|
mnottertail -> RE: Filibuster saved. (7/18/2013 7:24:50 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Again. You know jack shit about carbon sequestration.
Power plant figures of tones/MW have *nothing* to do ppm. State of the art carbon power plants get about 1000t/Mw without sequestration. State of the art powerplants have exit gases that are, roughly, 68% CO2, 12% CO, and the bulk of the remainder other atmospheric gases, much of it nitrogen.
That means that 800,000 parts per million of an exit gas are carbon. And you're worried about a change of 100 caused by atmosheric CO2? That doesnt' even register on *any* study.
I have been quoting tonnes/MW hour, moron, which is the same as #/kwH just scaled differently. Again... C-A-T.
And yes.. the redesign of a fossil fuel plant *is* beyond your skills. People go to university for that. C-A-T
And yes, sure, sequestration has been widely used in the development of certain products. Where it is exspensive as fuck. C-A-T.
It isn't a question (again) of the technology being available. Its is AS I SAID in the original post - that it makes carbon power more expensive than natural gas, nuclear or solar. C-A-T
And the effect of the legislation will be to increase the cost of electricity production.
Yeah.. the CBO makes *draconian* assumptions. Yeah. Right. C-A-T
Lets debunk some more myths shall we.. Like Oil companies and welfare: Fossil fuel companies on average pay more in taxes than they make in profit.
Think about that.. that means on average at the very best, companies will earn 49% and pay 51%. Or that 51 % of net proceeds will go to the government.
Thats a higher tax rate than any individual tax. Now I am aware that this is an approximate figure. Because I'm just making a short hand argument. If you want to open up another topic where you will get your clock absolutely cleaned - feel free.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Innumeracy --- 175% is almost double. So is 150% so is 125% but, nevertheless comparing apples to oranges are based on differing things, you at least got that correct.
so, the reports you are quoting have to be normalized to compare the 450ppm to the 1000 lb and we will wait for the math, because that will change numbers all over. That will invalidate many of the hallucinogenic arguments. You still aint caught on to that and then call me a moron, you might want to check that sort of shiteating style of speech at the door when clearly you are not numerate or cogent accordingly you compare apples to oranges. Because you are quoting shit about 450ppm based scrubbing and not #pKwh scrubbing. Sequestration, as has been pointed out has been going on a long time. To ramp it up costs more if you are going from 0 to 100%.
has fuckall to do with the cost of flue gas carbon sequestration from fossil fuel power plant. and that is one of the many ccs options that are available. And again that is the old style fossil fuel power plant. I guess we don't create or cogitate much in this country any more, and you are the codex right there by your own reasoning, now I guess that a redesign and research and policy changes and technological advancement is beyond most of the plebian types.
Nevertheless, from 1 area of focus on some pretty draconian assumptions your site said not quite what the cbo said under the draconion assumptions, perhaps if we took away oil and coal welfare and some bonuses for the execs we could bring some research and development around. And if we cannot innovate in coal it will go to nuke and gas, and who gives the glimmer of a fuck, it aint like we are gonna pay out for black lung disease in any case.
I hold great contempt for those who won't wipe their ass after they take a shit, saying it cost to much or it will just get dirty again.
innumeracy and comparing apples to oranges. You have one study that says a 75% increase.
quote:
State of the art carbon power plants get about 1000t/Mw without sequestration*
Yet you start your ignorant slobbering cant about a guy that says lets put that number in the goal, which we are achieving today, with I would assume the non-existant co2 scrubbers of yours.........as a radical left winger, it only serves to make you look imbecilic, you should learn to give it up while you are eating shit.
So, if again as you pointed out your own largesse of stupidity repeatedly, to what extent can we sequester that carbon effectively and reasonably? 25% of that, 50% of that? You know, DOUBLE the efficiency? (but you better look up double)
400ppm is what your asswipe is based on, and you say thats impossible because of cost, and I believe you because you are demonstrably innumerate, incompetent, and incoherent.
