Global Warming Cont...

[BLUE collar]

Without any feeling of responsibility.:icon_wink:

I feel responibility for crap I can controll. My savings, paying bills, you know stuff that actually matters. Not stuff that is made up by liberal hippies to try and bring attention to a rediculous "cause." Yes I put it is quotes because I don't feel that it is a true cause.

[Guisslapp]

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

[JuBru]

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

not surprising...

source?

[Guisslapp]

not surprising...

source?

I didn't get the info from the Internet, but it is part of this on-going study:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...MqrF4u/native/

The .pdf gives alot of useful info.

[Guisslapp]

Another interesting paper. Shows that going nuclear is BY FAR the best way to mitigate CO2 emissions. See table on page 17.

sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

[JuBru]

I didn't get the info from the Internet, but it is part of this on-going study:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...MqrF4u/native/

The .pdf gives alot of useful info.

thanks

[saltydawg]

Just ran across some DOE data that shows that CO2 capture will reduce the net efficiency of power plants by 11-27%.

That's true only for amine systems that are going to inject the co2 into geologic formations.

Sorbent systems that are going to convert the co2 into fuel have a different efficiency/cost profile.

Need to look at cost per KW hour and subsitution benefits plus balance of trade.

[dawg80]

Don't know about no GW or the pending ice age, but I do know it's a gorgeous day in northwest Louisiana!

[saltydawg]

Don't know about no GW or the pending ice age, but I do know it's a gorgeous day in northwest Louisiana!

It's all global warming's fault!

[BLUE collar]

Another interesting paper. Shows that going nuclear is BY FAR the best way to mitigate CO2 emissions. See table on page 17.

sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/WhitePaper.pdf

We can't cut pollution down to zero captain planet... don't you know that every human exhales CO2? What are you going to do kill everyone? So you and Obama and all the other planeteers are just going to have to find another way to scare me.

[arkansasbob]

That's true only for amine systems that are going to inject the co2 into geologic formations.

Sorbent systems that are going to convert the co2 into fuel have a different efficiency/cost profile.

Need to look at cost per KW hour and subsitution benefits plus balance of trade.

you're right. converting the co2 back to fuel is MUCH less efficient. if you think otherwise, how about a source with real numbers?

[saltydawg]

you're right. converting the co2 back to fuel is MUCH less efficient. if you think otherwise, how about a source with real numbers?

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

[dawg80]

We can't cut pollution down to zero captain planet... don't you know that every human exhales CO2? What are you going to do kill everyone? So you and Obama and all the other planeteers are just going to have to find another way to scare me.

One volcano, like the one erupting now in the Pacific, puts out enough "greenhouse" gases to equal 50 years of internal combustion engine output.

I expect to see saltydawg and algore out there, today! wagging their fingers at the dastardly volcano and commanding it to stop!

[arkansasbob]

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

not the "near-zero loss power cycle" again!

[Guisslapp]

It should be called the "near-zero carbon loss cycle". Salty, have you ever studied the second law of thermodynamics (more than reading wikipedia)?