Hammerdrill
Well-known member
Yep, I think we have a 600 year supply. But the greenies would rather we freeze to death, I'm guessing.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
SWMCinci
Well-known member
It's also cheap, so the poor would also be allowed to survive and not just the wealthy that could afford higher energy costs.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
Study Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
www.commondreams.org
So does this mean that most of the climate change has been due to methane? 84-87 times as potent! That is a significant number and our scientists have been under-reporting the emissions by a large amount.
Study Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
The lead author said that one positive implication of the research is "if we can reduce our emissions, it's going to have more of an impact."
www.commondreams.org
So does this mean that most of the climate change has been due to methane? 84-87 times as potent! That is a significant number and our scientists have been under-reporting the emissions by a large amount.
zeeman
Well-known member
Kill all the cows and make hairy stop talking and we should be goodStudy Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
Study Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
The lead author said that one positive implication of the research is "if we can reduce our emissions, it's going to have more of an impact."
So does this mean that most of the climate change has been due to methane? 84-87 times as potent! That is a significant number and our scientists have been under-reporting the emissions by a large amount.
Study Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
Study Suggests Fossil Fuel Use Emits Up to 40% More Climate-Heating Methane Than Previously Thought
The lead author said that one positive implication of the research is "if we can reduce our emissions, it's going to have more of an impact."
So does this mean that most of the climate change has been due to methane? 84-87 times as potent! That is a significant number and our scientists have been under-reporting the emissions by a large amount.
Methane (CH4) is WAY more potent of a GHG than CO2.
This is why the easiest/fastest way to clean up GHG emissions is to actually clean up our landfills in 2 ways.
1. Do not allow ANY organic material (plastics, rubber, foods, etc) to go to land fills. ALL of these can actually be pyrolyzed into a liquid ethanol-like fuel. If they get burried in a land fill they emit CH4 and CO2 for decades as they decay.
2. Collect the methane coming off of the current land fills. This is actually done in a number of land fills. The gas coming off is actually called land fill gas. It has about 50% CH4 and 50% CO2. It can be used as a substitute for natural gas in industrial furnace applications. It is considered a "green" fuel as it is recycling the carbon (trash to methane to fuel rather than just trash to methane). Plus, the combustion results in mostly CO2 rather than 50/50 CH4/CO2.
These two things are VERY doable now, will clean up our land fills, clean up the land fill emitting GHGs into the atmosphere, and create 2 "new" types of renewable fuels (the ethanol-like liquid fuel from the pyrolysis and the land fill gas).
The EPA is the biggest stepping stone to my line item #1. They see the words "fire" and "trash" in the same process (there is a burner to heat up the trash as it passes through either a catalyst or bacteria media to break it down) and assume the system is a trash incinerator.
This process is 100% now used to make "smoked" flavoring for cold cuts. They "pyrolyze" wood and spray on the food grade version of the liquid "fuel" onto the lunch meat.
The exact same process by the exact same company can be, and it was their ORIGINAL INTENT, use to clean up a high percentage of our human trash.
The EPA stopped them...so they went into the food business.
Even though it doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long, it still, even with that factored in, is something like 20 times as "potent" a GHG as CO2.
Which is why I listed 2 major ways to clean it up above.
zeeman
Well-known member
You're single aren't you?
Yes, but even with that CH4 is like 85 times more potent. So when you factor in the fact that it only stays in the atmosphere 10 years vs 150 that is why it is considered to "only" be 20x more potent or Green house gas potential (whatever term they give it now).
Nope, been married 20 years, have 3 kids.
Just happen to work as an engineer directly in this field, attend a ton of the conferences (biofuels, alternative fuels, etc) as background information/research for the work I do.
zeeman
Well-known member
I bet those conferences are wild! You're a maniac!
No, they are boring. They a full of a bunch of "nerd" engineers.
The only good thing is I rack up the hotel/airline points fast and take the family on mostly free vacations about once a year.
