Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

[Billy_Bob]

Why are we villainizing Fossil Fuels?

Let's go back to my old stomping grounds in Utah, back in the late 1970's and early 1980's to a place called Dugway Proving Grounds and Tooele Army Depot South Area. Also known as the Chemical Munitions Disposal Site. The US army was actively meeting our Verzi Treaty obligations and destroying all of the US chemical munitions stockpiles. The Science was new and chemical engineers were building scrubbers that would allow us to burn these munitions, capture the carcinogenic particles and keep the surrounding populace safe from a chemical release that could kill millions.

Part of one of my jobs was maintaining "Bubblers". These were chemical detection units around the areas where munitions were stored and or destroyed. We also maintained stack release units. These units measured the particulate matter being emitted from the burn units down to the molecule.

The particulate levels were monitored so closely that even minor deviation shut down systems for repair. We learned how to scrub our outputs from any burn unit to remove 99.9997% of particulate matter. This technology today is used on almost every coal fired plant in the US. Plants in the UK, Australia, and many other first world countries use it to remove the particulate matter from the exhaust stacks of coal and oil-fired plants. It is the reason that we have removed acid rain from our equatorial forests.

This technology is employed on magnesium manufacturing, metal manufacturing, copper manufacturing and many other industries. The US has made so many leaps and bounds in particulate reductions that the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are as clean as nuclear plants in the output of the cooling towers. 99.991% of the emissions from coal fired plants and other scrubbed industries is WATER VAPOR. Long gone are the ash trials and dead foliage from sulfur and other toxins.

If your worried about CO2 emissions, you should not be. The LOG of CO2 shows that the warming we would see from that trace gas alone is but half of the base log. Our atmosphere is acting as a dampener to CO2 emissions. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis indicates should happen. How could we get this so wrong as scientists? Our modeling tells the tale. Every GCM fails empirical evaluation without exception by a factor of no less than 10. Our modeling overestimates the warming by a factor of ten.

So why are we in the US shooting our economy in the head with the Green New Deal? It has no merit and no need to be done, so why are we being forced to go down a road that has no benefit to man or our planet?

As an atmospheric physicist I want to know what it is they are thinking.

For further information:

--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooele_Che...weapons%20.

--> Dugway Proving Ground - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another major emitter and cause of acid rain was Kennecott Copper Corporation in SLC (Magna, Ut). IT was one of the first major emitters to employ scrubbing technologies. The smelting operation went from baron hill sides around the Great Salt Lake to foliage covered and wildlife supporting in the span of 20 years. We have proof positive that this technology works, and it works very well.

Kennecott Garfield Smelter Stack - Wikipedia

I want to know why the Biden Administration is ignoring this technology.

There is no reason for us to be bowing to foreign governments for oil and coal to operate our lives. The CO2 lie has been debunked and it drives nothing in our climate system. SO why are we still going down this self-destructive road? Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every new coal fired plant in the US employed this kind of technology up and until Biden killed their construction. The Green Raw Deal is a boondoggle that is about to implode massively. It is far cheaper to upgrade our current plants than to go totally electric and far more reliable than wind and solar are. The wind stops and solar is susceptible to clouds, dust and changes on our sun. In 2009 we lost 10% of the power that PV arrays were generating due to a shift in solar output. Windmills self-destruct in about 5 years now and we are not making great strides in their reliability. These forms of energy are not long-term fixes due to their unreliability and susceptibility to outside forces.

As it makes no scientific sense to do this it must be a pocket lining money issue.

The US employed these technologies on their own and used Natural Gas to lower the particulates in our air. Why is Biden unilaterally killing these proven technologies without a reliable replacement?

Originally posted Here Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

 

[Polishprince]

I miss the smell of sulfur in the air, coming from the nation's steel and coke facilities.

My old man taught me that was the smell of money being made, so it was always close to my heart.

 

[Donald H]

Another thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.

The science is settled! Nuff said!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another thread by a climate change denialist trolling for attention.

