39072 pts · July 12, 2013
Half Danish, half Greek Petroleum Engineer now working in green Hydrogen.. Got questions? Ask in PMs. #TeamToaster
Cheers to the RP group mate, glad to help :)
Wasn't this guy not also the one who argued Kirk into a corner so his only reply could be "I just think you're wrong"?
Oh, but it is toxic when in the body, but it shortens the life span or makes the fish so sick it cant hunt or whatever and then it dies. So there is always some kind of balance between eating enough to survive and still avoid toxic level of Mercury. I'm not an ichthyologist so read up on it before you trust me :D
I started out my career working for Shell and it was made immediately clear to me that the company had known what it was doing way before the general. But I also learned that when looking at investments in new units, if the payback time was more than 3 years it was an immediate no, since there were so many other “lower hanging fruit”
Ah sorry, I misread it as “in hand”. But there’s nothing stopping you now from collecting your own garbage and burning it to heat your house. It’s just that most normal furnaces don’t provide conditions where complete oxidation is possible for all plastics. And you’d also run into emissions issues with NOx, free radicals, sulphur emissions and halogen emissions such as HCl. Most of these don’t have high GWPs but are instead toxic to water- and airborne organisms.
Hope that helped :D
Well, that is exactly what's happening to predatory fish and Mercury. If you can't get rid of a pollutant you'll end up dying. However, vampires are immortal, so unless they excrete the microplastics somehow, it should manifest in some way. But since I don't know if vampires digest (putting the molecules of food into the matrix of their own being) their food or not, or they just need to drink it for the lulz, I can't say for sure. But if they don't digest anything, they should just poop it out.
Okay, so you burn some plastic in your hand? Than you just emit CO2 from there, and the thermal energy is not really captured and put to use... I'm not sure I understand your comment. Sorry. If you care to elaborate, I can try and give you an answer.
Burning plastics is perfectly possible, but collecting it and building/operating equipment which has to be able to run on a multitude of plastic fuel is often a lot more expensive that just going with the fossil fuel option. The story is basically the same with recycling. It can be done, its just more expensive and often not as "easy" as just making something new. But refineries all over the world are trying out various waste products as feed stocks. so at least that's something.
Being an idealist myself, I agree with the thought process. But sadly, reality is different. At least for now. I did work in the green transition for a bit, but due to lack of legislative focus and wars ect, it basically killed all funding so the company fired most of us and went into a sort of hibernation mode.
You're completely right. I worked with Hydrogen fuel cells for a while were efficiency could get up to around 90%. Then there was of course also an efficiency factor on the production of Hydrogen. But even with that factored in its a heck of a lot more than ~30%. Had we had to invent the car from scratch today there's no way it would be fossil fueled.
I'm assuming you mean where the flue gas would contain cyanocarbons, NOx and various sulfur compounds? We can do flue gas treatment, and many places do. It has challenges of its own, but is generally a hell of a lot better that just letting it into the air. Basically the general method is that you take a toxic component out of the flue gas and make it into a "safe" solid. For instance SO2 scrubbers make CaSO4 (gypsum) which is too impure to use to building materials but easier to store than gas.
I work with hydrocrackers in my current job, so if I did they would be 400C and 150bar, so if I came into contact with them under those conditions I'd be dead.
I mean pyrolysis is just another word burning it and it is what we do with most plastics that isnt just left to degrade into microplastics. It can be pretty efficient because the "fuel" is so cheap (you often even get paid to take it). But flue gas treatment is expensive. And also not without wasste products of its own. For instance SO2/3 scrubbers make gypsum but its contaminated with all sorts of impurities which cause cancer etc so you cant use it for dry wall plates, so they are deposited.
Once the plastic is made you have already spent a lot of energy making it. But you can still burn it to get some more out of it. But you are correct in thinking that there is sort of an energy balance that has to make sense. And it often doesnt when considering recycling. If it did, we would had done it many years ago.
Yes, but that requires complex thinking and a long term vision from people who either don't want to because its unpopular with shareholders or voters here and now, or people who are getting rich exploiting the current situation.
Well, the cool thing about hydrocarbons is that we are actually extremely good and making any molecule we like. So you can take literally any HC and make its into any other HC given enough reagents and catalysts etc. Its just about scaling it up and paying for it. And if it was a no-brainer it would had been done a hundred years ago.
