Pruitt is out at EPA

As a sports fisherman toxic algal blooms is an issue I’m concerned about but good luck with that one. Not unless you can come up with a cheap and safe replacement for phosphate fertilizer and the ability to convince stubborn farmers to change their practices.

I like rainbow trout the best...you strike me as a bass fisherman?

Right, humanity would starve to death without chemical fertilizers. Without fertilizers, I think the planet could only sustain a few hundred million people at best - not six billion.

Alum treatment in lakes, really does help reduce the frequency and intensity of cyanobacteria blooms. Not that you can ever totally get rid of blue-green algae, aka cyanobacteria; it has been around for over three billion years, and man is not going to win any war with it.

The real problem is the coastal eutrophication. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a problem of fertilizer pollution that will take decades - at best - to resolve. If we even can. The size and scope of the dead zone in GOM is actually a little frightening, and I suspect similar conditions of hypoxia and eutrophication are increasingly getting worse in coastal waters around the world....particularly as it is exacerbated by climate change and a warming planet.
 
I like rainbow trout the best...you strike me as a bass fisherman?

Right, humanity would starve to death without chemical fertilizers. Without fertilizers, I think the planet could only sustain a few hundred million people at best - not six billion.

Alum treatment in lakes, really does help reduce the frequency and intensity of cyanobacteria blooms. Not that you can ever totally get rid of blue-green algae, aka cyanobacteria; it has been around for over three billion years, and man is not going to win any war with it.

The real problem is the coastal eutrophication. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a problem of fertilizer pollution that will take decades - at best - to resolve. If we even can. The size and scope of the dead zone in GOM is actually a little frightening, and I suspect similar conditions of hypoxia and eutrophication are increasingly getting worse in coastal waters around the world....particularly as it is exacerbated by climate change and a warming planet.

I’m pretty much a whatever is hitting fisherman so in Central Ohio I’m pretty much relegated to bass, catfish, panfish and the occasional Walleye or Pike. I’ve been trout fishing a few times and was ambivalent about rainbow trout, Brown trout are fun but I’ve never caught any lake trout.

Fishing pressure here is so big on most public waters that unless you own a boat you’re pretty much relegated to catfish.

But back to Cyanobacteria runoff prevention is a sound method of minimizing the problem but getting farmers to cooperate by sacrificing a certain amount of land near wetland drainage points is a hard sell.
 
UCG produces syngas which can be used to make very high grade diesel, using the Fischer-Tropsch process, and hydrogen which can be used to produce electricity via alkaline fuel cells or even to provide fuel for hydrogen powered transport.

I find just a tad odd that you can tell me, as you've done many times, that renewables are getting more sophisticated, yet can't imagine scenarios where clean coal technology can't do the same. Coal generates 40% of the world's electricity and 30% of US electricity generation. In fact, without coal last winter, the North East would have suffered widespread blackouts due to the shortage of natural gas and renewables. Asia, and especially Japan and Korea, are leading the way and will do for the forseeable future.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judecl...d-states-as-a-clean-coal-leader/#fec7c911c38d

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/UCG.html
What I don’t understand about your arguments Tom is your overt bias towards coal and petroleum over the best available cost affective technology the market can provide.

You rail against environmental standards, regulation and compliance but the same air pollution control technology used in coal power generation are the same technologies used in clean coal processes which is putting you belief in clean coal at odds with emissions compliance plus your unwillingness to even recognize the environmental impact of the extraction process or the massive solid waste issue from combustion of coal.

Where as my advocacy is for the utilization of the most cost effective, least wasteful, and lest harmful to public health and in many regions of the US it simply isn’t coal.
 
What I don’t understand about your arguments Tom is your overt bias towards coal and petroleum over the best available cost affective technology the market can provide.

You rail against environmental standards, regulation and compliance but the same air pollution control technology used in coal power generation are the same technologies used in clean coal processes which is putting you belief in clean coal at odds with emissions compliance plus your unwillingness to even recognize the environmental impact of the extraction process or the massive solid waste issue from combustion of coal.

Where as my advocacy is for the utilization of the most cost effective, least wasteful, and lest harmful to public health and in many regions of the US it simply isn’t coal.

I truly give up with you at times. You only ever seem to see what you want to see and disregard the rest (thanks Simon and Garfunkel)!! I started a thread recently about ThorCon but no doubt you were out to lunch!! This technology looks incredibly promising and it just over the horizon.

I am a big fan of fracking and support the UK government in their efforts to fight the loonys over here that oppose it. I am not against regulation, where did you get that crazy idea? However it should be regulation based on sound data not political pressure from the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. I support wholeheartedly the move to ensure that the EPA justifies all its decisions openly and not decide expensive new regulations based on studies and data that they refuse to publish as they often did in the Obama era.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?98135-ThorCon-Molten-Salt-Fission-Power-Plant&p=2448444#post2448444

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...cott-pruitts-secret-science-reforms-heres-why

http://euanmearns.com/thorcon-molten-salt-fission-power-plant/#more-22249
 
Last edited:
No, no fracking offshore in any areas I worked.
As you probably know, those deep water reservoirs are basically unconsolidated sand.
My petroleum engineer buddies were fracking tight gas formations in east Texas, and had been doing so for ages.

those deep water reservoirs are basically unconsolidated sand. ????

Not limestone?
 
