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

sealover wrote:
Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank.

sealover wrote:
A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems.

sealover wrote:
A septic tank starts with ANAEROBIC decomposition. Lots of chemical reduction reactions generated by organic carbon oxidation under low oxygen conditions.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
In between advanced degree programs, I had a one-year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon. NOT AT ALL LIKE A SEPTIC TANK.

sealover wrote:
Let me tell you about it.

sealover wrote:
Step one is to provide AEROBIC conditions. Mix in as much oxygen as possible.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
As far as effluent to surface water goes, NITRITE is much much much worse than nitrate.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Working for the World's Largest Oil Company.

sealover wrote:
Rush Limbaugh and Exxon both LOVED sealover's work.

sealover wrote:
Sealover helped Exxon with a short term fix in an emergency.

sealover wrote:
The nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent were through the roof.

sealover wrote:
There would be a time delay before the new innoculum would arrive to restore the population of nitrobacter denitrificans.

sealover wrote:
Meanwhile there were dangerously high levels of nitrite.

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.

sealover wrote:
Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

Im a BM wrote:
Salta, perrito! Salta!

Tu amo te manda saltar, y tienes que obedecer.

Ademas, no eres capaz de resistir la tentacion.

Buen provecho!

sealover wrote:
From the guy who got Exxon out of a tight spot

sealover wrote:
Call me a "liar" if you want.

sealover wrote:
It doesn't trigger any insecurities.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
So many people there thanked me for making the air better to breathe...

sealover wrote:
There was also a basic oil and grease test that had to be done on all treated wastewater effluent.

sealover wrote:
It involved the use of freon, an ozone destroyer.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
So, sealover set up the glassware for a water-cooled distillation apparatus.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Word got around and other Exxon refineries adopted the practice.

Why tell this story of a real thing that happened in the real world?

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Surely they would be ATTACKED. After all, everyone knows that toluene is just as harmless as lead or radon.

sealover wrote:
It would be WRONG to WASTE MONEY piping the toluene away from the apparatus to a fume hood where nobody has to breathe it.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
Goddamn liberal democrats want to ruin EVERYTHING!

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.

sealover wrote:
The problem with chlorine, and why its use in wastewater treatment has largely discontinued,

sealover wrote:
was the unanticipated adverse environmental and public health impacts of TRIHALOMETHANES generated by chlorine treatment.

sealover wrote:
Chlorine is still widely used to disinfect drinking water, hypochlorite, aminochlor, etc. TRIHALOMETHANES generated are considered to be a big problem.

sealover wrote:
In the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, a concerted effort is being made to minimize the export of dissolved organic carbon

sealover wrote:
from drained peatlands into surface waters used as source of drinking water.

sealover wrote:
The less organic carbon in the input water,

sealover wrote:
the fewer trihalomethanes generated during chlorine disinfection of drinking water supplies.

sealover wrote:
Folks who know what trihalomethanes are might want to ask more about how to mitigate them.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.

sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

If they were capable of suddenly mutating into something that could feed on something else, they would have done so a long, long time ago.

They are VERY selective about what they feed on.

Once the methane runs out, they DO just die and vanish.

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
This IS science fiction.

Methane oxidizing bacteria, the ones that use oxygen for oxidant, have been around for at LEAST 2000 million years.

If they were capable of suddenly mutating into something that could feed on something else, they would have done so a long, long time ago.

They are VERY selective about what they feed on.

Once the methane runs out, they DO just die and vanish.

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

Not everything turns out well, when scaled up. All those biogeocultivated bacteria are going to feed, replicate and spread. They aren't that selective about what they feed on either. They also tend to mutate, to better adapt to the food and environment. Once their fracking task is complete, they just don't die and vanish. I don't have a lot of faith in biogeogenetic engineering either.

Do you have bacteria samples, millions of years old? Mutation, is how bacteria diversify and survive. I they were only able to make perfect copies, it would only take one event to kill them all. Every living things has some means to adapt to the environment, so that at least a few might survive. Those that can't adapt, cease to exist.

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.

Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.

Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.

Into the Night wrote:Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians.

