Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 212>
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..11-03-2022 06:30
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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...
RE: a future for coal?11-03-2022 07:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
11-03-2022 13:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
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.

This is rather strange trivia. Is there any reason to do this?

People can successfully lose weight by having a leg amputated (retrofitted with a light plastic prosthetic).

sealover wrote: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.

Awesome fear mongering. Truly top rate. This has all usefulness of trivia combined with the cold, hard truth of horror fiction.

sealover wrote:We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

The Marxist "we" comes trotting out. sealover, you might very well have a methane glut but that doesn't mean everyone else does as well.

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

Are you announcing to the board that you will be buying methane rather than coal, or do you still just not have any sort of point?

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

How does one subsidize the use of coal?

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

How would I go about doing that?

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

Let me know when you start doing that so I can watch and learn how I can do so as well. Of course, I don't have much natural gas to sell.

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

A HUGE reduction in weight can be achieved by having both legs amputated simultaneously. Of course that might not really be worth it either.
11-03-2022 13:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal.

Aren't you getting your tenses confsed? In a natural gas glut, one might find it difficult to see any present for coal, but the end of the natural gas glut would be the obvious and intuitive future for coal.

I'm here through Thursday.

sealover wrote:It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes that a very bad idea. It might serve as an expensive option in an emergency but not as something to do on a whim.

sealover wrote:Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel.

Who is this "we" that is considering these strange options? Antecedents anyone?

sealover wrote:A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum.

Nope.

sealover wrote:We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel.

I'm interested in learning more about these "fossil fuels" you're talking about. Of course, I'm also interested in finding out who you mean by "we.".

Wouldn't some museum be more interested in the fossils?

sealover wrote:It actually makes a whole lot of difference.

Has anyone calculated that amount?
11-03-2022 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

Why are you so scared of CO2? You still haven't answered this question? What justifies such an expense? Who are you to order such a thing?
sealover wrote:
About half the anthropogenic mercury entering the environment comes from coal fired power plants.

Buzzword fallacy. Coal is carbon. Just carbon. Any impurities can be captured, removed, and sold.
sealover wrote:
Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

Nope. Just carbon.
sealover wrote:
We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

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

That's actually due to government interference. You know, fascism.
sealover wrote:
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.

So you advocate fascism. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize impoverished nations to be able to purchase our natural gas at a better price than coal.

You don't get to determine what energy people want to buy. You are not the king.
sealover wrote:
A HUGE reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could be achieved relatively rapidly by switching from coal to natural gas.

Why are so scared of carbon dioxide?
sealover wrote:
It would also help us get the lead out. And the mercury, arsenic, cadmium...

What lead? What mercury? What arsenic? What cadmium? Coal is carbon. Just carbon.


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
11-03-2022 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal.

What makes you think a glut lasts forever?
sealover wrote:
It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel.

Why do so?
sealover wrote:
As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel.

No, it wasn't. They used carbon monoxide.
sealover wrote:
South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane.

No, they didn't. They used carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel.

Why? Coal is already fuel.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal.

Why are you so afraid of carbon dioxide?
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production.

Yes it would. We don't have to synthesize oil or natural gas.
sealover wrote:
Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum.

Why not just use the methane?
sealover wrote:
We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel.

Neither fuel is a fossil. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
It actually makes a whole lot of difference.

You don't get to choose what energy people want. You are not the king.


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: the growing glut of fracked natural gas11-03-2022 21:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal.

What makes you think a glut lasts forever?
sealover wrote:
It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel.

Why do so?
sealover wrote:
As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel.

No, it wasn't. They used carbon monoxide.
sealover wrote:
South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane.

No, they didn't. They used carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel.

Why? Coal is already fuel.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal.

Why are you so afraid of carbon dioxide?
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production.

Yes it would. We don't have to synthesize oil or natural gas.
sealover wrote:
Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum.

Why not just use the methane?
sealover wrote:
We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel.

Neither fuel is a fossil. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
It actually makes a whole lot of difference.

You don't get to choose what energy people want. You are not the king.


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

I would love to learn more about how the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as raw material to make fuel. No coal was involved?

It would be even more interesting to learn how South Africans used carbon dioxide as raw material to make methane.

With carbon monoxide, at least the Germans had partially reduced carbon to start with.

So, the South Africans were able to use fully oxidized carbon (carbon dioxide) to make methane. No coal was involved?

Did the South Africans have a perpetual motion machine to provide the energy?

I guess it's just one of those irrational fears I have, carbophobia, that makes me so afraid of carbon dioxide.