Yup, lpg has taken a big bite out coals market. Toms arguments, particularly for clean coal, an oxymoron if there ever was one, is silly because clean coal technology requires a large investment in air pollution control equipment to meet ambient air quality standards nor does it do anything to address the environmental problems associated with coal extraction.

The development of coal washing techniques and oxy-fuel burners greatly reduces emissions as does coal gasification but it’s not as efficient as lpg. A number of new power plants have tried implementing coal gasification but afte huge cost over runs in the billions switched over to lpg.

Having said that the US is the worlds leader in exporting clean coal technologies to parts of the world that are not blessed with our vast lpg resources.

Even with these new technologies to reduce coals combustion emissions so called clean coal, which is really greenwashing PR talk, as even so called clean coal produces substantial amounts of HAP’s (hazard air pollutants) that require post combustion treatment to meet emissions standards and again clean coal technologies doesn’t address environmental concerns related to extraction.

So coal has just simply lost ground to lpg domestically due to lpg being cleaner and more cost affective.

Cleaner and more cost effective for sure....
 
It seems like fracking has been around forever, and I never cease to amaze at the perception that it is some new-fangled technology.

I am not opposed in the least to fracking.

As an engineering method, it always has to considered on a case by case basis, aka, risk to shallow aquifers and drinking water supplies, et al.

The risk assessment is where the real action is in fracking. Not the technology itself, which is a perfectly valid and useful technology for some types of petroleum reservoirs.
The only problem I have with it is the amount of water it requires and the competition with farmers for that water. I believe Colorado, California and other areas suffering from drought face this dilemma.

The earthquakes in OK are also a concern.
 
The only problem I have with it is the amount of water it requires and the competition with farmers for that water. I believe Colorado, California and other areas suffering from drought face this dilemma.

The earthquakes in OK are also a concern.

Those are good points, and I had forgotten about the concern about the quantity of water used.
 
those deep water reservoirs are basically unconsolidated sand. ????

Not limestone?

Yes, in every area I worked in, thought I cannot say it is universally true.

West Africa, Brazil, deep water Gulf of Mexico....all sand deposits of submarine fan origin.
 
Those are good points, and I had forgotten about the concern about the quantity of water used.

waterless fracking companies, waterless fracking technology
Waterless fracturing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterless_fracturing
Waterless fracturing is an alternative to hydraulic fracturing in which liquefied petroleum ... If we compare conventional fracking and fracking using propane gel, ...

New Waterless Fracking Method Avoids Pollution Problems, But ...
insideclimatenews.org/news/20111104/gasfrac...
Little-noticed drilling technique uses propane gel, not water, to release natural gas. Higher cost, lack of data and industry habit stand in the way.
 
LOL That’s another argument!

Ever heard of Thorcon?

homepage_20150208.jpg


[h=2]Safe[/h]
ThorCon is a simple molten salt reactor. Unlike all current reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. If the reactor overheats for whatever reason, ThorCon will automatically shut itself down, drain the fuel from the primary loop, and passively handle the decay heat. There is no need for any operator intervention. In fact there is nothing the operators can do to prevent the drain and cooling. ThorCon is walkaway safe.
The ThorCon reactor is 30 m underground. ThorCon has three gas tight barriers between the fuelsalt and the atmosphere. Two of these barriers are more than 25 m underground. Unlike nearly all current reactors, ThorCon operates at near-ambient pressure. In the event of a primary loop rupture, there is no dispersal energy and no phase change. The spilled fuel merely flows to a drain tank where it is cooled. The most troublesome fission products, including strontium-90 and cesium-137, are chemically bound to the salt. They will end up in the drain tank as well.
[h=2]No New Technology[/h]
ThorCon is all about NOW. ThorCon requires no new technology. ThorCon is a straightforward scale-up of the successful Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). The MSRE is ThorCon’s pilot plant. There is no technical reason why a full-scale 250 MWe prototype cannot be operating within four years. The intention is to subject this prototype to all the failures and problems that the designers claim the plant can handle. This is the commercial aircraft model, not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission model. As soon as the prototype passes these tests, full-scale production can begin.
[h=2]Rapidly Deployable[/h]
The entire ThorCon plant including the building is manufactured in blocks on a shipyard-like assembly line. These 150 to 500 ton, fully outfitted, pre-tested blocks are barged to the site. A 1 GWe ThorCon will require less than 200 blocks. Site work is limited to excavation and erecting the blocks. This produces order of magnitude improvements in productivity, quality control, and build time. ThorCon is much more than a power plant; it is a system for building power plants. A single large reactor yard can turn out one hundred 1 GWe ThorCons per year.
[h=2]Fixable[/h]
No complex repairs are attempted on site. Everything in the nuclear island except the building itself is replaceable with little or no interruption in power output. Rather than attempt to build components that last 40 or more years in an extremely harsh environment with nil maintenance, ThorCon is designed to have all key parts regularly replaced. Every four years the entire primary loop is changed out, returned to a centralized recycling facility, decontaminated, disassembled, inspected, and refurbished. Incipient problems are caught before they can turn into casualties. Major upgrades can be introduced without significantly disrupting power generation. Such renewable plants can operate indefinitely; but, if a ThorCon is decommissioned, the process is little more than pulling out but not replacing all the replacable parts.
[h=2]Cheaper than Coal[/h] ThorCon requires less resources than a coal plant. Assuming efficient, evidence based regulation, ThorCon can produce reliable, carbon free, electricity at between 3 and 5 cents per kWh depending on scale.



http://thorconpower.com/
 
Back
Top