Discussion:
Recycling chimney smoke
(too old to reply)
DonH
2011-06-06 21:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
After all, there is the analogy with sewage; and raw sewage is no longer
allowed to flow into public gutters, and into the sea, but is purified so
only an irreducible minimum ends up as "waste water". Chimneys shit into
the air.
What does chimney smoke consist of, and can its components be treated, so
any chimney ends up emitting only a residual - CO2?
Of course, the slobs and deadbeats of the coal-fired power industry
don't want any disturbance of their lifestyle, at least not without
extensive feather-bedding, but the matter has become rather serious, so
something needs to be done.
Yes, there is the option of a carbon tax or carbon trading, but, in a
human population rushing to Doomsday, these two feeble moves allow air
pollution to continue - a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
Renewables? Not a bad option, but wind turbines are ugly, and
photo-electric cells are inefficient. Tides and geothermal have yet to be
implemented.
So, continued burning of fossil fuels is desirable (gas is best),
provided the recycling of smoke is implemented - and why not? What's so
difficult?
Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam,
and heat (or reuse it by cogeneration). Only CO2 is seemingly difficult,
but photosynthesis, with algae (then used as stock feed) is possible.
All of which may be costly, but not prohibitively so.
If chimneys cannot be abolished, they can be purified.
That leaves vehicle exhausts...
B J Foster
2011-06-06 23:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.

Oh no, you're not gonna start calling water 'hydrogen pollution' now are
you? Shit!
Post by DonH
After all, there is the analogy with sewage; and raw sewage is no longer
allowed to flow into public gutters, and into the sea, but is purified so
only an irreducible minimum ends up as "waste water". Chimneys shit into
the air.
What does chimney smoke consist of, and can its components be treated, so
any chimney ends up emitting only a residual - CO2?
Of course, the slobs and deadbeats of the coal-fired power industry
don't want any disturbance of their lifestyle, at least not without
extensive feather-bedding, but the matter has become rather serious, so
something needs to be done.
Yes, there is the option of a carbon tax or carbon trading, but, in a
human population rushing to Doomsday, these two feeble moves allow air
pollution to continue - a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
Renewables? Not a bad option, but wind turbines are ugly, and
photo-electric cells are inefficient. Tides and geothermal have yet to be
implemented.
So, continued burning of fossil fuels is desirable (gas is best),
provided the recycling of smoke is implemented - and why not? What's so
difficult?
Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam,
and heat (or reuse it by cogeneration). Only CO2 is seemingly difficult,
but photosynthesis, with algae (then used as stock feed) is possible.
All of which may be costly, but not prohibitively so.
If chimneys cannot be abolished, they can be purified.
That leaves vehicle exhausts...
jg
2011-06-07 01:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
Oh no, you're not gonna start calling water 'hydrogen pollution' now are
you? Shit!
You're not saying all that coal turns to steam are you?
dechucka
2011-06-07 02:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that needs
to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth as
useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG

snip
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-06-07 04:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
No need.
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
dechucka
2011-06-07 05:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
No need.
You seem at odds with the consensus opinion of climate scientists and the
majority of Australians with that opinion
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-06-07 06:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
No need.
You seem at odds with the consensus opinion of climate scientists and
the majority of Australians with that opinion
I'd beg to differ that I'm at odds with the opinions of scientists on
what the actual science shows (and fails to show). But I'm happy to be
at odds with whatever the believer/denier/no-idea crowd sways towards
this week.
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
dechucka
2011-06-07 09:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
No need.
You seem at odds with the consensus opinion of climate scientists and
the majority of Australians with that opinion
I'd beg to differ that I'm at odds with the opinions of scientists on
what the actual science shows (and fails to show).
You are
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But I'm happy to be
at odds with whatever the believer/denier/no-idea crowd sways towards
this week.
like the ones against a carbon tax? :-)
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-06-07 13:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
No need.
You seem at odds with the consensus opinion of climate scientists and
the majority of Australians with that opinion
I'd beg to differ that I'm at odds with the opinions of scientists on
what the actual science shows (and fails to show).
You are
Only with some "climate" scientists.
Post by dechucka
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But I'm happy to be
at odds with whatever the believer/denier/no-idea crowd sways towards
this week.
like the ones against a carbon tax? :-)
By coincidence, yes.
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
B J Foster
2011-06-07 06:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
snip
Oh goodnes, so you were worried? Well stop worrying - it's all crap.
dechucka
2011-06-07 09:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by B J Foster
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
snip
Oh goodnes, so you were worried? Well stop worrying - it's all crap.
=================================================