Heck, we should just be turning the carbon dioxide into methane like they did in South Africa.

How long will it take before you figure out that I AM the king?
12-03-2022 00:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:I would love to learn more about how the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as raw material to make fuel. No coal was involved?

I notice that you never delve into the cost of such things ... that are actually so expensive that they simply are not viable on that basis ... because Marxists are not concerned with providing viable alternatives. They are intent on getting the viable options banned first, leaving only non-viable options.

sealover wrote:It would be even more interesting to learn how South Africans used carbon dioxide as raw material to make methane ...

... under a profitable business case.

Wait, you don't like profit. That's evil, right?



sealover wrote:How long will it take before you figure out that I have already tipped my king?

I think he has already noticed.
12-03-2022 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
In a natural gas glut, it may be hard to see any future for coal.

What makes you think a glut lasts forever?
sealover wrote:
It is true that coal can be transformed into other fuel.

Why do so?
sealover wrote:
As oil became scarce for the German army during WWII, coal was used as raw material to synthesize vehicle fuel.

No, it wasn't. They used carbon monoxide.
sealover wrote:
South Africa softened the blow of the energy import embargo during the Apartheid era by using coal as raw material to synthesize methane.

No, they didn't. They used carbon dioxide.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, coal could continue to be used as raw material to make other fuel.

Why? Coal is already fuel.
sealover wrote:
Potentially, such facilities would be located where they can effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions. Then, the natural gas synthesized could be used as a fuel with 40% less carbon dioxide emissions (per BTU), compared to coal.

Why are you so afraid of carbon dioxide?
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, it will probably be much cheaper just to mine more natural gas with no need for synthesis or carbon capture for its production.

Yes it would. We don't have to synthesize oil or natural gas.
sealover wrote:
Indeed, we may want to substitute natural gas for petroleum as raw material to make diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. A cleaner-burning, more chemically pure product can be synthesized starting from methane rather than petroleum.

Why not just use the methane?
sealover wrote:
We certainly have our choice of fuel, even if we just use a different fossil fuel.

Neither fuel is a fossil. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
It actually makes a whole lot of difference.

You don't get to choose what energy people want. You are not the king.


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

I would love to learn more about how the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as raw material to make fuel. No coal was involved?

It would be even more interesting to learn how South Africans used carbon dioxide as raw material to make methane.

With carbon monoxide, at least the Germans had partially reduced carbon to start with.

So, the South Africans were able to use fully oxidized carbon (carbon dioxide) to make methane. No coal was involved?

Did the South Africans have a perpetual motion machine to provide the energy?

I guess it's just one of those irrational fears I have, carbophobia, that makes me so afraid of carbon dioxide.

Heck, we should just be turning the carbon dioxide into methane like they did in South Africa.

How long will it take before you figure out that I AM the king?

Since you are only interested in insulting people, you can go look it up yourself.


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: help me look this up13-03-2022 00:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:

Since you are only interested in insulting people, you can go look it up yourself.[/quote]

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

I'm hoping that someone knows where I can find this information.

Apparently, during WWII the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as an alternative to petroleum for the synthesis of vehicle fuel.

Supposedly, during the Apartheid era South Africans were able to use carbon dioxide as raw material from which to synthesize methane.

I cannot find anything about this.

Just some disinformation about how coal was used or something.

Does anyone know where I can find accurate information about this?

The implications are HUGE if it's true.
13-03-2022 01:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:I'm hoping that someone knows where I can find this information.

Didn't you just finish spamming the board with crap about Google Scholar? Have you tried that? If you did and it didn't work for you, are you going to go back and amend your post?

sealover wrote:Apparently, during WWII the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as an alternative to petroleum for the synthesis of vehicle fuel.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Whatever-Happened-to-Nazi-by-Grant-Lawrence-091207-70.html

sealover wrote:Supposedly, during the Apartheid era South Africans were able to use carbon dioxide as raw material from which to synthesize methane.

I cannot find anything about this.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.energy-xprt.com/articles/generation-using-gas-fuelled-engines-in-south-africa-an-overview-400504
RE: this may be helpful?13-03-2022 01:07
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I'm hoping that someone knows where I can find this information.

Didn't you just finish spamming the board with crap about Google Scholar? Have you tried that? If you did and it didn't work for you, are you going to go back and amend your post?

sealover wrote:Apparently, during WWII the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as an alternative to petroleum for the synthesis of vehicle fuel.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Whatever-Happened-to-Nazi-by-Grant-Lawrence-091207-70.html

sealover wrote:Supposedly, during the Apartheid era South Africans were able to use carbon dioxide as raw material from which to synthesize methane.