CCSU (or CCS or just CC.. too many names) plants to exist, but often they are most a media stunt or a message to local law makers saying something along the lines of "look at us, we are soooo new age and safe" sadly even the biggest CCSU plants are a drop in the ocean even compared to the emitters who usually operate them. Another issue is that CCSU plants often spend much more energy than you get from emitting the CO2 it can capture. The energy balance doesn't quite fit.
When burning plastics there are several potential issues. Incomplete burning due to bad combustion conditions, general emissions issues and don't even get me started on plastics which contain Nitrogen or halogens. We often hear about CO2 emissions but there is (at least in developed countries, not including the US here) quite strict emissions legislation in place. Environmental permits for most plants normally don't get updated fast enough (if at all) when knowledge improves.
Erm, sure..? I would not call myself a plastics expert but I'll give it a shot.
Well, any waste that is collected is either burned, recycled (a remarkably small amount) or just deposited in a landfill forever. So just the crude oil being produced (taking fossil carbon to the surface in any form) you have polluted. The only really impactful measure we can influence is to reduce plastic production. Because in one way or the other once fossil carbon is on the surface it ends up in nature at some point (unless we use CCSU, which is also not cost effective atm)
Why fire his lobotomist? I would put him/her to work instead..
While this is of course ridiculous it honestly also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to even have a debt ceiling.. it’s basically an additional stronger version of the filibuster
Perhaps I should correct myself.. I’m a chemical engineer who has worked in either oil and gas or the green transition for over a decade
Petrochemist here; we have always been able to do this.. it’s all a matter of cost. And it’s never cost effective regardless of what that article says..
I mean they should probably not sell them anything but 150k£ is literally nothing
Having worked with functional safety a lot I would be extremely surprised otherwise but it would still be of no surprise to me is Russian equipment was not designed correctly after also having worked with them in the past
I mean if he was in my life I also would be smiling now that he is dead...
i take it thats its some kind of adult toy..?
Over the last week I have been listening to the audiobook of A Promised Land by Barrack Obama. When he was informed he won it, his first reaction was: "For what?" In the book he then lists a few people who in his own mind were more deserving. Just goes to show the difference in humility between 44 and 45..
Cheers to the RP group mate, glad to help :)
Wasn't this guy not also the one who argued Kirk into a corner so his only reply could be "I just think you're wrong"?
Oh, but it is toxic when in the body, but it shortens the life span or makes the fish so sick it cant hunt or whatever and then it dies. So there is always some kind of balance between eating enough to survive and still avoid toxic level of Mercury. I'm not an ichthyologist so read up on it before you trust me :D
I started out my career working for Shell and it was made immediately clear to me that the company had known what it was doing way before the general. But I also learned that when looking at investments in new units, if the payback time was more than 3 years it was an immediate no, since there were so many other “lower hanging fruit”
Ah sorry, I misread it as “in hand”. But there’s nothing stopping you now from collecting your own garbage and burning it to heat your house. It’s just that most normal furnaces don’t provide conditions where complete oxidation is possible for all plastics. And you’d also run into emissions issues with NOx, free radicals, sulphur emissions and halogen emissions such as HCl. Most of these don’t have high GWPs but are instead toxic to water- and airborne organisms.
Hope that helped :D
Well, that is exactly what's happening to predatory fish and Mercury. If you can't get rid of a pollutant you'll end up dying. However, vampires are immortal, so unless they excrete the microplastics somehow, it should manifest in some way. But since I don't know if vampires digest (putting the molecules of food into the matrix of their own being) their food or not, or they just need to drink it for the lulz, I can't say for sure. But if they don't digest anything, they should just poop it out.
Okay, so you burn some plastic in your hand? Than you just emit CO2 from there, and the thermal energy is not really captured and put to use... I'm not sure I understand your comment. Sorry. If you care to elaborate, I can try and give you an answer.
Burning plastics is perfectly possible, but collecting it and building/operating equipment which has to be able to run on a multitude of plastic fuel is often a lot more expensive that just going with the fossil fuel option. The story is basically the same with recycling. It can be done, its just more expensive and often not as "easy" as just making something new. But refineries all over the world are trying out various waste products as feed stocks. so at least that's something.
