http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Tim Streater wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

Exactly, "displace"="no difference", you want people to stop eating
bread for green reasons?

On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

On 03/01/2017 22:47, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

Exactly, "displace"="no difference", you want people to stop eating
bread for green reasons?


More probably they want you to stop drinking alcohol.
You need CO2 to make baking soda and the easiest source is from brewers.

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...



How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:48:31 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases are not bad. Stop believing the ****e the treehuggers throw at you.

--
If a cat joined the Red Cross, would it become a First-Aid Kit?

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:12:17 -0000, TimW wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...



How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

No. CO2 is good for plants. Leave it alone.

--
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.


NT

On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.

On 04/01/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.


I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense
of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit - they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with
impunity. Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made
plain. Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental
impact. Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good
summary of the sorts of things that should be considered:

http://www.superhomes.org.uk/resourc...tion-material/

That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no
reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and
post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net
benefits by most measures follow.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:40:49 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

We have carbon capture technology.
Called trees.

"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 04/01/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going
from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process.
It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress.
And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the
whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2
per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense of
seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only effects
post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

they seem to throw about notions of CO2 savings with impunity.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Not even in the introduction, where any focus should be made plain.
Therefore, they can significantly overstate the environmental impact.

No they dont.

Not sure about the conclusion (or the data!), but this is a good summary
of the sorts of things that should be considered:

http://www.superhomes.org.uk/resourc...tion-material/

That said, I've only read half a dozen or so articles. And I have no
reason to doubt that even after taking into account pre- and
post-installation costs of properly designed insulation, over time net
benefits by most measures follow.

Corse they do, because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is trivial in the saving of CO2 in the heating of the place.

On 04/01/2017 08:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 04/01/2017 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder.

So what do they do with the baking powder..

they bake with it releasing the CO2.

Yet this is green and reduces CO2 emissions!

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic
level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes
sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going
from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the
process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make
less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not
entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per
kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just
fails to make any sense.

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press
on the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense
of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported
wider environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.


Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just
floors and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5
years to offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation
material (Celotex 160kgCO2e/m3, gas 0.2kg/kW/hr). And factor in building
life, installation errors, use, ventilation - I find the science just
lacking.

It obviously gets more complicated with walls - payback may be quicker
due to high heat loss.

Worth it in the long haul, but not trivial. Especially to those who do
things for 'green' reasons - the papers I've read are environmentally
inclined.

Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on installation
costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here - two alcoves,
about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some yeasr to repay the
materials costs.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 04/01/17 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if
it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?

If it can't be done in any effective way?

I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but it makes
sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?

Basic level is it. Now try doing it in the real world, on the sort of
scale supposedly required.


Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

Tim W

On 04/01/17 13:43, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if
it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?

If it can't be done in any effective way?

I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but it makes
sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?

Basic level is it. Now try doing it in the real world, on the sort of
scale supposedly required.


Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

No, it doesn't.
To combine it chemically takes more energy thus reducing nearly all the
point of burning hydrocarbons at all, and to make it a gas and pump it
underground means it pops up somewhere else eventually.

And there is no need to remove it anyway. Plants need it.

Tim W

On 04/01/17 02:56, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon. It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W

On 03/01/17 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

[...]
Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


I dare say some people say stupid things sometimes, and what you do with
wood makes no difference to the amount of fossil fuel we consume which
is the main driver of the greenhouse thing by a long way.

There is some truth in there somewhere though. Rotting organic matter is
Carbon not in the atmosphere, and some hydrocarbons will hang around a
long time in the soil or in landfill. I have heard that changes in
agricultural practice to increase the organic matter in soils could have
an impact. I haven't checked the maths and don't intend to.

TW

On 04/01/17 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:43, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if
it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?

If it can't be done in any effective way?

I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but it makes
sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?

Basic level is it. Now try doing it in the real world, on the sort of
scale supposedly required.


Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

No, it doesn't.
To combine it chemically takes more energy thus reducing nearly all the
point of burning hydrocarbons at all, and to make it a gas and pump it
underground means it pops up somewhere else eventually.

Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

And there is no need to remove it anyway. Plants need it.

Nobody has ever suggested removing so much CO2 from the atmosphere that
the earths vegetation all dies. You ****ing Idiot.
TW

On 04/01/17 12:12, TimW wrote:
You ****ing Idiot.


Apologies for that. It was rude, wrong, unnecessary and unkind.
TW

On 04/01/2017 11:55, TimW wrote:




I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

I'm not clear but it seems to be that ammonium bicarbonate is the end
product not just an intermediate stage in CO2 separation.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W

wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


They should just freeze it and launch it into the sun :-)


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W

On 04/01/17 13:33, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.
okay, I didn't read carefully enough.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily may even be worthwhile.
Meanwhile plants continue to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and they use
up energy to do so and somehow that doesn't make the whole process
pointless. It doesn't matter if it consumes energy, there's plenty of
that, what matters is that you don't get it from fossil fuels.

