CO2 Free Energy from Oil?

#41
First, it is a stupid idea by itself.
Main greenhouse gas is H_2O, - water vapour, and it can be much easily regulated by cutting trees and spilling oil on water.
Second, it cost money and CO_2 emission, too.
Third - oil and gas are finishing, and it's not a problem.
Forth - strategy of attempt to control worlds economic by the peaceful "ecologic" way is failed and finished. Now is active strategy of direct military way.
Do you only come on ARSSE to take the pi55?

It's not a stupid idea. It works on paper. Some hard-nosed investors have put a lot of their precious money into a trial. Time will tell as to the efficacy of the idea.

The main greenhouse gas is not H2O. It's CO2, for the simple reason that the carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation. Chopping down trees just releases more CO2 as the wood decays/is burnt etc. Do you know where oxygen comes from?

What lunacy is "spilling oil on water" - are you suggesting we cover the oceans with oil.

Third point is toss. It's true but meaningless.

Christ knows what your fourth point is. The Red Army is going to cure CO2 emissions.

You are either a troll or monumentally stupid.
 
#42
Do you only come on ARSSE to take the pi55?

It's not a stupid idea. It works on paper. Some hard-nosed investors have put a lot of their precious money into a trial. Time will tell as to the efficacy of the idea.

The main greenhouse gas is not H2O. It's CO2, for the simple reason that the carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation. Chopping down trees just releases more CO2 as the wood decays/is burnt etc. Do you know where oxygen comes from?

What lunacy is "spilling oil on water" - are you suggesting we cover the oceans with oil.

Third point is toss. It's true but meaningless.

Christ knows what your fourth point is. The Red Army is going to cure CO2 emissions.

You are either a troll or monumentally stupid.
Please, ignore it instead of encouraging it, it might go away then
 

YarS

On ROPS
On ROPs
#44
It's not a stupid idea. It works on paper. Some hard-nosed investors have put a lot of their precious money into a trial. Time will tell as to the efficacy of the idea.
Forget it. Now it is not in fashion.

The main greenhouse gas is not H2O. It's CO2, for the simple reason that the carbon molecules absorb infrared radiation.
Are you banned in Google? Read something, my little dull friend.
You can start here:
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Chopping down trees just releases more CO2 as the wood decays/is burnt etc.
Yes, but not much. But without trees, water vapor emission will be decreased.
Do you know where oxygen comes from?
Sure. Main source of oxygen netto-income - swamps, second - some ocean regions.
What lunacy is "spilling oil on water" - are you suggesting we cover the oceans with oil.
Not all of them, of course. But if you really want to decrease GHG emission - you can do it.
Christ knows what your fourth point is.
Yanks have to kill European (and other competitors) industry. Way one - tell them mad stories about "Global warming" and force to buy permissions on CO_2 emission. Way two: start war in Ukraine and blast pipe from Russia. Start war in Syria and not allow to build pipe from Qatar. No pipe, no gas, no energy, no industry (in Europe). Profit for USA.

Now it is active second way. It allow not to waste money on stupid environmentalist's agitation, and get money by trading costly US-gas and oil.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#46
Yanks have to kill European (and other competitors) industry. Way one - tell them mad stories about "Global warming" and force to buy permissions on CO_2 emission. Way two: start war in Ukraine and blast pipe from Russia. Start war in Syria and not allow to build pipe from Qatar. No pipe, no gas, no energy, no industry (in Europe). Profit for USA..
That's you, that is....



Love,

Newman and Baddiel
 
#48
The environmentalist lobby won't be happy with any fossil fuels being burnt even if all the CO2 is captured.

Even if it produced organic hummus as a by product.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
#50
The environmentalist lobby won't be happy with any fossil fuels being burnt even if all the CO2 is captured.

Even if it produced organic hummus as a by product.
Odd you should say that..