I cannot find anything about this.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.energy-xprt.com/articles/generation-using-gas-fuelled-engines-in-south-africa-an-overview-400504


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

This might be helpful to someone.

I'm thinking it would taken a massive conspiracy to cover this kind of thing up.

I'm too old to go chasing down rabbit holes.
RE: coal contains carbon and MORE14-03-2022 03:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.
[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.
14-03-2022 03:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
sealover wrote:There are always more than one point of view in a discussion of this kind.

Yessiree, there are usually many points of view, which is why people ask me for the correct answer. I only deal in correct answers.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, the chemical composition of coal isn't really a matter of opinion.

It's a simple matter of reading the correct answer on Politiplex where it is written:

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/212

You are most welcome.

sealover wrote:Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment.

Did you mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?
Attached image:


Edited on 14-03-2022 04:00
RE: why would this be bad?15-03-2022 20:44
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Why would this be a bad idea?

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

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...
16-03-2022 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Since you are only interested in insulting people, you can go look it up yourself.


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

I'm hoping that someone knows where I can find this information.

Apparently, during WWII the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as an alternative to petroleum for the synthesis of vehicle fuel.[/quote]
Nope. Carbon monoxide is not a replacement for petroleum. It CAN be used along with hydrogen to synthesize sweet crude oil though.
sealover wrote:
Supposedly, during the Apartheid era South Africans were able to use carbon dioxide as raw material from which to synthesize methane.

Along with hydrogen, yes. Same process.
sealover wrote:
I cannot find anything about this.

Keep looking.
sealover wrote:
Just some disinformation about how coal was used or something.

Coal is not carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide or hydrogen.
sealover wrote:
Does anyone know where I can find accurate information about this?

Keep looking.
sealover wrote:
The implications are HUGE if it's true.

It's true. The Germans have done it.


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
16-03-2022 00:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:I'm hoping that someone knows where I can find this information.

Didn't you just finish spamming the board with crap about Google Scholar? Have you tried that? If you did and it didn't work for you, are you going to go back and amend your post?

sealover wrote:Apparently, during WWII the Germans were able to use carbon monoxide as an alternative to petroleum for the synthesis of vehicle fuel.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Whatever-Happened-to-Nazi-by-Grant-Lawrence-091207-70.html

sealover wrote:Supposedly, during the Apartheid era South Africans were able to use carbon dioxide as raw material from which to synthesize methane.

I cannot find anything about this.

I found a good starting place right away ... but I used DuckDuckGo. Follow the references.

https://www.energy-xprt.com/articles/generation-using-gas-fuelled-engines-in-south-africa-an-overview-400504


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

This might be helpful to someone.

I'm thinking it would taken a massive conspiracy to cover this kind of thing up.

I'm too old to go chasing down rabbit holes.

Yet you go down rabbit holes all the time.

You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?


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
16-03-2022 01:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
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.

You are not the king.
[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.

Not really. You just want to redefine shit and use buzzwords.
[b]sealover wrote:
On the other hand, the chemical composition of coal isn't really a matter of opinion.

Correct. The chemical composition of coal is: C
sealover wrote:
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.

Impurities are not coal.
sealover wrote:
"Acid rain", another great buzzword, was primarily from sulfur in the coal we were burning.

Sulfur impurities are easily removed. Further, capture systems in coal furnaces capture sulfur. Being an important industrial chemical, many coal plants sell it.
sealover wrote:
When the sulfides in coal burn with oxygen, they become sulfuric acid.

Coal plants today don't burn sulfur. They burn coal.
sealover wrote:
Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment.

Mercury is already in the environment. Big hairy deal.
sealover wrote:
Mercury used in gold mining operations is the other half.

Mercury is already in the environment. Big hairy deal.
sealover wrote:
These really aren't just matters of opinion.

True, but you certainly don't need to panic about it.


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: I'm glad we got that straitened out16-03-2022 01:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

You are not the king.
[quote]

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

Once again, you have exposed my lies.

I should just run home with my tail between my legs at this point.

Am I just too dense to realize how badly I'm being humiliated?

Apparently so.

Is it still fun to be a genius?
RE: xenobiotics are carbon compounds16-03-2022 17:11
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
[b]sealover wrote:Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment.

Did you mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?


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

Excellent question.

No, I did not mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?

Mercury cannot be xenobiotic, unless it's methyl mercury synthesized in a lab.