The science is settled! Nuff said!

Very Funny... Science is NEVER SETTLED.. Anyone who believes it is, is not a scientist.
Please feel free to disprove anything that I have posted...

 

[Darkwind]

Very Funny... Science is NEVER SETTLED.. Anyone who believes it is, is not a scientist.
Please feel free to disprove anything that I have posted...

That is a typical reply from someone who cannot defend their beliefs.

 

[Donald H]

Very Funny... Science is NEVER SETTLED.. Anyone who believes it is, is not a scientist.
Please feel free to disprove anything that I have posted...

The CO2 lie has been debunked and it drives nothing in our climate system.

95% or more climate scientists say you're wrong!

It's to be expected that there will always be a small hillbilly minority.

The SCIENCE is SETTLED.

This can only become a worthwhile topic if the emphasis is on discovering the reasons why the denialists persist.
A good place to start is to do a search for the motives of the denialists who claim to be experts in the field.

 

[Donald H]

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

Even the bad guys are starting to accept responsibility for being the bad guys now!

Surprising discoveries​

At an old gunpowder factory in Delaware – now a museum and archive – I found a transcript of a petroleum conference from 1959 called the “Energy and Man” symposium, held at Columbia University in New York. As I flipped through, I saw a speech from a famous scientist, Edward Teller (who helped invent the hydrogen bomb), warning the industry executives and others assembled of global warming.

“Whenever you burn conventional fuel,” Teller explained, “you create carbon dioxide. … Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.” If the world kept using fossil fuels, the ice caps would begin to melt, raising sea levels. Eventually, “all the coastal cities would be covered,” he warned.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“Whenever you burn conventional fuel,” Teller explained, “you create carbon dioxide. … Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.” If the world kept using fossil fuels, the ice caps would begin to melt, raising sea levels. Eventually, “all the coastal cities would be covered,” he warned.

That's awful!!!

What's your solution?

 

[Billy_Bob]

95% or more climate scientists say you're wrong!

It's to be expected that there will always be a small hillbilly minority.

The SCIENCE is SETTLED.

This can only become a worthwhile topic if the emphasis is on discovering the reasons why the denialists persist.
A good place to start is to do a search for the motives of the denialists who claim to be experts in the field.

I believe there is a paper out on this lie you people keep spewing... Legates Et Al...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

Even the bad guys are starting to accept responsibility for being the bad guys now!

Surprising discoveries​

At an old gunpowder factory in Delaware – now a museum and archive – I found a transcript of a petroleum conference from 1959 called the “Energy and Man” symposium, held at Columbia University in New York. As I flipped through, I saw a speech from a famous scientist, Edward Teller (who helped invent the hydrogen bomb), warning the industry executives and others assembled of global warming.

“Whenever you burn conventional fuel,” Teller explained, “you create carbon dioxide. … Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect.” If the world kept using fossil fuels, the ice caps would begin to melt, raising sea levels. Eventually, “all the coastal cities would be covered,” he warned.

Well let's take a look at the roll CO2 palys in our atmosphere...

I was debating a Tony Heller article in another forum, and it highlighted why CO2 drives nothing and is irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic | Cowboy State Daily

Anthony is not known for being either "all in" or "all out" in regard to CAGW. Anthony is a very smart man and one I would consider a friend. He, like me, is a realist. So, let's do a realist point of view on CO2.

The CO2 effect is less than half of the expected log warming. This means the atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. This means the Climate Sensitivity equation is roughly 0.3 to 1 (observed rise in temp vs expected rise from CO2 alone). We expected 1.8-2.1 deg C from CO2 alone and we have seen just 0.6 deg C.

The atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. When we add in the natural variation components, it drops to less than 0.07/1. This places it in the Margin of Error and insignificance. Dr Heller is correct, CO2's influence is near zero and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

We should be focusing on particulates and getting them out of our emissions not CO2, as it is incapable of driving anything.

Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.

When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2. When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied. One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.