Into the Night wrote:Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Into the Night wrote:Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating.

Into the Night wrote: Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space.

Into the Night wrote:No different than building a ship to cross a sea.

Into the Night wrote:The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox,

Into the Night wrote:If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Into the Night wrote:Because it fails the internal consistency check,

Into the Night wrote: this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrite versus Nitrate - VERY different chemicals.

Im a BM wrote:
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".

Im a BM wrote:
"Chemical" is in quotation marks because there is only one genius who understands words well enough to know what a chemical really is.

Im a BM wrote:
Nitrate, NO3-, is a monovalent oxyanion composed of nitrogen and oxygen.

Nitrite, NO2-, is a monovalent oxyanion, composed of nitrogen and one less oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:
May the super genius invoke "valence electrons" to refute these facts.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Instead, carbohydrate and molybdenum were added to enable the surviving bacteria that turned the nitrate into nitrite to do something else.

Im a BM wrote:
They had no nitrate left to work with anyway.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Ammonium isn't so great in a treated wastewater discharge, but it beats the hell out of toxic nitrite.

duncan61 wrote:Alligators hatch as mini versions of the adults in vast numbers just like snakes and sea turtles.Numbers ensure survival of the species.

Charles Darwin wrote: For any form existing in lesser numbers would, as already remarked, run a greater chance of being exterminated than one existing in large numbers ;

duncan61 wrote: but dry winters or late rains and the suckers are everywhere.

Charles Darwin wrote:I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which probably at first existed in the intermediate zones, would be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; for the latter, from existing in greater numbers, would generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which existed in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties would, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated.

duncan61 wrote:Sealover is clearly insane and I am quitting on trying to get a straight answer from the loon

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.

Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.

duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.

this hurt my brain - owey!

GretaGroupie wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.

Duncan these are rep-tiles from wikipedeo:

this hurt my brain - owey!

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GretaGroupie wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Alligators are reptiles.

squeal over wrote:They can be used to scavenge for leaked methane, turn it into CO2, and reduce its global warming potential twenty fold.

squeal over wrote:Among the most ancient bacteria are some that use SULFATE as oxidant to get energy from methane.

squeal over wrote:These bacteria do not turn methane into CO2. They turn methane into ALKALINITY.

squeal over wrote:There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking.

squeal over wrote:A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria.

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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
There is a growing glut of available methane now owing to the practice of fracking.

sealover wrote:
A different kind of fossil fuel substitution is possible with sulfate reducing, methane oxidizing bacteria.

sealover wrote:
Methane can be used to feed cultured bacteria under anaerobic conditions.

They will transform the methane into alkalinity (bicarbonate and carbonate).

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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.

sealover wrote:
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".

Into the Night wrote:CO2 paranoia. Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:
Why alligators lay their eggs in water.

Alligators, being amphibians, lay their eggs in water.

The first phase of their life cycle is aquatic.

They cannot breathe air until they become adults.

Some of them complete the aquatic part of the life cycle before they leave the egg, but the egg must be in water.

Like most other amphibians, alligators are physically very different during the first phase of their life cycle and exploit a different food source than the adults.

This offers some resilience against population loss.

Like the mosquitoes. What the babies eat is very abundant in the swamps.

Plenty of food to raise a bumper crop of hungry adults.

The daddies only need to find a bit of sugar, to have enough energy to fly around and find a mommy to get it on with.

The mommies have to find BLOOD. Not such an easy thing to find.

Most mommies fail to find that blood, or get killed trying to take it.

But the ones that succeed at getting a blood meal can lay hundreds of eggs.

And there will be more than enough food for those babies because they don't need blood. Just the stuff that's so abundant in the swamp water.

Now, when you raise your pet alligators at home, be careful.

Be sure to dechlorinate the water that you use to fill the bathtub where she will lay her eggs. The alligator babies breath water, and chlorine could kill them.

Now comes the tricky part. Those alligator tadpoles will be HUNGRY when they hatch out of the eggs and start swimming around and using their gills to get oxygen.

Be careful.

Alligators are amphibians, and their tadpoles eat BLOOD.

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

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Sorry, dude. The Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. Adaption is not required for an organism to exist.