You of course sit in your armchair saying it'll never work, but you
don't really know. Iron ships - they will never float because you can't
make a ship leak proof, and flying! What an outlandish idea - god would
have given us wings.

It's the old unimaginative conservative attitude - nothing will ever
change, the poor will always be poor, people are selfish, money is the
only thing worth caring about, we can't stop the world from burning
blah blah...

TW

On 04/01/17 14:12, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:43, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , TimW
wrote:

On 03/01/17 23:03, wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 22:23:19 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level.
But if
it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?

If it can't be done in any effective way?

I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but it makes
sense at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?

Basic level is it. Now try doing it in the real world, on the sort of
scale supposedly required.


Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

No, it doesn't.
To combine it chemically takes more energy thus reducing nearly all the
point of burning hydrocarbons at all, and to make it a gas and pump it
underground means it pops up somewhere else eventually.

Er, exactly. It makes sense at a basic level but we don't have a way of
implementing it.

And there is no need to remove it anyway. Plants need it.

Nobody has ever suggested removing so much CO2 from the atmosphere that
the earths vegetation all dies. You ****ing Idiot.
TW

I wasn't suggesting that we did you ****ing idiot

On 04/01/17 14:38, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 12:12, TimW wrote:
You ****ing Idiot.


Apologies for that. It was rude, wrong, unnecessary and unkind.
TW
Dont worry, at my age its a compliment :-(

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

On 04/01/2017 14:41, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:29:22 +0000, Nick wrote:

On 04/01/2017 11:55, TimW wrote:




I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

I'm not clear but it seems to be that ammonium bicarbonate is the end
product not just an intermediate stage in CO2 separation.

You mention ammonium bicarbonate. Is that because you read it
somewhere in relation to this process? It can be used as a nitrogenous
fertiliser, and the article does mention fertiliser as a use for the
product from the CO2 scrubber. But it's twice as soluble as sodium
bicarbonate, (~19g/100ml at 20C for NH4.HCO3 cf. 9.6g/100ml for
NaHCO3, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table ), so I would
expect the sodium bicarbonate to crystallise out first, and we're back
to the Solvay process.

Sorry, don't read too much into my comment.

I'm very ignorant of the whole process, I was just trying to figure out
if the process was to separate CO2 as a gas (for later burial) or to
produce a carbonate salt. I read a bit around the subject, I saw ammonia
going in and jumped to what was probably the wrong conclusion.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 14:21:13 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.
okay, I didn't read carefully enough.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily may even be worthwhile.
Meanwhile plants continue to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and they use
up energy to do so and somehow that doesn't make the whole process
pointless. It doesn't matter if it consumes energy, there's plenty of
that, what matters is that you don't get it from fossil fuels.

You've missed the point entirely.

You of course sit in your armchair saying it'll never work, but you
don't really know. Iron ships - they will never float because you can't
make a ship leak proof, and flying! What an outlandish idea - god would
have given us wings.

It's the old unimaginative conservative attitude - nothing will ever
change, the poor will always be poor, people are selfish, money is the
only thing worth caring about, we can't stop the world from burning
blah blah...

TW

No, that has nothing to do with our difference. The difference is an understanding of basic engineering.


NT

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 16:11:09 UTC, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 13:33:31 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


NT

I have heard warnings against deforestation on the grounds that tropical
forests capture large quantities of CO2, but that is a different matter,
and besides it is good sense for many reasons.

Tim W
Some carbon capture involves dissolving the CO2 in water.
This is done under high pressure.
The water is then pumped underground.
The CO2 then stays dissolved because it is under high pressure (all the other water on top of it.)
The problem is that it's hot down there.


How it works out as regards energy consumed toachieve this, have no idea.

There has been a few failed projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...e_CCS_projects

It takes energy to do it, and eenrgy to produce the equipment used to do it, transport the people involved etc etc. Energy comes from producing CO2, thus doing it produces more CO2 - not less. Now, CO2 isn't going to stay underground for ever, so what you've done is to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.. Not just for no gain, but at significant cost.

It's the sort of thing that appeals to people with no grasp of basic engineering. It's the fashionable non-sense of the day and curries votes.


NT

On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?
And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.
You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.
And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.
It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press on
the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the sense
of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why, reported wider
environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just floors
and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5 years to
offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation material (Celotex
160kgCO2e/m3,

Where are you getting that number from ?

gas 0.2kg/kW/hr).

