Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 10 of 10<<<8910
07-06-2023 03:17
James_
★★★★★
(2201)
sealover wrote:
[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.



While this creates a paradox, it might be a paradox with a solution. Generating methane from water and CO2 would allow for water and CO2 to be the emission.
It'd basically be a closed loop concept so it'd be carbon neutral.
And if something like that would be possible then the research I'm pursuing along with sustainable farming might help with such ideas. Both drought and declining water tables are a threat to farmers. My experiment about
CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 (for the Chapman cycle) would allow for
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2.
Why I wondered if SOx might be something crops could convert into sulfur to encourage iron while releasing the O2 molecule. And then scientists might consider how they could use such information while I consider climate change
and farming.
07-06-2023 16:34
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5704)
James_ wrote:
sealover wrote:
[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.



While this creates a paradox, it might be a paradox with a solution. Generating methane from water and CO2 would allow for water and CO2 to be the emission.
It'd basically be a closed loop concept so it'd be carbon neutral.
And if something like that would be possible then the research I'm pursuing along with sustainable farming might help with such ideas. Both drought and declining water tables are a threat to farmers. My experiment about
CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 (for the Chapman cycle) would allow for
2CH2O > CH4 + CO2.
Why I wondered if SOx might be something crops could convert into sulfur to encourage iron while releasing the O2 molecule. And then scientists might consider how they could use such information while I consider climate change
and farming.


LOL I hate to break the news to you kid, but crops and algae producing biofuels is already happening and you have no patents.

Jesus some peeple are tupid


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
12-06-2023 11:06
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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....
12-06-2023 11:07
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:08
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
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.
12-06-2023 11:09
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
.
12-06-2023 11:11
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
.
12-06-2023 11:12
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
.
12-06-2023 11:13
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:14
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[quote]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.
.
12-06-2023 11:15
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.

.
12-06-2023 11:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
.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.
12-06-2023 11:18
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:23
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.

Actually, the water is driven out as oxygen gets separated from the carbon, and hydrogenated to form water.

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.

The raw material from which petroleum forms contained little oxygen to begin with, causing little of its hydrogen to be lost, remaining as hydrocarbon.

Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas.
12-06-2023 11:25
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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!
12-06-2023 11:27
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:28
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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..
12-06-2023 11:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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..
12-06-2023 11:31
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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..
12-06-2023 11:36
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:38
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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.
12-06-2023 11:38
sealover
★★★★☆
(1236)
[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....
12-06-2023 16:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
sealover wrote:During fossil fuel combustion oxygen is used to oxidize organic carbon into inorganic carbon, as carbon dioxide.

Apparently you still think hydrocarbons are fossils.

So, you're a chemist, you say?

sealover wrote: Note: Organic carbon is carbon in chemically reduced form.

I'd ask you "how reduced" but you don't like to answer questions.

What are diamonds? "Organic" or "Inorganic"?

sealover wrote: Energy is released when it gets oxidized.

Energy in what form?

sealover wrote: The field of organic chemistry is dedicated to all the organic carbon compounds.

So organic chemistry must teach that hydrocarbons are not fossils. You, however, believe that hydrocarbons are fossils.

You aren't an organic chemist. Ask me how I know.

sealover 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.

You still have not explained why anyone would want to do this, nor have you explained why any rational adult should care about carbonic acid finding its way into the ocean from the atmosphere (as CO2) when it will just be returning to the atmosphere (as CO2) in short order via evaporation. You still haven't explained why any rational adult should believe that the ocean is somehow losing alkalinity.

sealover 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.

Explain this "carbon footprint" thing to me and why I want one that's negative.

Oh, and why would any rational adult want the atmosphere to have less plant food as opposed to more plant food?

I know, I know, ... I peppered you with QUESTIONS! How rude of me! I totally get it. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate some answers if you wouldn't mind.
12-06-2023 18:28
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5196)
sealover wrote:
[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....


Coal is stable, easy to handle and store. A pile of coal can be left out in the elements for decades, centuries, and still burn, still release the same energy. No special containers needed. No leaks, explosions. If you spill your coal, there is no environment catastrophe, just grab a shovel and recover it. No hurry, or worries about getting every little chunk.
RE: "Excellent work sir...and thank you!"10-07-2023 20:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon.
Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke.
Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting]

WRONG. You are still denying chemistry.

At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ...



... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry.

It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either.

.
10-07-2023 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon.
Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke.
Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting]

WRONG. You are still denying chemistry.

At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ...



... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry.

It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either.

.

This doesn't answer the question of "Why do you believe the ocean is losing its alkalinity?" or "Why do you believe the earth's average temperature is increasing?" ... or "Why do you believe the earth's average global temperature can somehow be measured to within any usable margin of error?"

Your king is tipped.
12-07-2023 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21579)
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.

Again, you show your irrational fear of CO2. No gas or vapor has any capability to warm the Earth. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas absolutely essential for life on Earth.
sealover wrote:
About half the anthropogenic mercury

No such thing. Mercury is not man made. It is an element, like carbon.
sealover wrote:
entering the environment comes from coal fired power plants.

Coal is not mercury.
sealover wrote:
Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

Coal is not sulfur, lead, arsenic, or cadmium.
sealover wrote:
We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

Good. Prices will drop.
sealover wrote:
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.

Coal is not subsidized.
sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize retrofitting coal-fired power plants to use methane.

Coal power plants are not subsidized.
sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize impoverished nations to be able to purchase our natural gas at a better price than coal.

Define 'improverished nation'.
sealover wrote:
A HUGE reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved relatively rapidly by switching from coal to natural gas.