I have no fuckin idea why you are on about your asswipe at all, you say the stupidest shit, there is no warming, costs will rise 75% based on fuckin ridiculous and restrictive assumptions that are bean counted by estimates of people who know nothing about the industry, but get their data and assumptions from the fox in the henhouse.........yet as was pointed out several times it is getting done I would surmise by competent advanced discipline engineers which you are certainly not....
And more reasearch and breakthroughs every day, and people are doing it.
Here is one example:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110118/full/469276a.html
<excerpt>
The system scrubs roughly 120,000 tonnes of CO2 a year from 3% of the facility's flue gases, but what has caught everybody's eye is the cost that Huaneng quotes: a mere US$30–35 per tonne of CO2, including the further expense of purifying the captured gas for use in the food and beverage industry.
That is far below the $100 or more typically estimated for first-generation projects to retrofit existing power plants for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the United States and Europe, and it is within the range of past carbon prices in the European Union emissions trading system. If similar cost reductions can be realized elsewhere, they could cut years off the timetable for commercial introduction of retrofitted CCS technology, touted as a way to reduce the climatic impact of existing coal plants. Experts want to know how the Chinese facility is doing it, and whether the savings could be exported.
<excerpt>
And the typical incompetent not invented here engineer...
<excerpt>
However, Howard Herzog, a chemical engineer researching carbon sequestration at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says a deeper inspection of the Shidongkou facility might reveal that its secret comes down to things such as cheap labour and fewer regulatory burdens. "The fact that it's cheaper in China doesn't impress me," says Herzog, who recently toured the facility. "Everything is cheaper in China."
<excerpt>
But wait a minute, these are the guys that couldnt build a v6 these are the guys that know there are no co2 scrubbers, these are the guys that haven't had a bright idea in centuries....
However, Duke Energy is going to give it a go, and others are joining the consortium, they are looking for ways to make it happen, instead of whining and kvetching and holding on to every million of their bonus money for running shit into the ground.......
And look, there must be something more to it than cheap chinese because:
http://emberclearenergy.com/tag/emberclear/page/2/
and they have licensed it and are selling it, of course they are Canadian and not whiny little useless fuck American cretins.
So, it appears that the internet engineering disciplines are full of shit as a christmas goose, in that by god it is being done, and as Ken points out, costs are dropping.
And I am glad you did a little googling because you don't seem as ignorant as usual about whatever you are slobbering about.
Here is a table that includes a "life cycle analysis" of CO2 emissions for various methods of powering an electricial generator. These numbers include manufacturing the generating equipment and processing the fuel. These numbers are in grams per kWh.
Coal = 800 to 1050
Natural gas (combined cycle) = 430 (average)
Nuclear = 6
Hydroelectric = 4
Wood = 1500 without planting other biomass
Photovoltaïc solar = 60 to 150
Wind Power = 3 to 22
Oooh, so back to my little simple math quiz earlier.
If I do half hydro and half coal (at the imaginary 1800) LOL, or say half coal (no fuckin change in the coal plants here mind you) and some phot and wind and nuke and so on.............................how many shingles does it take to shingle a doghouse?
Dont splatter cretinous shit all over here and accuse me of being a moron, because it is clearly showing an opposite effect to those assembled here.
Now, should we check out what would happen if we gassify, and if we use fluid bed technology, and if we could figure a way to make these fantasy co2 scrubbers that don't exist a little more efficient here and there, as well as all the other processes? Maybe sequester a little bit and find efficiencies there?
Maybe other biomasses like hemp and so on? and renew them?
Plasma:
http://dutemp.com/plasma_arc/plasma_tech.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/plasma-converter.htm
(a couple of CEUs here for you since you are so far out of date, not knowing about even co2 scrubbers, but don't worry we can get you out of the 1890s)
Now, I want to address one more thing, China is doing something as I said.
Next, note that carbondioxide as a function of GDP is as useful a concept as the size of your dick to GDP.
That is the fucking stupidest measurement and argument based on it, that I have ever encountered, bar fucking none.
|
|
|
|