Some Scandi boffins have found a way of making food out of Co2 and lectrickery. Specifically a very protein rich whatsit, like wot todger dodgers eat for fun.

Probably tastes worse than Theresa May's minge but could, if industrialised, provide almost unlimited animal feed.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
 
#51
Odd you should say that..

Some Scandi boffins have found a way of making food out of Co2 and lectrickery. Specifically a very protein rich whatsit, like wot todger dodgers eat for fun.

Probably tastes worse than Theresa May's minge but could, if industrialised, provide almost unlimited animal feed.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
Got a link?
 

YarS

On ROPS
On ROPs
#52
Some Scandi boffins have found a way of making food out of Co2 and lectrickery. Specifically a very protein rich whatsit, like wot todger dodgers eat for fun.
1 gram for two weeks? Usual chlorella grows faster. And yes, food will be ate by animals and return in air as CO_2.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#54
I wonder if he is out of the same school that assured us that all German cars had a magic low emission feature? Just a thought.
Wonder no more, he isn't. He's just hugely experienced with this stuff and frighteningly bright to a degree that's noticeable even when in the company of other people who are hugely experienced with this stuff and frighteningly bright.

The issue is whether what's been said has been mangled a bit by the PR department and/or the journalist and the subs. The science will be fundamentally sound.
 
#55
Wonder no more, he isn't. He's just hugely experienced with this stuff and frighteningly bright to a degree that's noticeable even when in the company of other people who are hugely experienced with this stuff and frighteningly bright.

The issue is whether what's been said has been mangled a bit by the PR department and/or the journalist and the subs. The science will be fundamentally sound.
As were all those people who advised the Labour Government to get us to buy diesel cars. Don't believe everthing you read.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#56
As were all those people who advised the Labour Government to get us to buy diesel cars. Don't believe everthing you read.
The diesel debacle was caused by a combination of the Man-made Global Warming and bio-diesel lobbies convincing Brussels that the only emissions which mattered were GHGs, and the car manufacturers offering up emissions reductions based on the miscalculation that the reductions they'd already achieved could be sustained at a similar rate in order to win political brownie points and avoid imposed limits.

The result, as we know, was that legislators completely ignored the fundamental issues of particulate matter and local air quality in a dash for diesel and the perceived CO2 benefits of greater fuel efficiency, and the car manufacturers had to fiddle the figures because they couldn't keep their promises and make it work technically.

It was an MMGW-driven policy cock-up not a scientific cock-up, which was why the counter-arguments made at the time had no traction with the Commission and Labour jumped on the band-wagon of greater dieselisation of the vehicle fleet.
 
#57
The diesel debacle was caused by a combination of the Man-made Global Warming and bio-diesel lobbies convincing Brussels that the only emissions which mattered were GHGs, and the car manufacturers offering up emissions reductions based on the miscalculation that the reductions they'd already achieved could be sustained at a similar rate in order to win political brownie points and avoid imposed limits.

The result, as we know, was that legislators completely ignored the fundamental issues of particulate matter and local air quality in a dash for diesel and the perceived CO2 benefits of greater fuel efficiency, and the car manufacturers had to fiddle the figures because they couldn't keep their promises and make it work technically.

It was an MMGW-driven policy cock-up not a scientific cock-up, which was why the counter-arguments made at the time had no traction with the Commission and Labour jumped on the band-wagon of greater dieselisation of the vehicle fleet.
Still does nothing to support his theory.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#58
#59
But it does show why your diesel debacle comparison is invalid.
How exactly?

Ah, ha! I see! an untested theory with a view to making massive profits.

"We will find out within months whether his untested ‘Allam Cycle’ can achieve the impossible: to extract CO2 emissions from a fossil fuel power plant at no extra cost, or even at a tidy profit. "

"To Mr Allam’s astonishment, his revolutionary idea was picked up by a US technology group called 8 Rivers Capital specializing in ‘moon-shot’ projects. “It came out of the blue,” he said.

..
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top