This year is Grand Cayman, flights and resort free, only paying for stuff we buy/eat off the resort.
zeeman
Well-known member
Nice!
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
We need to place a fee on everything that they produce in a dirty manner and that we consume here and abroad, including harvesting of the raw materials and generating the electricity consumed in production. It is our nation's impact on the environment. Subject them to our EPA. Level the playing field AND SAVE THE PLANET!!!!
Either this stuff is real, or it isn't. Put your money where your mouth is, don't just keep changing rules and re-investing in whatever side benefits from tighter restrictions here.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
How about tax incentives to build peaker plants generating from methane capture ?
Bucks landfill gas power plant, 3rd largest in country, closing
A power station that uses gas from Waste Management landfills in Lower Bucks is closing, and gas emissions will instead be burned off by flares. The
www.buckscountycouriertimes.com
Power plants already exist to burn landfill gas.
The real issue isn't building a power plant that runs off LFG, the issue is converting most/all land fills to have the ability to collect LFG and pipe it out.
There are many LFs that are "collecting" the LFG just to flare/burn it since CO2 is less of a GHG than CH4. That is such a huge waste of "free" energy however. Collecting it and using it for power or in industrial burners in place of natural gas is the right/better answer.
LFG is not hard on burners, it literally just requires some larger piping and larger gas nozzles in the burners compared to natural gas (because it has about half the BTU content of natural gas, so you have to flow twice the volume to get the same amount of energy).
If I am a small/medium size industrial business. I would find an area that the local EPA requires a land fill to collect/flare off their LFG.
I would then work a deal with them to install the piping across the street to my plant and buy their LFG dirt cheap.
I would make all my industrial furnaces/boilers run on LFG. Most burner manufacturers have the ability to make burners that can run on LFG.
The capital cost upfront would be more (larger piping, more expensive burners) but in the long run your fuel costs would be so low.
This is similar to what drywall plants did a couple decades ago when Coal fired power plants were forced to clean up the sulfur dioxide out of their emissions (SO2 causes smog).
The process to clean SO2 out of a power plant stack creates Calcium Sulfate...also known as gypsum (well, artificial gypsum).
Drywall plants typically are/were built right where the gypsum rocks were mined out of the ground as margins are low on drywall so transportation costs are important.
However, they started plopping down drywall plants across the street from coal fired power plants and "volunteered" to take that "waste product" of Calcium Sulfate off the coal fired power plants hands. Win/Win as the power plant doesn't have to pay to get rid of their waste, and the drywall plant gets free raw material to make drywall.
I would do something similar with land fills..."offer" to do the piping/collection setup and take their LFG off their hands for cheap.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
So, let's tax incentivize such "green" behavior. Beyond LEEDS to a real incentive.
Last edited:
We don't have to share with them.
eastisbest
Well-known member
sell northface and buy bali.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Global warming stops the coronavirus~ Greenies are pro-coronavirus
Stirred not Shaken
Well-known member
No more maple syrup for your pancakes : https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/07/climate-change-could-upend-new-yorks-maple-syrup-industry.html
SWMCinci
Well-known member
There's always Canadian maple syrup..... although, I do prefer Log Cabin.
Log Cabin and Aunt Jamima are flavored corn syrup. Most in the grocery aisle are flavored corn syrup.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
So there are alternatives to things made in NY. BTW - you might want to update your information, no corn syrup in Log Cabin.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Log-Cabin-Syrup-Original-Ounce/dp/B007WWHO2Q
Oh those sneaky corporate types. They tell you their product has corn syrup (but apparently no maple syrup, where do they get their "natural" sugar?) and they LIE!!! SWMCinci says so.
SWMCINCI: I think they're playing a bit of a game. It has corn syrup. Either Amazon has it wrong and log cabin's corporate is too stupid to correct it or it's semantics. It doesn't have high fructose corn syrup. Whatever the distinction, ?