You don't get to decide. Neither does the federal government (legally).
sealover wrote:
It would also help us get the lead out.

Coal is not lead.
sealover wrote:
And the mercury, arsenic, cadmium....

Coal is not mercury, arsenic, or cadmium.


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: never posted any "link"05-11-2023 20:56
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon.
Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke.
Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting]

WRONG. You are still denying chemistry.

At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ...



... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry.

It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either.

.



=================================================

I never posted my name, nor any "link" to my personal information.

When I posted the name of this poster, the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, it did include the challenge that "the trolls are afraid to even look at it."

The senior troll then took on the assignment.

Didn't just look at it.

Did a web search to find everything he could about me and my family.

Actually posted a detailed map of how to get to my home. The names of my sons and mother. Former colleagues. Phone number, e mail, birthdate, etc.

I'm sure that there is some word game to call this something other than doxxing.
05-11-2023 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14387)
Im a BM wrote: I never posted my name, nor any "link" to my personal information.

You are lying and revising history. How do you think I got your personal information? Answer: from the link you provided and insisted I visit.

... or are you crediting me for just being a psychic?

Im a BM wrote:When I posted the name of this poster, the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, it did include the challenge that "the trolls are afraid to even look at it."

You were hoping to drum up some business by enticing some on Climate-Debate to order a few. The "continuum" graphic had the author's name right beside it along with all the information needed to order one ... except that the site had decided to discontinue it. All three reviews of it were brief and overtly negative. Total time required on my part thus far (including glancing at the reviews): ~ 40 seconds.

A search under your name in order to find other items that you might have for sale quickly revealed where you live and with what organizations you are, or were, affiliated. Total time required to momentarily glance at a handful of them: 2-3 minutes.

Im a BM wrote: The senior troll then took on the assignment. Didn't just look at it. Did a web search to find everything he could about me and my family. Actually posted a detailed map of how to get to my home.

First, I thank you for correctly recognizing me as the senior troll. Into the Night will be none too pleased to see his drop in the official standings, but he knew it was coming.

Back to your griping, you provided the link and you insisted we all go take a look. What other result were you expecting?

Note: I never mentioned your family. I don't think you even have one.

Note: All maps are detailed in how to get somewhere. That's kind of their purpose. You provided your personal information and Google maps provided the map. Your complaint is with Google.

Im a BM wrote: The names of my sons and mother. Former colleagues. Phone number, e mail, birthdate, etc.

You're lying. I never posted any other information beyond what you provided. Again, I don't think you have any children, but I'm guessing you probably had a mother.

Im a BM wrote:I'm sure that there is some word game to call this something other than doxxing.

It's called publishing your contact information. It can't be "doxxing" because you can't dox yourself.
06-11-2023 04:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21579)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon.
Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke.
Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting]

WRONG. You are still denying chemistry.

At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ...



... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry.

It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either.

.



=================================================

I never posted my name, nor any "link" to my personal information.

When I posted the name of this poster, the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, it did include the challenge that "the trolls are afraid to even look at it."

The senior troll then took on the assignment.

Didn't just look at it.

Did a web search to find everything he could about me and my family.

Actually posted a detailed map of how to get to my home. The names of my sons and mother. Former colleagues. Phone number, e mail, birthdate, etc.

I'm sure that there is some word game to call this something other than doxxing.

You published your name, Robert.


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: And an apology to Harvey06-11-2023 09:38
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert R Northup wrote:But petroleum also contains a lot of coke, which is nearly pure carbon.
Nope. Petroleum does not contain any coke.
Robert R Northup wrote:Either process, petroleum or coal formation, also generates natural gas. [deleted severely damaged quoting]

WRONG. You are still denying chemistry.

At one point I thought Robert R Northup, the artist extraordinaire who was kind enough to share his published 2005 creation with us, i.e. Cyclical Continuum ...



... might possibly be able to contribute to this forum in a value-added way through actual chemistry.

It would seem that he doesn't really know any chemistry. He doesn't know any other science either.

.



=================================================

I never posted my name, nor any "link" to my personal information.

When I posted the name of this poster, the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties, it did include the challenge that "the trolls are afraid to even look at it."

The senior troll then took on the assignment.

Didn't just look at it.

Did a web search to find everything he could about me and my family.

Actually posted a detailed map of how to get to my home. The names of my sons and mother. Former colleagues. Phone number, e mail, birthdate, etc.

I'm sure that there is some word game to call this something other than doxxing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I owe Harvey an apology.

I made a false accusation that Harvey was one of the two members who RE posted the map to my home and all the other personal information posted by the senior troll.

Obviously, his second rate side kick, Parrot Boy reposted it.

Going back to find what I sent Branner, it turns out that it wasn't Harvey who jumped in third after Parrot Boy got sloppy seconds.

Something like Cashjuggler or Assmuzzler...

Anyway, it wasn't Harvey and I was wrong to make the false accusation.
RE: Does it make you feel smarter?01-12-2023 20:14
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
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..

.




Does it make you feel smarter when you call someone else a "moron"?
01-12-2023 21:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5704)
Im a BM 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..

.




Does it make you feel smarter when you call someone else a "moron"?


Yup, because the biggest problem with the USA is liberal faggot morons who are in charge


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
Page 10 of 10<<<8910





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Using fossil fuel is mass murder.!?3304-02-2024 08:12
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat32607-11-2023 19:16
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10205-06-2023 13:19
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N253330-01-2023 07:22
World Reliance on Fuel Derived from the Ground.3420-10-2022 04:00
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact