Bio Coal
#1
Posted 11 February 2017 - 08:33 AM
#2
Posted 11 February 2017 - 10:00 AM
#3
Posted 12 February 2017 - 06:45 AM
Rogue Jedi, on 11 February 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:
Seems like it. It'll be carbon neutral at least, and as mentioned no heavy metal pollution or other issues (radiation, leveling mountains, dumping wastewater into streams and killing all the fish) of regular coal. I wonder if they can grow/convert enough corn to replace what they dig out of the ground though.
Not that it matters. Coal is dying anyway, and it's a good thing. We can produce cleaner energy from renewable resources for less money. RIP coal. You won't be missed.
#4
Posted 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM
Heffay, on 12 February 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:
Seems like it. It'll be carbon neutral at least, and as mentioned no heavy metal pollution or other issues (radiation, leveling mountains, dumping wastewater into streams and killing all the fish) of regular coal. I wonder if they can grow/convert enough corn to replace what they dig out of the ground though.
Not that it matters. Coal is dying anyway, and it's a good thing. We can produce cleaner energy from renewable resources for less money. RIP coal. You won't be missed.
define "carbon neutral" afaik all carbone from fossiels were in the past part of the cycle. more carbone in the cycle isn't worse, plants and animals were bigger back in these days
#5
Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:42 PM
Lily from animove, on 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:
Carbon neutral as in the carbon that it releases from burning the bio coal was taken out the previous year. As opposed to being taken out 50 million years ago.
Bigger animals and plants... I've seen some straw man arguments before, but wow. That's a pretty impressive one.
#6
Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:30 PM
#7
Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:51 AM
Lily from animove, on 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:
define "carbon neutral" afaik all carbone from fossiels were in the past part of the cycle. more carbone in the cycle isn't worse, plants and animals were bigger back in these days
Had nothing to do with animals. It was produced when plants that died in swamps at certain locations around 360 million years ago going forward that were covered up, kept being pressed down causing temps to rise, slowing cooking the cellulose to turn it to brown coal, etc. In high tectonic plate regions that produced higher temperatures, the conversion could happen even quicker.
http://www.planete-e...s-spanning-eras
Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 February 2017 - 09:54 AM.
#9
Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:57 PM
#10
Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:04 AM
Davegt27, on 20 February 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:
That would be nice. Although I think the financial upside of developing a working and practical fusion reactor is pretty good incentive too. There are 4-5 companies out there that are making good progress. A bit of competition, and the winner gets billions. Well... some of the losers may too. If multiple solutions work out, *everybody* wins!
#11
Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:21 PM
Fusion power research has been going since the 50's I believe. The joke is its always 50 years from producing a powerplant.
Unfortunately the US government is talking about cutting research and development of energy sources other than coal/oil.
#12
Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:30 PM
Now I for one am all for alternative power sources, and we need to find some. Nuke plants, nobody wants to glow. Dams, well there are the fish not to mention should a really big crack happen if you live down stream. Solar, not everybody lives in the desert. Geothermal...fear of cracking the planet. So far nobody has freaked out about bio-coal and I figured it was a safe bet to try and employ for some of our power needs.
#13
Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:19 AM
The idea that we would cut research because wind farms are sometimes opposed in court is very transparent spin.
Actually I think the bird issue is pretty well mitigated now. They learned, by bird splatting experience, that it is necessary to think about bird migration routes before building a wind farm, or even to turn it off a few weeks a year. One was built in a really bird-splatting spot years ago. Also the newer turbines are much bigger and birds tend not to fly through them (because they are higher off the ground) and to make it more often when they do (because the blades move slower). But I'm sure there is a battle over how careful to be of birds.
Yea, we have probably built all the dams we will build in the US... unless we get significantly more desperate. Geothermal is only practical in a few weird spots. Solar works pretty well in almost the entire US, not as well in the north, but those are also the places with more dams, which are the ideal partner for solar (dams are really nice in that they are renewable, but also on-demand power - most renewable generate power according to some natural process with its own schedule).
There is also just conservation. California's per-capita electricity use has been flat since 1972, while the rest of the US doubled, and while it has put a lot more effort into conservation than the rest of the US it still has a lot of room for improvement.
Biocoal is just one version of growing fuel in plants. Like corn-ethanol. The question is therefore: can we grow a whole lot more plants cheaply. And I think the answer is pretty much: no. Its limited by water and good farmland.
However that is a very 'if all else stays the same' answer.
We could start using a lore more biofuel and stop eating meat, for example.
#15
Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:32 PM
#16
Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:32 PM
Kalimaster, on 21 February 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:
I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that before.
Solar is already cheaper than coal. Regular ol' ground coal is dead, and fortunately isn't coming back. Renewable resources are so popular because you'll be able to get energy without buying a source material and it'll always be there. Nothing Trump does can change the basic economics.
The Solar City solar roofs with the Tesla Powerpacks are going to be all anyone puts up on homes anymore. Even natural gas power is going to have a hard time competing. The world has changed economically, and nothing can really make it go back to the old ways.
#17
Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:54 PM
Quote
you must be to young to remember the old movie
Crack in the World
https://en.wikipedia...ck_in_the_World
Quote
I they came by my house last year but thought they where over priced
#18
Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:36 PM
Heffay, on 22 February 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:
I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that before.
Solar is already cheaper than coal. Regular ol' ground coal is dead, and fortunately isn't coming back. Renewable resources are so popular because you'll be able to get energy without buying a source material and it'll always be there. Nothing Trump does can change the basic economics.
The Solar City solar roofs with the Tesla Powerpacks are going to be all anyone puts up on homes anymore. Even natural gas power is going to have a hard time competing. The world has changed economically, and nothing can really make it go back to the old ways.
Not if you live in the woods, i get about 2 hours of a sun a day. Solar is not an option...
And i dunno if we can crack the planet persay, and it kinda already is? The plates are not solid they flow and move and float on the mantle.
The Earth isnt as solid as people like to think.
But why waste more energy to turn the Cob into coal when you can just burn it like it is? My pellet stove takes Cob's, hardwood pellets or coal. Makes good Heat out of all of them.
Edited by Revis Volek, 22 February 2017 - 08:38 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users