material that get ejected from the underground. This does not happen. 2. Petroleum deposits should be found beneath the most impermeable rock formations where they got trapped. Basalt flows and almost any igneous rock formation would be the most difficult material to penetrate. But that is not where you find oil. The rock material that overlies oil fields in the real world is virtually always of sedimentary origin. These are the most permeable rock formations of all, where there would be the least resistance to prevent hydrocarbons from getting past. But the stuff started from the top, not the bottom. Made by photosynthesis.
07-06-2023 02:54
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: canary in a coal mine - methane detectors The old expression "canary in a coal mine" was based on a grim reality. Coal miners used to die if they broke open a pocket of natural gas, which always accompany coal deposits. Methane is deadly and has no odor. Canaries can't smell methane either, but they are breathing and circulating blood a lot faster than humans. They literally took a canary in a cage with them and kept an eye on it. If the bird collapsed and fell off its perch, it was time for the coal miners to get the hell out of there. Methane is always found around coal deposits and petroleum deposits. A lot of fracking is being done where no petroleum was ever found, and the coal is too deep to be worth the effort to dig it up. Natural gas generally sits on top of the coal or petroleum. Methane is generated by many kind of bacteria, some of which can live in human guts. The most ancient methanogens combined carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make methane. The earth used to spew out a lot of hydrogen, most of which floated off into outer space. The atmosphere is not a closed system, and the lightest gases such as helium and hydrogen float away. The irreversible oxidation of the earth's crust began as soon as it formed, as hydrogen was continuously emitted and lost to space. Methanogens managed to capture some of it, and many other bacteria evolved to exploit the energy-rich reductant. But there is very little hydrogen remaining in the crust, and only a few places where it still comes out at the surface. The most ancient methanogens were chemoautotrophic, using hydrogen gas as the energy source and carbon dioxide as oxidant and as raw material from which to make organic carbon. "Methanogenesis" today usually refers to bacteria that utilize organic carbon as their energy source and their raw material to build cells. They can only compete under very low oxygen conditions, and methane is a by product of them transforming more complex organic carbon to squeeze a little energy out of carbon-to-carbon oxidation/reduction reactions. Methane is the simplest of all the hydrocarbons. Literally ALL living organisms make hydrocarbons of one kind or another. Photosynthesis makes carbohydrates, yes, but vegetable oil is a hydrocarbon product of photosynthesis. The lipids that every living cell makes membranes out of is a hydrocarbon. Fatty acids, waxes, etc. - every plant, animal, fungi, and microorganism on earth synthesizes hydrocarbons. The organic matter that piles up in a swamp is mainly carbohydrate (cellulose), lignin, and polyphenolic materials. The chemical structure of these organic carbon compounds contains a lot of oxygen. Hydrocarbons do not. Under heat and pressure, carbohydrate Cn(H2O)n (glucose for example C6H1206) breaks the single bonds between carbon and -OH to instead form double bonds between carbons. the -OH gets combined with hydrogen from C-H single bonds, which are also then transformed into double bonded carbon-to-carbon. Coal is comprised of massive molecules of heavily double-bonded and nearly pure carbon, such as graphite. Petroleum forms primarily from material that was already very rich in hydrocarbons to begin with - lipids and all the other stuff that dead microorganisms on the sea floor are made of. Under heat and pressure, long chain fatty acids get their carboxylic heads chopped off, and get linked up into even longer chains. Methane is a product of many of the transformations, and some of the methane gets linked up into longer chains. Methane has four single bonded hydrogens attached to one carbon. Energy is released when single carbon to hydrogen bonds change to single bonds between two carbon atoms, so the chains can get longer and longer. Paraffins are hydrocarbons than can have more than a hundred carbon atoms long chain. Carbon per carbon, methane is the most energy yielding fossil fuel with four single C-H bonds per carbon. Coal is the least energy yielding fuel, carbon per carbon, made entirely of single or double bonded carbon. Petroleum is in between the two for energy yield per carbon, made of a roughly equal number of single bonds between carbon atoms, and single bonds between carbon and hydrogen. Methane can certainly be generated from carbohydrate, and here's a fun fact about that. Beans contain a carbohydrate called raffinose. Humans do not have the enzyme to digest raffinose, kind of a lactose intolerance situation. So, in the low oxygen conditions of our guts, bacteria perform methanogenesis, turning raffinose into methane. TOOT! [quote]Im a BM wrote: Both coal and petroleum formation also produce natural gas, primarily methane. Carbohydrate such as cellulose is a major component of the raw material that turns into coal. General formula Cn(H2O)2n take out the water and you get coal. Lipids and other hydrocarbons are a major component in the raw material that turns into petroleum. General formula CnH(2n+2) its already most of what petroleum is made of. But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon. Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas.
07-06-2023 02:55
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Where to drill for magic petroleum. Let's pretend that the fairy tale is true. It tells us exactly where to drill for oil. Three of the best places would be Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone. Hawaii sits on a massive plate of sea floor, where a "hot spot" brings magma to the surface. All that magic petroleum, trapped under the sea floor, would have the perfect place to escape. The laws of physics would drive it there. A shallow well should be able to siphon it off as it rises to the surface. Wildcatters should be heading to Hawaii for easy pickings. Iceland is above sea level where the sea floor is spreading wide open. Magic petroleum trapped under the sea floor could not help but be driven to the surface there. Shallow wells in Iceland should be able to catch that magic stuff, as the magma rises to the surface there. Yellowstone sits above a massive continental plate that presumably trapped a bunch of magic petroleum beneath it. Hydrogen is still emitted to the surface there. Magic petroleum, presumably formed from some of that hydrogen should be rising up along with it, as it is squeezed out under pressure toward the only flow path up and out. Wildcatters shouldn't have to dig very deep to find it. NOT! But in the real world, on a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change in the real world, perhaps we should focus on real world fossil fuel. Like the thread title suggests.
07-06-2023 02:57
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: 8% of United States methane emissions are from coal mines. Coal mines, operating or abandoned, account for 8% of US methane emissions. Coal mines are always associated with methane. Methane forms along with the coal during geologic metamorphosis of buried accumulations of terrestrial wetland organic matter. 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. Given that the global warming potential of methane is 20-30 times that of carbon dioxide, 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. 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. 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. 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.
07-06-2023 02:58
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons. Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito. Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago. 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). Unlike the more familiar alkanes (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), terpenes are alkenes with many double bonded carbons and fewer hydrogens. Amber often occurs as "resinite" in coal seams. Hydrocarbon amber forms alongside coal. It burns like coal, too. The presence of well preserved ancient insects is just one line of evidence that coal is formed from material of biological origin. Is amber a "fossil"? Does the term "fossil fuel" mean fuel for fossils to anyone serious? Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea? Is the goal of the word game obsession to prevent any discussion of how fossil fuels may or not be a central issue to discuss on a climate change website? Amber is a hydrocarbon fossil found along with coal, of biological origin.
07-06-2023 02:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Polyterpenes are HYDROCARBONS made by trees. The most prolific posters on the website have said many times that plants make carbohydrates but not hydrocarbons. Perhaps this thread will get a response to the actual topic, which is basically about how to still get as much electrical energy from fossil fuel combustion, but reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40% by switching from coal to methane. With the added benefit of reducing mercury, lead, arsenic, sulfur, soot that comes with coal combustion. Vietnam is building 20 massive coal burning power plants. It must be baffling to the outside observer that there is "debate" about whether or not "fossil fuel" even exists. The "resinite" form of amber in coal seams was referenced to try to show it must have come from biological origin if there are insects trapped in it. Actual scientists have no doubt whatsoever where coal and petroleum came from, the distinctly different raw materials they form from, and the distinctly different environmental conditions where those raw materials accumulated many millions of years ago. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]Im a BM wrote: Amber gemstone is fossilized tree resin hydrocarbons. Amber was displayed early in the movie "Jurassic Park", as the gemstone that contained a well preserved mosquito. Amber is the fossilized remains of hydrocarbon resin produced by trees tens of millions of years ago. 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). Unlike the more familiar alkanes (methane, butane, heptane, octane, etc.), terpenes are alkenes with many double bonded carbons and fewer hydrogens. Amber often occurs as "resinite" in coal seams. Hydrocarbon amber forms alongside coal. It burns like coal, too. The presence of well preserved ancient insects is just one line of evidence that coal is formed from material of biological origin. Is amber a "fossil"? Does the term "fossil fuel" mean fuel for fossils to anyone serious? Does the term "sea food" mean food for the sea? Is the goal of the word game obsession to prevent any discussion of how fossil fuels may or not be a central issue to discuss on a climate change website? Amber is a hydrocarbon fossil found along with coal, of biological origin.