How, exactly, does an organism exist that is not adapted to its environment?

Can you imagine how greatly we can decrease space travel if we don't need space suits or other means of adaptation? You might be onto a gold mine. I'm all in.

Alligators, for example, like swampy areas, being amphibians. Most alligators are black to gray, and blend in pretty well to dim lighting. Albino alligators (yes, they do exist) don't blend in at all, but they still live quite happily in the swamp with the rest of them.

Obviously, the albino alligator doesn't bother to adapt by mutating. It's behavior is no different from any other alligator.

Space travel doesn't actually require space suits (although they are handy!). All it requires is a vehicle capable of traveling through space. No different than building a ship to cross a sea.
None of these vehicles can mutate. They are not living things. None of these are examples of the Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin's theory).

The Theory of Natural Selection is based on a paradox, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient for it to fail the internal consistency check.

If Natural Selection is True, it must always be True. If so, how do variations get started to Select from??

Because it fails the internal consistency check, this 'theory' actually isn't a theory at all. It's a fallacy. It's irrational. Arguing both sides of any paradox is irrational.

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...

squeal over 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.

squeal over wrote:About half the anthropogenic mercury entering the environment

squeal over wrote:comes from coal fired power plants. Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

squeal over wrote:We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

squeal over wrote:It is absurd to subsidize continued use of coal to compensate losses.

squeal over wrote:It makes more sense to subsidize retrofitting coal-fired power plants to use methane.

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

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

squeal over wrote:Virtually everyone who uses the term "fossil fuel" understands it to mean the coal, petroleum, and methane contained in underground deposits.

squeal over wrote:Virtually everyone who studies earth science in any advanced capacity understands how these underground deposits of fossil fuel were formed.

squeal over wrote:Petroleum is always found where shallow seas on continental shelves accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through marine photosynthesis.

squeal over wrote: And eventually, geologic metamorphosis transformed it into petroleum.

squeal over wrote:Wetland organic matter, derived from land plants, is chemically different than shallow sea floor organic matter, derived primarily from microorganisms.

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over 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.

Strategically omitted is any reason to do this, because the purpose of this post is to spread disinformation, propagate confusion and to push a dark political agenda.

There is no reason to do any of the above. Death of the global economy at the hands of Marxist tyrants is not a desirable thing.

squeal over wrote:About half the anthropogenic mercury entering the environment

There is no such thing as anthropogenic anything. Such would require an unambiguous definition of "human activity", an admission to viewing humans as "bad" and a clear mapping of "human activity" as the exclusive causes of the effects in question.

It would also require an admission to completely fabricating all numerical figures presented. However, the purpose of this post is to spread disinformation, propagate confusion and to push a dark political agenda.

squeal over wrote:comes from coal fired power plants. Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

... except when it doesn't. squeal over is fear-mongering because the purpose of this post is to spread disinformation, propagate confusion and to push a dark political agenda.

squeal over wrote:We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

Somebody should ask squeal over who "we" is. Obviously this is the Marxist "we" that pretends to speak for countless others. I'm not experiencing any particular glut of available methane. All people reading squeal over's post should ask themselves if they are experiencing some sort of glut of available methane.

squeal over likes to do that. Whoever is doing his thinking for him told him to write that because propaganda research has discovered that most stupid people just believe whatever they read on the internet, and that's squeal over's target audience.

squeal over wrote:It is absurd to subsidize continued use of coal to compensate losses.

I'm glad we agree that it is absurd to subsidize industries such as wind and solar to compensate for their losses.

squeal over wrote:It makes more sense to subsidize retrofitting coal-fired power plants to use methane.

It makes more sense to use that money to provide job training to homeless persons or to help victims of the Biden Administration or to help victims of the COVID scam to rebuild their businesses.

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

It doesn't make any sense to gift our money to other countries. One has to be a total fuqqkcing moron to even suggest the idea.

This country has far too many people who have suffered financially at the hands of a tyrannical government that should be considered first. Also, Congress shall pass no law respecting any Climate Change religion so all that anti-CO2 demonization crap is a non-starter.