And even if your calculation is correct, 5 years is a reasonable
payback period for house insulation. The house is obviously
going to be heated for a lot longer than that with most houses.

And factor in building life,

That is almost always going to be a lot more than 5 years.

installation errors, use, ventilation

Those arent going to make a lot of difference
to the 5 years and will in fact reduce it.

- I find the science just lacking.

I dont.

It obviously gets more complicated with walls - payback may be quicker due
to high heat loss.

No maybe about it.

Worth it in the long haul,

Less than 5 years isnt the long haul with a house.

but not trivial. Especially to those who do things for 'green' reasons -
the papers I've read are environmentally inclined.

Sure, but clearly insulation does pay for
itself CO2 costs wise with a normal house.

Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on installation
costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here - two alcoves,
about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some yeasr to repay the
materials costs.

Sure, but with a new house, hardly ever doesnt the cost of
insulation pay for itself quite quickly when done properly.

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 04/01/17 12:12, TimW wrote:
You ****ing Idiot.


Apologies for that. It was rude, wrong, unnecessary and unkind.

And since his wife has given him the bums rush, unlikely to be true too.

On 04/01/2017 18:56, Rod Speed wrote:
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press
on the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the
sense of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why,
reported wider environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just
floors and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5
years to offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation
material (Celotex 160kgCO2e/m3,

Where are you getting that number from ?


A guess based on the figures given on the 'superhomes' site. Celotex
don't seem to cite a figure. On reflection I may be way out (I think I
used expanding foam on what I thought might be a conservative estimate)
- do you have a figure?

If I had decent figures i'd do a proper calculation.

snip

We'll just have to agree to differ on how trivial production and
installation factors might be . . .

Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on
installation costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here -
two alcoves, about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some
yeasr to repay the materials costs.

Sure, but with a new house, hardly ever doesnt the cost of
insulation pay for itself quite quickly when done properly.


Yes, it certainly can. My experience (of managing housing) is that using
the building properly can be a big factor, but that said, well worth doing.

IIRC, building regs have been relaxed to require a lower level of
insulation, and/or carbon neutral design/build, as an attempt to
stimulate the property market. And increase builders' profits.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 04/01/17 20:15, dennis@home wrote:
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?

water and carbon dioxide.

And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.

for an hour or so.

You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.

you wont get much of it in the atmosphere, because it breaks down

And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.

which is almost immediately broken[ down.

It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

It isnt worse, because there can never be much of it as long as there is
oxygen to break it down.

On 04/01/17 17:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 14:21:13 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.
okay, I didn't read carefully enough.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily may even be worthwhile.
Meanwhile plants continue to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and they use
up energy to do so and somehow that doesn't make the whole process
pointless. It doesn't matter if it consumes energy, there's plenty of
that, what matters is that you don't get it from fossil fuels.

You've missed the point entirely.

I think you have missed the point, by saying (correctly) that it would
cost energy to convert CO2 back to some less oxidised form. We aren't
talking about making energy here, we are talking about reducing
atmospheric CO2 so as long as the energy is not from a source which
produces CO2 it isn't pointless.


You of course sit in your armchair saying it'll never work, but you
don't really know. Iron ships - they will never float because you can't
make a ship leak proof, and flying! What an outlandish idea - god would
have given us wings.

It's the old unimaginative conservative attitude - nothing will ever
change, the poor will always be poor, people are selfish, money is the
only thing worth caring about, we can't stop the world from burning
blah blah...

TW

No, that has nothing to do with our difference. The difference is an understanding of basic engineering.


I don't claim to have any detailed understanding of how carbon capture
and storage might work. I somehow doubt that anyone here does, but just
saying 'I don't see how you could put it underground so it will never
work' is not demonstrating a knowledge of basic engineering, it's just
being a naysayer.

TW

In article . com,
lid writes
On 04/01/2017 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/01/17 00:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/01/2017 22:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Andy Burns
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38391034

A carbon capture plant that takes CO2 from the coal fired plant and
makes baking powder. So what do they do with the baking powder.. they
bake with it releasing the CO2. Yet this is green and reduces CO2
emissions!

Well, for once it's a commercial deal that stands on its own two feet
without subsidy ... people are going to bake anyway, so it displaces
sodium bicarb that would be manufactured anyway.

Makes no difference to the CO2 issue.

It's like when greens claim that letting wood rot "naturally" instead
of burning it reduces CO2.


It does.
However some of the carbon ends up as methane.
Methane is a worse greenhouse gas.

No, it isn't.

It breaks down very quickly.