Mercury CAN be "biotic", when bacteria methylate it into an organic carbon compound of biotic origin.

"Xeno" came from somewhere different. Not biotic.
RE: Why be AGAINST this?18-04-2022 05:45
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Why be AGAINST this?

The United States is sitting on enough natural gas to supply the whole world.

Fracking can be improved to minimize unintended methane emissions.

The cleanest fossil fuel of all is becoming more and more available.

What possible HARM could come from switching from coal to methane?

MANY benefits could come from it.

Why be AGAINST this?

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

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...
18-04-2022 06:01
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
I am proud of my state and federal government for going ahead with the Scarborough Gas project

Scarborough and Pluto Train 2


The Scarborough field is located in the Carnarvon Basin, approximately 375 km off the coast of Western Australia and is estimated to contain 11.1 trillion cubic feet (100%) of dry gas. The Scarborough gas resource will be developed through new offshore facilities connected by an approximately 430 km pipeline to a second LNG train (Pluto Train 2) at the existing Pluto LNG onshore facility.

Development of Scarborough will include the installation of a floating production unit with eight wells drilled in the initial phase and thirteen wells drilled over the life of the Scarborough field, with all wells tied back to a semi-submersible floating production unit (FPU) moored in 950 m of water close to the Scarborough field. Approximately five million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of Scarborough gas will be processed through Pluto Train 2, with up to 3 Mtpa processed through the existing Pluto Train 1.

Protestors suck it.We are going to cook your grandchildren for a fistfull of dollars.up yours
18-04-2022 06:54
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:There are always more than one point of view in a discussion of this kind.

Yessiree, there are usually many points of view, which is why people ask me for the correct answer. I only deal in correct answers.

sealover wrote:On the other hand, the chemical composition of coal isn't really a matter of opinion.

It's a simple matter of reading the correct answer on Politiplex where it is written:

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/212

You are most welcome.

sealover wrote:Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment.

Did you mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?


11,111 posts, and only #2 poster... I'm just under 4,100 and got the number 4 spot.

xenophobic mercury?
18-04-2022 07:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
HarveyH55 wrote:xenophobic mercury?

Actually you could write "anthrophobic mercury."

Warmizombies created the term "anthropogenic" to make their "human activities" crap sound scientific. squeal over and his ilk invented the term "xenobiotic" to mean "alien to nature", i.e. from human activity.

In all of this, humans are bad. Bad, bad, bad. Hence their need to specify "human activity-related" serves to emphasize that humans are bad, bad, bad. I find this to be very anthro-phobic.

Marxists are morons. squeal over is a moron. I bet he could actually participate coherently in a discussion if he were to drop his crap religion for just a few minutes.
18-04-2022 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[b]sealover wrote:Mercury in coal burned in power plants accounts for about half of all anthropogenic mercury emissions to the environment.

Did you mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?

Excellent question.

No, I did not mean half of all xenobiotic mercury?

Mercury cannot be xenobiotic, unless it's methyl mercury synthesized in a lab.

Methyl mercury is not mercury.
sealover wrote:
Mercury CAN be "biotic", when bacteria methylate it into an organic carbon compound of biotic origin.

Buzzword fallacy. Methylate is not a word.
sealover wrote:
"Xeno" came from somewhere different. Not biotic.

*whiff!*


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
18-04-2022 19:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Why be AGAINST this?

The United States is sitting on enough natural gas to supply the whole world.

Better for the world to use local supplies of energy.
sealover wrote:
Fracking can be improved to minimize unintended methane emissions.

Fracking is the cracking of rock by using water. There are no 'unintended methane emissions'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The cleanest fossil fuel of all is becoming more and more available.

Methane is not a fossil. Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
sealover wrote:
What possible HARM could come from switching from coal to methane?

Why spend the money on it?
sealover wrote:
MANY benefits could come from it.

Why be AGAINST this?

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.

I see you are still paranoid about carbon dioxide. It's a naturally occurring gas, dude. It cannot warm the Earth.
sealover wrote:
About half the anthropogenic mercury

Man does not make an element.
sealover wrote:
entering the environment comes from coal fired power plants. Coal also contains sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium and other good stuff for the environment.

Nope. Coal is carbon. Just carbon. It is not sulfur, lead, arsenic, cadmium, or anything else.
sealover wrote:
We are experiencing a glut of available methane.

Not particularly. The price of natural gas is about average at the moment.
sealover wrote:
It's actually cheaper (per BTU) than coal now, and the supply is on the increase.

Did you fart?
sealover wrote:
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.

Communism doesn't work. Neither does fascism.
sealover wrote:
It makes more sense to subsidize impoverished nations to be able to purchase our natural gas at a better price than coal.

Wups. You forgot shipping costs, dude. Better for them to use local supplies.


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: Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking18-04-2022 21:39
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...
18-04-2022 22:08
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...


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.
18-04-2022 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
...deleted talking to yourself spam...
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

More BS.
sealover wrote:
The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Fossils aren't liquid or gaseous either.
sealover wrote:
Fracking does have its downside.

Only for the rock that got cracked.
sealover wrote:
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.

So...water is polluting water????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
sealover wrote:
There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

Did you know every swamp, sewer plant, manure pile, cow, and people releases methane to the atmosphere?? Methane has no capability to warm the Earth, dude. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'environmental engineering' or 'biogeochemistry'.
sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry.

Not a technology. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater.

Nope. NO bacteria are deliberately cultivated in a wastewater treatment plant. None need to be.
sealover wrote:
These include denitrifiers,

No such machine.
sealover wrote:
which burn up organic carbon

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
These also include anammox bacteria

Not cultivated.
sealover wrote:
which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

Ammonium nitrate is not nitrogen.
sealover wrote:
The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions

You could always burn it. It's NATURAL GAS. Some wastewater plants contribute to the natural gas lines. Others just use it to run stuff at the plant.
sealover wrote:
from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment.

Fracking isn't wastewater. Fracking is cracking rock hydraulically (usually using water). It was used by the United States and the Confederate States of America to break up bunkers during the War of Secession (the so-called 'Civil War').

It has been used to drill wells for everything from water to methane to oil.

sealover wrote:
Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

You are not discussing engineering practices.
sealover wrote:
More on this one later!

You have no shortage of spam.


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
18-04-2022 23:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...


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.


There isn't any.

The bacteria used in the digester of a wastewater treatment plant arrive naturally in the very sewage being treated. The same thing happens in any septic system. The tank is where the bacteria eat up the nastier bits. The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.

A wastewater treatment plant is really not much more than a home septic system, but on an industrial scale and centrally located. It has additional protections from stuff normally quite harmful to a septic system (you wouldn't believe what people flush down their toilets!).

Additional treatment by the use of floculates and bleaching is capable of producing an outflow of potable water, to be released into a nearby river or sea. The remaining bits are just fish food.

Untreated runoff is the larger of the two systems running parallel in every city. That's the stuff from rainfall upon impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, etc. That is not treated. It runs directly to the river or sea.

Collected sludge can be roasted into a material much like cement. In some cities, that is made into concrete for sidewalks and the like (it's a low pressure cement). The aggregate is often using crushed glass from recyclers as well.

Otherwise, the sludge is simply bleached and deposited in a special landfill for the purpose. There it eventually becomes quite inert. Like any properly built landfill, liners are added to prevent leaching into surrounding groundwater. There isn't even a stink.

I sell quite a few instruments to wastewater treatment plants. One plant I sold to treated the entire city and it's suburbs in ONE plant. The effluent from that plant is potable water, since the perform tertiary treatment on it. Below the discharge point, 2/3 thirds of the total volume of the river is effluent from that plant. That section of river drains into Elliot bay in just a few miles. Fish live happily in the river, especially carp and salmon. Yup. A local plant!

My instrument cancels the charge on the incoming sewage (built up from getting bashed around in long sewer pipes) by using an anionic drip and control of floculent using various flow meters, ion probes, and optical probes. The plant I spoke of actually uses Mt St Helens ash to drag flocks to the bottom of the separation pond to be picked up by the rakes and sent to the digester. Others use silt or even sand.


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: don't know how a spetic tank works19-04-2022 01:59
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
you don't know how a spetic tank works, do you?

At least your daddy knows how to SPELL it.

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


Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...


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.


There isn't any.

The bacteria used in the digester of a wastewater treatment plant arrive naturally in the very sewage being treated. The same thing happens in any septic system. The tank is where the bacteria eat up the nastier bits. The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.

A wastewater treatment plant is really not much more than a home septic system, but on an industrial scale and centrally located. It has additional protections from stuff normally quite harmful to a septic system (you wouldn't believe what people flush down their toilets!).

Additional treatment by the use of floculates and bleaching is capable of producing an outflow of potable water, to be released into a nearby river or sea. The remaining bits are just fish food.

Untreated runoff is the larger of the two systems running parallel in every city. That's the stuff from rainfall upon impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, etc. That is not treated. It runs directly to the river or sea.

Collected sludge can be roasted into a material much like cement. In some cities, that is made into concrete for sidewalks and the like (it's a low pressure cement). The aggregate is often using crushed glass from recyclers as well.

Otherwise, the sludge is simply bleached and deposited in a special landfill for the purpose. There it eventually becomes quite inert. Like any properly built landfill, liners are added to prevent leaching into surrounding groundwater. There isn't even a stink.

I sell quite a few instruments to wastewater treatment plants. One plant I sold to treated the entire city and it's suburbs in ONE plant. The effluent from that plant is potable water, since the perform tertiary treatment on it. Below the discharge point, 2/3 thirds of the total volume of the river is effluent from that plant. That section of river drains into Elliot bay in just a few miles. Fish live happily in the river, especially carp and salmon. Yup. A local plant!

My instrument cancels the charge on the incoming sewage (built up from getting bashed around in long sewer pipes) by using an anionic drip and control of floculent using various flow meters, ion probes, and optical probes. The plant I spoke of actually uses Mt St Helens ash to drag flocks to the bottom of the separation pond to be picked up by the rakes and sent to the digester. Others use silt or even sand.
19-04-2022 05:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Oh please. please educate us on the biogeochemical aspects of a septic tank... First, manure piles, not septic tanks. Biogeocemistry seems like a really 'crappy' field to wade into...

Never had a septic system, but have a fair understanding. Toilet contents get flushed through a sewage pipe, into a tank, where solids sink to the bottom, and break down with the help of bacteria. Releasing tonnes of planet killing methane greenhouse gas. Basically, every toilet flush, and well any water that goes down any drain, fills the septic tank, which of course can only hold so much. Basically, the excess liquid overflows into the drain field, where it's absorbed into the soil. Not all of the solids will break down, become liquefied, or greenhouse gas. Occasionally, the sludge at the bottom of the septic tank needs to be pumped out by a biogeochemist tank truck. Not sure where they empty their tank. Probably the nearest river, or storm drain...

Im a BM wrote:
you don't know how a spetic tank works, do you?

At least your daddy knows how to SPELL it.

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


Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...


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.


There isn't any.

The bacteria used in the digester of a wastewater treatment plant arrive naturally in the very sewage being treated. The same thing happens in any septic system. The tank is where the bacteria eat up the nastier bits. The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.

A wastewater treatment plant is really not much more than a home septic system, but on an industrial scale and centrally located. It has additional protections from stuff normally quite harmful to a septic system (you wouldn't believe what people flush down their toilets!).

Additional treatment by the use of floculates and bleaching is capable of producing an outflow of potable water, to be released into a nearby river or sea. The remaining bits are just fish food.

Untreated runoff is the larger of the two systems running parallel in every city. That's the stuff from rainfall upon impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, etc. That is not treated. It runs directly to the river or sea.

Collected sludge can be roasted into a material much like cement. In some cities, that is made into concrete for sidewalks and the like (it's a low pressure cement). The aggregate is often using crushed glass from recyclers as well.

Otherwise, the sludge is simply bleached and deposited in a special landfill for the purpose. There it eventually becomes quite inert. Like any properly built landfill, liners are added to prevent leaching into surrounding groundwater. There isn't even a stink.

I sell quite a few instruments to wastewater treatment plants. One plant I sold to treated the entire city and it's suburbs in ONE plant. The effluent from that plant is potable water, since the perform tertiary treatment on it. Below the discharge point, 2/3 thirds of the total volume of the river is effluent from that plant. That section of river drains into Elliot bay in just a few miles. Fish live happily in the river, especially carp and salmon. Yup. A local plant!

My instrument cancels the charge on the incoming sewage (built up from getting bashed around in long sewer pipes) by using an anionic drip and control of floculent using various flow meters, ion probes, and optical probes. The plant I spoke of actually uses Mt St Helens ash to drag flocks to the bottom of the separation pond to be picked up by the rakes and sent to the digester. Others use silt or even sand.
19-04-2022 06:43
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
Into the Night wrote:
The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.


Yes sir, 100% true! Let's just say there is no soil erosion on my east hill.
....but if there was erosion I'd have planted trees long ago.
19-04-2022 10:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.


Yes sir, 100% true! Let's just say there is no soil erosion on my east hill.
....but if there was erosion I'd have planted trees long ago.