CO2 and GHG really/
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-06-07 13:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
snip
Oh goodnes, so you were worried? Well stop worrying - it's all crap.
=================================================
CO2 and GHG really/
Yep. BTW CO2 *is* a GHG, quite a minor one in fact.
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
dechucka
2011-06-07 20:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that
needs to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth
as useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
snip
Oh goodnes, so you were worried? Well stop worrying - it's all crap.
=================================================
CO2 and GHG really/
Yep. BTW CO2 *is* a GHG, quite a minor one in fact.
yep not particularly potent
Addinall
2011-06-07 08:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that needs
to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth as
useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!

THAT is funny!

Mark Addinall.
Post by dechucka
snip
dechucka
2011-06-07 09:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by B J Foster
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
It is really really easy. Since the 'smoke' usually depicted in
climate-change-crap articles is usually steam, there is nothing that needs
to be done. It will evaporate, form clouds and fall to the earth as
useful, life-giving water.
It is not the water that we are worried about it is the CO2 and other GHG
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!

THAT is funny!
=============================================

why?
DM
2011-06-07 03:18:29 UTC
Permalink
   What does chimney smoke consist of, and can its components be treated, so
any chimney ends up emitting only a residual - CO2?
Chimney smoke consists of hot air, water vapour, by-products of
combustion and particulate solids.
Soluble by-products of combustion are removed in scrubbers.
Particulate solids are removed in a combination of centrifugal and
electrostatic precipitators.
What you are left with is hot air with a slightly higher concentration
of CO2 and water vapour than normal.

Under certain atmospheric conditions the water vapour can form a fog
as it leaves the chimney.
You can't see the CO2 at all.

DM
unknown
2011-06-07 08:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
After all, there is the analogy with sewage; and raw sewage is no longer allowed to
flow into public gutters, and into the sea, but is purified so only an irreducible
minimum ends up as "waste water". Chimneys shit into the air.
What does chimney smoke consist of, and can its components be treated, so any chimney
ends up emitting only a residual - CO2?
Of course, the slobs and deadbeats of the coal-fired power industry don't want any
disturbance of their lifestyle, at least not without extensive feather-bedding, but the
matter has become rather serious, so something needs to be done.
Yes, there is the option of a carbon tax or carbon trading, but, in a human
population rushing to Doomsday, these two feeble moves allow air pollution to continue -
a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
Renewables? Not a bad option, but wind turbines are ugly, and photo-electric cells
are inefficient. Tides and geothermal have yet to be implemented.
So, continued burning of fossil fuels is desirable (gas is best), provided the
recycling of smoke is implemented - and why not? What's so difficult?
Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam, and heat (or
reuse it by cogeneration). Only CO2 is seemingly difficult, but photosynthesis, with
algae (then used as stock feed) is possible.
All of which may be costly, but not prohibitively so.
If chimneys cannot be abolished, they can be purified.
That leaves vehicle exhausts...
yes, partially sewage is recycled via organic farming, where newer and ever dealier
strains of bacteria are bred up and fed back to people
http://news.google.com.au/news/search?aq=0z&pz=1&cf=all&ned=au&hl=en&q=germany+ecoli&oq=german

smoke is recycled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash as concrete

whats the problem with vehicles? they took the lead out and said it was green, so whats
changed?
e***@yahoo.com.au
2011-06-07 13:00:57 UTC
Permalink
     Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam,
and heat (or reuse it by cogeneration).  Only CO2 is seemingly difficult,
CO2 is not too difficult to remove, it's what to do with it afterwards
that is the issue.

