Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > Environment and Conservation

Environment and Conservation Issues facing the natural world

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 7th May 2017, 01:07 PM
Madame Tarot Madame Tarot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 78
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
So what's your implication? Should only those who have walked to wherever they are speaking, address an in-person (no tech, please) audience, bare-faced and clad in dried grass?

You may want to rethink the argument, because it's looking fruity, with a touch of loop, just now.
Thanks Irrev I stand by my statement.

Anyone living the high life should not be telling the rest us that we need to live a bare basic lifestyle.

In the E. industry the way things are worked out is an energy audit. An energy audit for a product/resource from the cradle to the grave and beyond Beyond includes waste disposal and waste chemical changes, gas discharges leachates.

For example, solar panels, if you do an audit and include the mining , manufacturing, transport and energy costs, lifespan and disposal costs and disposal, and disposal transport costs they are not as E. friendly as many people think they are.

Pretty much those outside the E. industry all get it wrong.

Recently though despite all the years of selective reporting our feds have figured it out. They have figured out that we need to process coal and then sell low emission coal.

This revelation (that has always been there) has a double value for Australia, we get to sell our hole in the ground and we get payed extra wages and profits for adding the extra value of low emission coal.

Meanwhile more progress is happening in South Australia on a similar vein in the iron ore mining industry Iron Road mining project.

Magnetite is a higher-grade, value-added iron ore sought after by international steelmakers because of its low impurities and greater energy efficiency.

So apart from jounos getting it wrong and their hypocrocy .... etc and the chicken littles who have never heard of living on higher ground, reclaimed land, and living on or over the top of water, we still progress.

I wonder how conceited some of these punters can be, if they think new generations with new technology will not be able to solve future E. problems and they can.
__________________
God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 7th May 2017, 02:13 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Because Dickmas
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 4,484
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post
Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
So what's your implication? Should only those who have walked to wherever they are speaking, address an in-person (no tech, please) audience, bare-faced and clad in dried grass?

You may want to rethink the argument, because it's looking fruity, with a touch of loop, just now.
Thanks Irrev I stand by my statement.

Anyone living the high life should not be telling the rest us that we need to live a bare basic lifestyle.

In the E. industry the way things are worked out is an energy audit. An energy audit for a product/resource from the cradle to the grave and beyond Beyond includes waste disposal and waste chemical changes, gas discharges leachates.

For example, solar panels, if you do an audit and include the mining , manufacturing, transport and energy costs, lifespan and disposal costs and disposal, and disposal transport costs they are not as E. friendly as many people think they are.

Pretty much those outside the E. industry all get it wrong.

Recently though despite all the years of selective reporting our feds have figured it out. They have figured out that we need to process coal and then sell low emission coal.

This revelation (that has always been there) has a double value for Australia, we get to sell our hole in the ground and we get payed extra wages and profits for adding the extra value of low emission coal.

Meanwhile more progress is happening in South Australia on a similar vein in the iron ore mining industry Iron Road mining project.

Magnetite is a higher-grade, value-added iron ore sought after by international steelmakers because of its low impurities and greater energy efficiency.

So apart from jounos getting it wrong and their hypocrocy .... etc and the chicken littles who have never heard of living on higher ground, reclaimed land, and living on or over the top of water, we still progress.

I wonder how conceited some of these punters can be, if they think new generations with new technology will not be able to solve future E. problems and they can.
I marked the Gish Gallop in red, for benefit of later readers.
__________________


I'll be reading Free Speculative Fiction Online till we get some more content.


Last edited by The Irreverent Mr Black; 7th May 2017 at 02:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 7th May 2017, 03:04 PM
pipbarber's Avatar
pipbarber pipbarber is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,918
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post

Anyone living the high life should not be telling the rest us that we need to live a bare basic lifestyle.
Can you provide an example of someone living 'the high life' telling people they should should live a 'bare basic lifestyle'? What do these phrases even mean?

Quote:
In the E. industry the way things are worked out is an energy audit. An energy audit for a product/resource from the cradle to the grave and beyond Beyond includes waste disposal and waste chemical changes, gas discharges leachates.

For example, solar panels, if you do an audit and include the mining , manufacturing, transport and energy costs, lifespan and disposal costs and disposal, and disposal transport costs they are not as E. friendly as many people think they are.

Pretty much those outside the E. industry all get it wrong.
Provide evidence for this claim please.

Quote:
Recently though despite all the years of selective reporting our feds have figured it out. They have figured out that we need to process coal and then sell low emission coal.
Selective reporting? Are you referring to the overwhelming body of scientific research that indicates we are facing an ecological catastrophe and the media reporting that research? Or something else?

Quote:
...

So apart from jounos getting it wrong and their hypocrocy .... etc and the chicken littles who have never heard of living on higher ground, reclaimed land, and living on or over the top of water, we still progress.
The hypocrisy of journalists? Can you unpack that please. Which journalists? What hypocrisy?

Quote:
I wonder how conceited some of these punters can be, if they think new generations with new technology will not be able to solve future E. problems and they can.
I think i may be one of these 'punters' you are referring to but i dont really get your point here. Are you saying we dont need to worry about AGW because future technology will build houses over water and solve the problem in ways we can't imagine?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 7th May 2017, 03:06 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,969
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post

Recently though despite all the years of selective reporting our feds have figured it out. They have figured out that we need to process coal and then sell low emission coal.

It should be pointed out that "low emission coal" is nothing of the sort.


Quote:
While increasing the combustion efficiency of coal will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any significant reductions in CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations can only be achieved by capturing CO2 emissions before or after the coal is burnt, and then safely storing it in a secure and permanent manner. This is a process known as Carbon Capture and Storage.

http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.go...l-technologies


In other words the emissions from the coal is exactly the same, the difference is when you capture them. If you capture them before the coal is burnt, the coal will give off less emissions, but for a given coal the emissions will be the same in total, it's just moving the goalposts.


We don't dig up low emission coal, we just dig up coal. We then put energy and time and probably also emissions into processing it;


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-0...lained/8235210


The other option, to remove emissions while it is being burnt requires special super critical power stations, expensive and probably not being used in the third world countries where our government is shipping the coal, and even at best efficiency you still only remove around 40% of the pollutants and CO2, so not a clean technology at all, just a bit cleaner.


The other problem is, scientists are still unsure if carbon capture and storage is a permanent solution or just temporary, storing CO2 underground in "stable" rock formations is very much an untested technology, no-one is actually sure just how permanent it is, we may just be moving the problem ten, twenty or thirty years down the track.


The arguments over taking the full impact from manufacturing to disposal is a good, if only it were also applied to the coal industry, including the cost of damaging the environment when mining the coal right through to decommissioning the power stations at the end of their life.


This number, mind you, can never get smaller, the impact will be the same for every new power plant and mine you build, this is a mature technology, there's very little that can be done to reduce costs and impact.


Now the technology for making solar panels and other zero emission power sources is improving all the time. Increasing the efficiency of solar panels by ten percent makes a huge change to your calculation of total impact and this efficiency is increasing all the time as well as it becoming less costly to manufacture. Do you make sure each time solar panels become more efficient and easier to manufacture to rework your calculation to see whether or not they exceed coal fired power stations in environmental impact? I bet you don't.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 7th May 2017, 03:15 PM
Madame Tarot Madame Tarot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 78
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Hello Irrev.

It appears that to make yourself feel in control you used an obscure tag to irrefute my E. foundation for building E. evaluations.

Wow, thanks for going to all that trouble to help the other readers understand what you obviously could not.
__________________
God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 7th May 2017, 04:10 PM
Madame Tarot Madame Tarot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 78
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Seeing as Irrev luvs detail here is some more.

You are correct in thinking solid carbon on planet earth (every living thing has carbon in it) when it is burned becomes CO2 gas in the atmosphere but the clean coal story does not stop there. ( I am not up with the latest but here is the basics)

Everything E. interacts so it is never simple. Coal has emissions when burnt that are not E. friendly. They are emissions other than CO2.

Each deposit of coal varies and probably varies with depth too (I know oil does) in Queensland they used to grade coal for different uses depending on the analysis.

The biggest single nasty in coal is sulphur and it can become acid rain and the other is fly ash. Fly ash is removed by precipitators and is used as an additive in concrete to make a finer finish. When you see a concrete batching plant, in Queensland at least,with 2 silos, one will be for fly ash from a coal fired power station. Fly ash because of its less than 10 micron (breatheable) particulate size plus sulphur content is a very dangerous.

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

If you really want to know: here is more detail

I have done a lot of Instrumentation and Process Control boiler work and that is how I got my job in Environment.

Without complete combustion you will get CO and other gases that could be burned to CO2. but they simply carry heat away up the stack.

Time, Temperature, and Turbulence (the 3 boiler tees) are needed for complete combustion BUT to ensure complete conversion to CO2 we have to have excess oxygen.
(because boiler efficiency is always less than 100%. )

To get the excess oxygen into the fireball we have to force in excess air

So we end up with a lot more air gases going through the fireball plus carbon plus impurities from the coal.

All resultant gases are discharged to atmosphere not just CO2
.

This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

Basically we cook up all the above plus what the analysis of the coal is and send the lot through the precipitators to drag out the solids and the rest goes to atmosphere. The discharge rises from the stack because it is hot and mixes with more air where all sorts of combinations and separations take place.
__________________
God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

Last edited by Madame Tarot; 7th May 2017 at 04:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 7th May 2017, 04:40 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Because Dickmas
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 4,484
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post
Hello Irrev.

It appears that to make yourself feel in control you used an obscure tag to irrefute my E. foundation for building E. evaluations.

Wow, thanks for going to all that trouble to help the other readers understand what you obviously could not.
A Gish Gallop is exactly what you did, MT:
Quote:
the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
You implied that nobody, except those living a certain standard of technical poverty set by you, should have a view on the environment, and that a certain reporter was a hypocrite.

The accusation against the reporter, by the way, was a Tu Quoque fallacy:
Quote:
Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the source making the claim has itself spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with it. The fallacy focuses on the perceived hypocrisy of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument.
__________________


I'll be reading Free Speculative Fiction Online till we get some more content.

Reply With Quote
Like loubert liked this post
  #68  
Old 7th May 2017, 04:45 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,969
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post

This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

Basically we cook up all the above plus what the analysis of the coal is and send the lot through the precipitators to drag out the solids and the rest goes to atmosphere. The discharge rises from the stack because it is hot and mixes with more air where all sorts of combinations and separations take place.

Do I need to point out that this is basically bollocks, no didn't think so. You pump most of those in and what comes out is what goes in + what we get from the burnt coal, most of those gases are not involved in the reaction of converting coal to heat so quoting a great list of atmospheric composition adds bugger all to your argument. The key gases are the greenhouse gasses, coal emits more CO2 per BTU than any other source of fuel we use in conventional power stations, and that's the key. It doesn't matter what scale you use, coal is the worst source of fuel for conventional power stations, so why are we still pushing it?
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Like wadaye liked this post
  #69  
Old 7th May 2017, 05:26 PM
pipbarber's Avatar
pipbarber pipbarber is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,918
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post
Seeing as Irrev luvs detail here is some more.

You are correct in thinking solid carbon on planet earth (every living thing has carbon in it) when it is burned becomes CO2 gas in the atmosphere but the clean coal story does not stop there. ( I am not up with the latest but here is the basics)

Everything E. interacts so it is never simple. Coal has emissions when burnt that are not E. friendly. They are emissions other than CO2.

Each deposit of coal varies and probably varies with depth too (I know oil does) in Queensland they used to grade coal for different uses depending on the analysis.

The biggest single nasty in coal is sulphur and it can become acid rain and the other is fly ash. Fly ash is removed by precipitators and is used as an additive in concrete to make a finer finish. When you see a concrete batching plant, in Queensland at least,with 2 silos, one will be for fly ash from a coal fired power station. Fly ash because of its less than 10 micron (breatheable) particulate size plus sulphur content is a very dangerous.

Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas.

If you really want to know: here is more detail

I have done a lot of Instrumentation and Process Control boiler work and that is how I got my job in Environment.

Without complete combustion you will get CO and other gases that could be burned to CO2. but they simply carry heat away up the stack.

Time, Temperature, and Turbulence (the 3 boiler tees) are needed for complete combustion BUT to ensure complete conversion to CO2 we have to have excess oxygen.
(because boiler efficiency is always less than 100%. )

To get the excess oxygen into the fireball we have to force in excess air

So we end up with a lot more air gases going through the fireball plus carbon plus impurities from the coal.

All resultant gases are discharged to atmosphere not just CO2
.

This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

Basically we cook up all the above plus what the analysis of the coal is and send the lot through the precipitators to drag out the solids and the rest goes to atmosphere. The discharge rises from the stack because it is hot and mixes with more air where all sorts of combinations and separations take place.
It might be just my slow brain but what the fuck has any of this got to do with the preceding few posts?
Reply With Quote
Thank loubert thanked this post
  #70  
Old 7th May 2017, 05:33 PM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Because Dickmas
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 4,484
Default Re: Adani's Coal Extraction Nightmare

Quote:
Madame Tarot said View Post
Hello Irrev.

It appears that to make yourself feel in control you used an obscure tag to irrefute my E. foundation for building E. evaluations.

Wow, thanks for going to all that trouble to help the other readers understand what you obviously could not.
I'm going to ask you, nicely, to restrict yourself to my ideas, as I am keeping to yours.

You might be surprised at what posters can, and cannot understand here.
__________________


I'll be reading Free Speculative Fiction Online till we get some more content.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.