Being an idealist myself, I agree with the thought process. But sadly, reality is different. At least for now. I did work in the green transition for a bit, but due to lack of legislative focus and wars ect, it basically killed all funding so the company fired most of us and went into a sort of hibernation mode.
You're completely right. I worked with Hydrogen fuel cells for a while were efficiency could get up to around 90%. Then there was of course also an efficiency factor on the production of Hydrogen. But even with that factored in its a heck of a lot more than ~30%. Had we had to invent the car from scratch today there's no way it would be fossil fueled.
I'm assuming you mean where the flue gas would contain cyanocarbons, NOx and various sulfur compounds? We can do flue gas treatment, and many places do. It has challenges of its own, but is generally a hell of a lot better that just letting it into the air. Basically the general method is that you take a toxic component out of the flue gas and make it into a "safe" solid. For instance SO2 scrubbers make CaSO4 (gypsum) which is too impure to use to building materials but easier to store than gas.
I work with hydrocrackers in my current job, so if I did they would be 400C and 150bar, so if I came into contact with them under those conditions I'd be dead.
I mean pyrolysis is just another word burning it and it is what we do with most plastics that isnt just left to degrade into microplastics. It can be pretty efficient because the "fuel" is so cheap (you often even get paid to take it). But flue gas treatment is expensive. And also not without wasste products of its own. For instance SO2/3 scrubbers make gypsum but its contaminated with all sorts of impurities which cause cancer etc so you cant use it for dry wall plates, so they are deposited.
Once the plastic is made you have already spent a lot of energy making it. But you can still burn it to get some more out of it. But you are correct in thinking that there is sort of an energy balance that has to make sense. And it often doesnt when considering recycling. If it did, we would had done it many years ago.
Yes, but that requires complex thinking and a long term vision from people who either don't want to because its unpopular with shareholders or voters here and now, or people who are getting rich exploiting the current situation.
Well, the cool thing about hydrocarbons is that we are actually extremely good and making any molecule we like. So you can take literally any HC and make its into any other HC given enough reagents and catalysts etc. Its just about scaling it up and paying for it. And if it was a no-brainer it would had been done a hundred years ago.
CCSU (or CCS or just CC.. too many names) plants to exist, but often they are most a media stunt or a message to local law makers saying something along the lines of "look at us, we are soooo new age and safe" sadly even the biggest CCSU plants are a drop in the ocean even compared to the emitters who usually operate them. Another issue is that CCSU plants often spend much more energy than you get from emitting the CO2 it can capture. The energy balance doesn't quite fit.
When burning plastics there are several potential issues. Incomplete burning due to bad combustion conditions, general emissions issues and don't even get me started on plastics which contain Nitrogen or halogens. We often hear about CO2 emissions but there is (at least in developed countries, not including the US here) quite strict emissions legislation in place. Environmental permits for most plants normally don't get updated fast enough (if at all) when knowledge improves.
Erm, sure..? I would not call myself a plastics expert but I'll give it a shot.
Well, any waste that is collected is either burned, recycled (a remarkably small amount) or just deposited in a landfill forever. So just the crude oil being produced (taking fossil carbon to the surface in any form) you have polluted. The only really impactful measure we can influence is to reduce plastic production. Because in one way or the other once fossil carbon is on the surface it ends up in nature at some point (unless we use CCSU, which is also not cost effective atm)
Why fire his lobotomist? I would put him/her to work instead..
While this is of course ridiculous it honestly also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to even have a debt ceiling.. it’s basically an additional stronger version of the filibuster
Perhaps I should correct myself.. I’m a chemical engineer who has worked in either oil and gas or the green transition for over a decade
Petrochemist here; we have always been able to do this.. it’s all a matter of cost. And it’s never cost effective regardless of what that article says..
I mean they should probably not sell them anything but 150k£ is literally nothing
Having worked with functional safety a lot I would be extremely surprised otherwise but it would still be of no surprise to me is Russian equipment was not designed correctly after also having worked with them in the past
I mean if he was in my life I also would be smiling now that he is dead...
i take it thats its some kind of adult toy..?
Over the last week I have been listening to the audiobook of A Promised Land by Barrack Obama. When he was informed he won it, his first reaction was: "For what?" In the book he then lists a few people who in his own mind were more deserving. Just goes to show the difference in humility between 44 and 45..