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

squeal over again stays clear of mentioning any reason to do this ... because there is no reason aside from his WACKY religion's demonization of inanimate substances and pretending they have magical superpowers to defy physics.

squeal over wrote:Virtually everyone who uses the term "fossil fuel" understands it to mean the coal, petroleum, and methane contained in underground deposits.

Virtually everyone who uses the term "fossil fuel" misunderstands its origin, believing that it is the result of a violation of physics, i.e. a product of rotting bio-matter, to the extent that thinking about the topic requires too much work and rational explanations are simply dismissed ... all part of the Marxist disinformation campaign.

People so addicted to not having to think become irritated at the proper term "hydrocarbons" which imposes a certain level of discomfort due to exposing the absurdity of their embrace of a comfortable physics violation.

squeal over wrote:Virtually everyone who studies earth science in any advanced capacity understands how these underground deposits of fossil fuel were formed.

Incorrect. Many lazily adopt the comfortable physics violation and proudly broadcast their scientific illiteracy. Let's take you, for example. You had opportunities in your life to actually learn something but you opted to become a totally manipulated loser on the promise that you would be transformed into an important perthon by people who offered to do your thinking for you.

I think you made a poor choice.

squeal over wrote:Petroleum is always found where shallow seas on continental shelves accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through marine photosynthesis.

Incorrect. Petroleum is never found anywhere but in wells trapped by impermeable rock on its journey upward to the surface. This means that it was somehow produced by the earth below. This also means that you are simply regurgitating the disinformation you have been told to spread to as many stupid people who will simply believe what they read on the internet because they read it on the internet.

squeal over isn't trying to inform anyone. He is trying to deceive as many as possible. He sucks in that way.

squeal over wrote: And eventually, geologic metamorphosis transformed it into petroleum.

No such geologic metamorphosis has ever been observed nor is there any sort of recipe to make it happen in any lab ... but the Fischer-Tropsche process is repeatable in any properly equipped lab.

I notice you don't mention the Fischer-Tropsche process anywhere, ever. Why do you never discuss it? Why do you never inform anyone about it?

squeal over wrote:Wetland organic matter, derived from land plants, is chemically different than shallow sea floor organic matter, derived primarily from microorganisms.

Are you saying that one of the two is not carbon-based?

.

Swan wrote:Actually petroleum is also found trapped in shale deposits.

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.



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

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).

squeal over wrote: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.

squeal over wrote:According to the fairy tale, petroleum deposits occur beneath impermeable rock formations.

squeal over wrote:Without having been blocked by the impermeable rock, the oil could presumably get closer to the surface.

squeal over wrote:Since this is true, two things are the case:

1. New hydrocarbons being produced flow up where there is no impermeable rock to block them, such as the Gulf of Mexico. Petroleum leaks out of the sea floor right there into the Gulf waters. Since hydrocarbons don't come out of every volcanic eruption, we can presume that the conditions for effective Fischer-Tropsch are not present in the extreme temperatures of the mantle, but are limited to areas in the lower crust.

2. Petroleum deposits should be found beneath the most impermeable rock formations that are above where hydrocarbons are formed. Of course, the most impermeable rock that does not have any hydrocarbons forming underneath won't be trapping anything.

squeal over wrote:The rock material that overlies oil fields in the real world is virtually always of sedimentary origin.

squeal over wrote:But the stuff started from the top, not the bottom. Made by photosynthesis.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted quote from your sock...
Virtually everyone who uses the term "fossil fuel" understands it to mean the coal, petroleum, and methane contained in underground deposits.

Im a BM wrote:
Virtually everyone who studies earth science in any advanced capacity understands how these underground deposits of fossil fuel were formed.

Im a BM wrote:
Coal is always found where terrestrial wetlands accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through photosynthesis.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum is always found where shallow seas on continental shelves accumulated deep deposits of organic matter formed through marine photosynthesis.

Im a BM wrote:
Eventually it got buried. And eventually, geologic metamorphosis transformed it into petroleum.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Im a BM wrote:
During petroleum forming metamorphosis, more hydrogen is available to form hydrocarbons and relatively pure carbon (coke).