Into?
And before it does that it is a worse greenhouse gas.
You certainly wouldn't want much of it in the atmosphere.
And rotting veg adds a continuous supply.
BAIUI not as much as farting cows
It most definitely is worse, it just isn't significant compared to water.

--
bert

RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote
Rod Speed wrote
RJH wrote

I've read a few articles now from the peer reviewed scientific press
on the environmental impact of insulation materials.

While useful and doubtless scholarly (on my lay reading) in the
sense of seeing which materials work, in what quantity and why,
reported wider environmental benefits are misleading.

Nope.

Not a single one even mentions the 'CO2 cost' of production, only
effects post-fit -

That's because the CO2 cost of the production of the
insulation is a trivial part of the dramatic reduction
in the CO2 produced when heating the place.

Well, a very rough calculation taking my house and insulating just
floors and roof with Celotex would suggest that it would take about 5
years to offset the CO2 used in the manufacture of the insulation
material (Celotex 160kgCO2e/m3,

Where are you getting that number from ?

A guess based on the figures given on the 'superhomes' site. Celotex don't
seem to cite a figure. On reflection I may be way out

Yeah, IMO its miles out with polyfoam.

(I think I used expanding foam on what I thought might be a conservative
estimate)

IMO its a mad number for polyfoam.

- do you have a figure?

Fraid not, but I havent looked for one.

If I had decent figures i'd do a proper calculation.

Thats why I asked.

snip

We'll just have to agree to differ on how trivial production and
installation factors might be . . .

I dont operate like that.

Money saved is a different matter - depends a great deal on installation
costs. Far and away the best value thing I've done here - two alcoves,
about a day, less than £100. But it'd still take some yeasr to repay the
materials costs.

Sure, but with a new house, hardly ever doesnt the cost of
insulation pay for itself quite quickly when done properly.

Yes, it certainly can. My experience (of managing housing) is that using
the building properly can be a big factor, but that said, well worth
doing.

IIRC, building regs have been relaxed to require a lower level of
insulation, and/or carbon neutral design/build, as an attempt to stimulate
the property market. And increase builders' profits.

I dont see why they should have deliberately increased builders profits.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 23:14:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 17:32, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 14:21:13 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 13:33, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 11:55:06 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 04/01/17 02:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:12:19 UTC, TimW wrote:
On 03/01/17 23:03, tabbypurr wrote:
[...]

Carbon capture has never made any sense even at the most basic level. But if it can rake in subsidies...

How could it not make sense?
I understand a method and technology has been elusive, but itmakes sense
at a basic level to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, no?
TW

Energy generation requires turning C into CO2 to generate heat. Going from CO2 back to any less oxidised form is merely reversing the process. It's like taking 2 steps forward then one back, you make less progress. And since the step back costs money and is not entirely efficient, the whole process ends up using more energy per kWh out, producing more CO2 per kWh out, and costing more. It just fails to make any sense.



This is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that 'Carbon Capture'
should involve converting CO2 to pure Carbon.

I didn't say back to C, I said back to any less oxidised form.
okay, I didn't read carefully enough.

It would be an idiocy, but
I don't think it is any more than a straw man. I thought it was about
pumping CO2 underground into old mines or natural rock formations in
which you hoped it would stay put.

That's a hopeless approach, quite unrealistic. And achieves worse than nothing. The percentage of CO2 output one can bury is tiny, and guess what's required to do it... producing more CO2 to drive pumps etc. And of course putting it there temporarily does't achieve anything.


Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily may even be worthwhile.
Meanwhile plants continue to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and they use
up energy to do so and somehow that doesn't make the whole process
pointless. It doesn't matter if it consumes energy, there's plenty of
that, what matters is that you don't get it from fossil fuels.

You've missed the point entirely.

I think you have missed the point, by saying (correctly) that it would
cost energy to convert CO2 back to some less oxidised form. We aren't
talking about making energy here, we are talking about reducing
atmospheric CO2 so as long as the energy is not from a source which
produces CO2 it isn't pointless.

woosh

You of course sit in your armchair saying it'll never work, but you
don't really know. Iron ships - they will never float because you can't
make a ship leak proof, and flying! What an outlandish idea - god would
have given us wings.

It's the old unimaginative conservative attitude - nothing will ever
change, the poor will always be poor, people are selfish, money is the
only thing worth caring about, we can't stop the world from burning
blah blah...

TW

No, that has nothing to do with our difference. The difference is an understanding of basic engineering.


I don't claim to have any detailed understanding of how carbon capture
and storage might work. I somehow doubt that anyone here does, but just
saying 'I don't see how you could put it underground so it will never
work' is not demonstrating a knowledge of basic engineering, it's just
being a naysayer.

I don't think anyone has said that.


NT