That's what Sven says.
19-04-2022 16:32
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Tree roots tend to go for deep. Not just there for nutrition, but to anchor the tree. When we get a lot of rain, and the soil becomes saturated faster than it can seep, or drain, we get a lot of trees falling over. Well, not really a lot, but a few anyway. Part of it has to do with how people trim off limbs. They don't want the whole tree, but don't want limbs over their house, or where they park their car. Those trees aren't well balanced anymore, kind of ugly too.
RE: Wastewater Treatment Redox Sequence OPPOSITE of a Septic Tank20-04-2022 01:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

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

HarveyH55 wrote:
Oh please. please educate us on the biogeochemical aspects of a septic tank... First, manure piles, not septic tanks. Biogeocemistry seems like a really 'crappy' field to wade into...

Never had a septic system, but have a fair understanding. Toilet contents get flushed through a sewage pipe, into a tank, where solids sink to the bottom, and break down with the help of bacteria. Releasing tonnes of planet killing methane greenhouse gas. Basically, every toilet flush, and well any water that goes down any drain, fills the septic tank, which of course can only hold so much. Basically, the excess liquid overflows into the drain field, where it's absorbed into the soil. Not all of the solids will break down, become liquefied, or greenhouse gas. Occasionally, the sludge at the bottom of the septic tank needs to be pumped out by a biogeochemist tank truck. Not sure where they empty their tank. Probably the nearest river, or storm drain...

Im a BM wrote:
you don't know how a spetic tank works, do you?

At least your daddy knows how to SPELL it.

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


Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fracking does have its downside.

There are some locations where local hydrology can be adversely impacted, and fracking should not be done there. This is not the case for most locations.

There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

For example, constructed wetlands can neutralize the acidity from acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid generated by pyrite oxidation often generates acid mine drainage with pH less than 3. By the time the drainage passes through the constructed wetland, the pH is nearly 7. Thanks to sulfate reducing bacteria.

In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry. Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater. These include denitrifiers, which burn up organic carbon and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas. These also include anammox bacteria which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment. Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

More on this one later!

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


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...


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.


There isn't any.

The bacteria used in the digester of a wastewater treatment plant arrive naturally in the very sewage being treated. The same thing happens in any septic system. The tank is where the bacteria eat up the nastier bits. The outflow and drainfield are just liquid (when properly working!) and everything is digested before it gets a foot or two into the soil. The drainfield also acts to fertilize the grass above it.

A wastewater treatment plant is really not much more than a home septic system, but on an industrial scale and centrally located. It has additional protections from stuff normally quite harmful to a septic system (you wouldn't believe what people flush down their toilets!).

Additional treatment by the use of floculates and bleaching is capable of producing an outflow of potable water, to be released into a nearby river or sea. The remaining bits are just fish food.

Untreated runoff is the larger of the two systems running parallel in every city. That's the stuff from rainfall upon impervious surfaces such as roofs, streets, sidewalks, etc. That is not treated. It runs directly to the river or sea.

Collected sludge can be roasted into a material much like cement. In some cities, that is made into concrete for sidewalks and the like (it's a low pressure cement). The aggregate is often using crushed glass from recyclers as well.

Otherwise, the sludge is simply bleached and deposited in a special landfill for the purpose. There it eventually becomes quite inert. Like any properly built landfill, liners are added to prevent leaching into surrounding groundwater. There isn't even a stink.

I sell quite a few instruments to wastewater treatment plants. One plant I sold to treated the entire city and it's suburbs in ONE plant. The effluent from that plant is potable water, since the perform tertiary treatment on it. Below the discharge point, 2/3 thirds of the total volume of the river is effluent from that plant. That section of river drains into Elliot bay in just a few miles. Fish live happily in the river, especially carp and salmon. Yup. A local plant!

My instrument cancels the charge on the incoming sewage (built up from getting bashed around in long sewer pipes) by using an anionic drip and control of floculent using various flow meters, ion probes, and optical probes. The plant I spoke of actually uses Mt St Helens ash to drag flocks to the bottom of the separation pond to be picked up by the rakes and sent to the digester. Others use silt or even sand.
RE: Working for the World's Largest Oil Company20-04-2022 01:24
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
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.

Exxon loves me. Why do you guys hate me?

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

Into the Night wrote:
...deleted talking to yourself spam...
sealover wrote:
Methane Oxidizing Bacteria for Better Fracking

More BS.
sealover wrote:
The practice of fracking has made available to humanity an abundance of the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is.

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Fossils aren't liquid or gaseous either.
sealover wrote:
Fracking does have its downside.

