h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Due to the march of the eco-fascsts, coal production is being scaled down.
This creates problems for heritage railways who need the correct grade of coal for their steam locomotives.
Thus BorgCo are developing an engineered fuel with all the properties of steam coal, but made from sustainably produced
charcoal.
An admixture of processed kaftans, thong sandals, vegan sausage rolls and bamboo bicycles is used to add colour, texture, odour, and delicious irony to the sacks of black, dusty carbon fuel (supplied in non-biodegradable heavy-guage plastic sacks suitable for ocean surface disposal)
Why would anybody ever support nuclear power or fly on an airplane?
https://www.wired.c...st-us-air-fatality/
It's time we rid the world of dangerous technology. [doctorremulac3, Jan 28 2021]
Renewable oil from eco-fascists
https://www.changingworldtech.com/
Should be doable with this existing tech, [scad mientist, Jan 28 2021]
[link]
|
| |
Coal is already renewable. Just takes a long time. |
|
| |
We are already engaged in a parallel research project to produce renewable oil, by burying eco-fascists under billions of tons of sedimentary rock, then subjecting them to intense heat. |
|
| |
I want the pork sausage variant, will this reduce product quality? |
|
| |
Ask again in two hundred million years and we'll have the test results. |
|
| |
The extreme wait time for results on your second project is
somewhat disheartening. Isn't there any way to speed
things up? Perhaps the eco-fascists can be merely squoze
under millions of tons of pressure in real time and then
heated. Would this produce anything useful? |
|
| |
When asking an "eco" hero
why they're against nuclear power and they cite
Chernobyl, ask them if they fly airliners, then ask
why they would do such a thing after showing
them the picture in the link. |
|
| |
Aircraft are rickety, dangerous deathtraps. The
airplane shown killed one passenger and seriously
injured the pilot, yet, to this day, people still get
on these disasters waiting to happen. |
|
| |
By there way, I like the part in the attached article
where the Wright Brothers approached the military
with their invention. The brilliant military brass
said they didn't see how the airplane could be used
in warfare in any practical way. Probably cited the
fact that it would take away from the cavalry
budget. |
|
| |
It is possible to produce artificial diamond through the use of explosives. |
|
| |
Perhaps a suitable explosive could be used to efficiently turn eco-fascists into coal. |
|
| |
Thst seems unlikely, chemically speaking. I think you need an
anaerobic environment to isolate amorphous carbon, but you
need the presence of oxygen to propagate an explosive reaction
through an explosive. |
|
| |
Anyway, thermal coal is on its way out for economic reasons,
fascists or no fascists. That being so, you shouldn't have any
trouble just buying some for a heritage railway. |
|
| |
// We are already engaged in a parallel research project
to produce renewable oil, by burying eco-fascists under
billions of tons of sedimentary rock, then subjecting them to
intense heat. // |
|
| |
See link for how this can be accomplished. |
|
| |
I don't understand. A proper burn in a retort produces extremely little carbon release and the waste heat can be used in so many ways. |
|
| |
Anybody know the relative scale of price vs payoff
for scrubbing coal exhaust? |
|
| |
I can tell you at one end of the scale I can clean
the exhaust from a coal fire plant so it comes out
100% clean and the air around the plant is cleaner
than before the coal was burned. Call it the 110%
clean coal system. Cost might be a couple of
thousand bucks a kilowatt hour but I could do it.
So at the other end of the chart there's just
burning the coal and putting the exhaust into the
air with no scrubbing, low cost to the consumer
but high cost to the atmosphere. |
|
| |
My question is, what's the scale in between? Is
there a practical area where the electricity is a bit
more expensive but better than nothing and the
pollution is minimal? Somewhere to the right of my
110% clean air scrubbing machine? A risk to reward
scale I guess you'd call it? |
|
| |
Santa Claus is Ready to buy stocks in your
company! All these people will be getting so much
coal next year that he is definitely going to need
to mass produce it. + |
|
| |
"Renewable" coal is all very well in theory, but the trouble
is once you run out of your current stock, you need to
find (or make, in your case) more.
That's the main advantage of real renewable energy
generation (solar, wind, hydro, whatever): once it's built,
it just keeps on creating electricity (everything has on-
going management, control, maintenance; so that can be
ignored in comparisons...). No further resources required.
The only benefit for oil etc is the energy density, for
mobile energy needs. If your plant sits still, non-
renewable is a waste of time (unless your fuel IS waste,
such as wood-waste boilers). |
|
| |
Note, [neut], that the use case here is for a plant that does
not sit still, but rides around in the locomotive of a little
steam train. |
|
| |
Apart from that, of course, you're quite right. |
|
| |
// rides around in the locomotive of a little steam train. // |
|
| |
Not exactly little; we have in mind something in the way of a Gresley A4 Pacific, or maybe on of the Baldwin 4 - 8 - 8 - 4 heavy freight locos ... |
|
| |
// The extreme wait time for results on your second project is somewhat disheartening. Isn't there any way to speed things up? // |
|
| |
// Perhaps the eco-fascists can be merely squoze under millions of tons of pressure in real time and then heated. Would this produce anything useful? // |
|
| |
Well, it would kill them. So, yes - definitely. |
|
| |
// Perhaps a suitable explosive could be used to efficiently turn eco-fascists into coal // |
|
| |
Extensive experimentation will be needed. Thankfully. |
|
| |
// I think you need an anaerobic environment to isolate amorphous carbon, // |
|
| |
// but you need the presence of oxygen to propagate an explosive reaction through an explosive. // |
|
| |
Yes, but most explosive reactions aren't stoic; they actually have a surplus of carbon. Look at a molecule of RDX or PETN and do the math - there are fewer oxygens than carbons and hydrogens to mop them up. |
|
| |
Isolating the carbon source from the explosive by interposing a sheet of impervious material, similar to the pusher plate in a fission warhead, would be an approach to try. |
|
| |
// That being so, you shouldn't have any trouble just buying some for a heritage railway. // |
|
| |
You need a coal mine of some sort, which is quite a large operation to run if it's going to be commercially viable. However, it's possible that volunteers could do the mining - there are still totally unreasonable on-costs imposed by legislation though. |
|
| |
// Asking for a friend. // |
|
| |
You have one at last ? Well done. |
|
| |
"Renewable" solar is all very well in theory, but the trouble is once you run out of your current stock, you need to find more. Stars don't grow on trees, you know. |
|
| |
Just find a nebula and cruise round with a Bussard ramscoop until you've got enough gas to achieve fusion; and there are plenty of brown dwarf stars that could be lit up properly with a bit of tinkering. |
|
| |
Or you could push a couple of existing gas giants together - you've got two or three going spare in your own system, ready to go. |
|
| |