As you know the Germans are closing their nuclear plants in 10 year,
by 2022 and replacing the lost power with wind and solar.

One of the energy storage methods they will be using is one developed
by a research organisation called ZSW. They will be combing CO2 with
Hydrogen obained from water electroysis to make methane (natural gas)
which can be stored in the natural gas pipeline system.

The process is 60% efficient. As early as 1991 small test plants (by
researchers specht and bandi) achieved 38% effciency when extracting
CO2 from the atmosphere and about 44% when using a concentrated CO2
source.

Now things have improved and a 60% efficiency is expected. And the
extraction of Co2 from the atmospher is now not energetically
challenging. A researcher call Klaus Lackner developed an effective
system.

The Germans will open their plant in 2012 and in 2013 Audi will offer
and "e-gas" car that uses this electrically generated gas

Video here.

DonH
2011-06-07 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam,
and heat (or reuse it by cogeneration). Only CO2 is seemingly difficult,
CO2 is not too difficult to remove, it's what to do with it afterwards
that is the issue.

As you know the Germans are closing their nuclear plants in 10 year,
by 2022 and replacing the lost power with wind and solar.

One of the energy storage methods they will be using is one developed
by a research organisation called ZSW. They will be combing CO2 with
Hydrogen obained from water electroysis to make methane (natural gas)
which can be stored in the natural gas pipeline system.

The process is 60% efficient. As early as 1991 small test plants (by
researchers specht and bandi) achieved 38% effciency when extracting
CO2 from the atmosphere and about 44% when using a concentrated CO2
source.

Now things have improved and a 60% efficiency is expected. And the
extraction of Co2 from the atmospher is now not energetically
challenging. A researcher call Klaus Lackner developed an effective
system.

The Germans will open their plant in 2012 and in 2013 Audi will offer
and "e-gas" car that uses this electrically generated gas

Video here.
http://youtu.be/q7LMjsFK_Y8

# Ah, thanks for that.
At last, a contribution which is not merely ridicule dressed up as
argument.
d***@gmail.com
2016-08-02 04:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DonH
Alright, how hard is this to accomplish?
After all, there is the analogy with sewage; and raw sewage is no longer
allowed to flow into public gutters, and into the sea, but is purified so
only an irreducible minimum ends up as "waste water". Chimneys shit into
the air.
What does chimney smoke consist of, and can its components be treated, so
any chimney ends up emitting only a residual - CO2?
Of course, the slobs and deadbeats of the coal-fired power industry
don't want any disturbance of their lifestyle, at least not without
extensive feather-bedding, but the matter has become rather serious, so
something needs to be done.
Yes, there is the option of a carbon tax or carbon trading, but, in a
human population rushing to Doomsday, these two feeble moves allow air
pollution to continue - a bit like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.
Renewables? Not a bad option, but wind turbines are ugly, and
photo-electric cells are inefficient. Tides and geothermal have yet to be
implemented.
So, continued burning of fossil fuels is desirable (gas is best),
provided the recycling of smoke is implemented - and why not? What's so
difficult?
Scrubbers can remove dust particles; and cooling towers remove steam,
and heat (or reuse it by cogeneration). Only CO2 is seemingly difficult,
but photosynthesis, with algae (then used as stock feed) is possible.
All of which may be costly, but not prohibitively so.
If chimneys cannot be abolished, they can be purified.
That leaves vehicle exhausts...
Carbon dioxide and water are what you get AFTER you remove all the toxic emissions of chimneys.

It's fairly simple to dispose of the CO2 - simply pump it underground into a suitable medium which will contain the gas (a bit of sand material held under some igneous rock will do) - the equivalent of sweeping the dust under the carpet in your house.

WHY you should do that thought is the point.

Loading...