Only for the rock that got cracked.
sealover wrote:
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.

So...water is polluting water????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
sealover wrote:
There are MANY locations where fracking can cause methane to be released directly to the atmosphere, through new cracks that are not being tapped.

Did you know every swamp, sewer plant, manure pile, cow, and people releases methane to the atmosphere?? Methane has no capability to warm the Earth, dude. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
The technologies for environmental engineering have often been applied biogeochemistry.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'environmental engineering' or 'biogeochemistry'.
sealover wrote:
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.

Sulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
In another example more relevant to fracking, wastewater treatment facilities employ the technology of applied biogeochemistry.

Not a technology. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Nitrate reducing bacteria are deliberately cultivated and nurtured to remove nitrate from wastewater.

Nope. NO bacteria are deliberately cultivated in a wastewater treatment plant. None need to be.
sealover wrote:
These include denitrifiers,

No such machine.
sealover wrote:
which burn up organic carbon

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
and reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas.

Nitrate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
These also include anammox bacteria

Not cultivated.
sealover wrote:
which combine ammonium with nitrate to reduce it to nitrogen gas.

Ammonium nitrate is not nitrogen.
sealover wrote:
The methane oxidizing bacteria that we need to help us minimize methane emissions

You could always burn it. It's NATURAL GAS. Some wastewater plants contribute to the natural gas lines. Others just use it to run stuff at the plant.
sealover wrote:
from fracking can be cultivated and nurtured as is done for wastewater treatment.

Fracking isn't wastewater. Fracking is cracking rock hydraulically (usually using water). It was used by the United States and the Confederate States of America to break up bunkers during the War of Secession (the so-called 'Civil War').

It has been used to drill wells for everything from water to methane to oil.

sealover wrote:
Many of the same engineering practices would apply.

You are not discussing engineering practices.
sealover wrote:
More on this one later!

You have no shortage of spam.
20-04-2022 01:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
squeal over wrote:A septic tank operates biogeochemically in the exact OPPOSITE manner as the modern wastewaster treatment systems.

Too funny!
Attached image:

20-04-2022 01:45
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Salta, perrito! Salta!

Tu amo te manda saltar, y tienes que obedecer.

Ademas, no eres capaz de resistir la tentacion.

Buen provecho!


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


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

Too funny!
RE: From the guy who got Exxon out of a tight spot20-04-2022 05:14
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
From the guy who got Exxon out of a tight spot

Call me a "liar" if you want.

It doesn't trigger any insecurities.

So, between advanced degrees programs in biogeochemistry I did a one year gig as a wastewater chemist for Exxon.

Well, half the job was wastewater chemistry analysis, and methods updates.

The other half was to implement the basic QA/QC program for the hydrocarbon lab.

I took advantage of the opportunity.

Health and safety improvements fell under the mandate of QA/QC.

One of the diesel fuel tests involved use of toluene. It emitted toluene vapor directly into the air being breathed by the technician. One guy there actually died of liver cancer, but they couldn't prove that the toluene caused it.

So, using the QA/QC mandate and budget, the toluene vapors from that test got piped away to a fume hood to be vented to the atmosphere.

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

There was also a basic oil and grease test that had to be done on all treated wastewater effluent. It involved the use of freon, an ozone destroyer.

The way everyone at Exxon ever did the test before, they simply allowed the freon to vent to the atmosphere, and then weigh the oil and grease extracted by it. It was a LOT of freon.

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

The freon could then be recaptured and recycled for reuse in the oil and grease test. This saved MONEY as well as a little relief for the ozone layer.

Word got around and other Exxon refineries adopted the practice.

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

Well, imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that technicians don't have to breathe toluene vapor.

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

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

Imagine if someone came to this website and proposed that maybe a change should be made to the system so that freon is recycled rather than vented to the atmosphere during the standard oil and grease test.

Surely they would be ATTACTED. After all, everyone knows that freon is harmless to the ozone layer.

It would be WRONG to WASTE MONEY recycling the freon... wait, that actually saves money....

But it would still be WRONG because it buys into the HOAX that freon harms the ozone layer. It would send the wrong message if we change the procedure.

Goddamn liberal democrats want to ruin EVERYTHING!

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


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

Too funny!
Page 1 of 212>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat7525-05-2022 22:55
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity8812-05-2022 03:11
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace524-01-2022 04:11
The New Special Happiness Money Will Lead The Life Evolution On Earth319-09-2021 05:44
CO2 sensor1219-06-2021 03:40
▲ 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