07-06-2023 03:03
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: This thread was originally about substituting natural gas for coal wherever possible. That would greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions per BTU, and eliminate emissions of mercury, lead, etc. associated with coal. Let's consider another way to change the way we use fossil fuel that could do more than just reduce the "carbon footprint"? How about creating a NEGATIVE carbon footprint? How about using fossil fuel in a way that removes more carbon dioxide than it adds to the atmosphere? Even if you don't believe in greenhouse gases, it is hard to deny that carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid in sea water. First approach is purely by chemical engineering without live organisms. CH4 + SO4(2-) = CO3(2-) + H2O + H2S + energy Methane + sulfate = carbonate ion + water + hydrogen sulfide + energy This exothermic reaction oxidizes the methane to release energy. But rather than carbon dioxide, the inorganic carbon product is carbonate ion. The energy yield is significantly less than if oxygen is used for methane combustion. But the waste product can be added to the sea where it directly offsets the uptake of carbon dioxide by the ocean. This source of carbonate ion would benefit marine ecosystems. It would enable the sea to absorb more carbon dioxide without adverse impact. It would be a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy. That pesky hydrogen sulfide product can be bubbled up into low oxygen wetland sediment. It will be transformed into iron pyrite. Or it could be burned to get energy, but the product is sulfuric acid. A sea water mist could remove sulfuric acid from the exhaust plume. That acidified water could be directed to a constructed wetland where it gets neutralized
07-06-2023 03:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]Im a BM wrote: Fossil fuel oxidation versus fossil fuel combustion. During fossil fuel combustion oxygen is used to oxidize organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as carbon dioxide. Note: Organic carbon is carbon in chemically reduced form. Energy is released when it gets oxidized. Inorganic carbon is carbon in chemically oxidized form. Carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion are all forms of inorganic carbon. The field of organic chemistry is dedicated to all the organic carbon compounds. Energy is released when organic carbon is oxidized. It does not have to be combustion. Our cells can do the respiration thing without high heat, spark, or flame. And it does not have to be oxidized by oxygen in order for organic carbon oxidation to yield energy. Microorganisms under low oxygen conditions can acquire energy by oxidizing organic carbon with broad range of naturally occurring oxidants. Sulfate, nitrate, and ferric iron top the list, but the list is long. However, when other oxidants are used, carbon dioxide is not the inorganic carbon product of organic carbon oxidation. I've placed a lot of emphasis on sulfate reduction because it is the most important source of alkalinity entering the sea. On the other hand, a battery based on manganese reduction or iron reduction might be more feasible from a chemical engineering standpoint. The point is that we could be using fossil fuel to our heart's delight, and rather than generating a greenhouse gas that becomes carbonic acid in the sea (i.e. CO2), we would be generating carbonate ions or bicarbonate ions for the sea. Enabling the sea to absorb more CO2 without adverse impact would essentially create a NEGATIVE carbon footprint for fossil fuel oxidation as a source of energy.
07-06-2023 03:05
sealover ★★★★☆ (1239)	[quote]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...

Page 9 of 10

Join the debate Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?	33	04-02-2024 08:12
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
World Reliance on Fuel Derived from the Ground.	34	20-10-2022 04:00