When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.

---

The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)

To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.

The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.

.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07. This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.

Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.
The end result is 0.024/1. This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.

0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C. When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.

CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is. This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.

Originally posted here: CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

Why are we villainizing Fossil Fuels?

Let's go back to my old stomping grounds in Utah, back in the late 1970's and early 1980's to a place called Dugway Proving Grounds and Tooele Army Depot South Area. Also known as the Chemical Munitions Disposal Site. The US army was actively meeting our Verzi Treaty obligations and destroying all of the US chemical munitions stockpiles. The Science was new and chemical engineers were building scrubbers that would allow us to burn these munitions, capture the carcinogenic particles and keep the surrounding populace safe from a chemical release that could kill millions.

Part of one of my jobs was maintaining "Bubblers". These were chemical detection units around the areas where munitions were stored and or destroyed. We also maintained stack release units. These units measured the particulate matter being emitted from the burn units down to the molecule.

The particulate levels were monitored so closely that even minor deviation shut down systems for repair. We learned how to scrub our outputs from any burn unit to remove 99.9997% of particulate matter. This technology today is used on almost every coal fired plant in the US. Plants in the UK, Australia, and many other first world countries use it to remove the particulate matter from the exhaust stacks of coal and oil-fired plants. It is the reason that we have removed acid rain from our equatorial forests.

Acid rain is not produced by particulates but by sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, both gases. Wet scrubbers use fine mists of water or other chemicals to remove particulates, mists and soluble gases and so have helped reduce acid rain. Sulfur dioixide is removed with a mist/spray of a limestone slurry while nitrous oxide requires a multi-stage scrubber utilizing multiple chemicals.

This technology is employed on magnesium manufacturing, metal manufacturing, copper manufacturing and many other industries. The US has made so many leaps and bounds in particulate reductions that the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are as clean as nuclear plants in the output of the cooling towers. 99.991% of the emissions from coal fired plants and other scrubbed industries is WATER VAPOR. Long gone are the ash trials and dead foliage from sulfur and other toxins.

CO2 scrubbing, whether using monoethanolamine (MEA, which is used on submarines) or aqueous ammonia, removes 80-90 percent of the original CO2 in flue gases. Since that level started at roughly 15% of the flue gas volume, the final exhaust is still 1.5 to 3% CO2 (15,000 to 30,000 ppm). The claim that scrubbed oil, gas and coal exhaust is as clean as the output of a nuclear plant's cooling towers is beyond hyperbole; it's simply pure bullshit.

If your worried about CO2 emissions, you should not be. The LOG of CO2 shows that the warming we would see from that trace gas alone is but half of the base log. Our atmosphere is acting as a dampener to CO2 emissions. The exact opposite of the AGW hypothesis indicates should happen. How could we get this so wrong as scientists? Our modeling tells the tale. Every GCM fails empirical evaluation without exception by a factor of no less than 10. Our modeling overestimates the warming by a factor of ten.

The logarithmic argument is well debunked but it is unsurprising you would try to use it. It fails for several reasons: 1) The actual deviation between the current CO2/temperature relationship and a linear relationship is small - at the lower levels that existed on Earth for the past million years or so, the effect was rather dramatic and variations of 100 ppm along with Milankovitch cycles was able to create and eliminate ice ages. The effect today is less but still positive: increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. 2) Human GHG emissions are still increasing at an exponential rate - the rate of level increase makes up for the logarithmic reduction in CO2's impact. 3) Carbon sinks currently absorb roughly half our GHG emissions but there are good reasons to conclude that will not continue. 4) Due to its multi-century lifespan, CO2 in the atmopshere is cumulative. Human emisssions rise and fall, but even if they were to fall dramatically, atmospheric levels would continue to increase because the stuff just isn't going anywhere for a very long while. 5) Time-delayed warming processes, such as the warming of the oceans and the loss of albedo from snow and ice melting will continue long after CO2 emissions have ceased and even after temperatures have stopped increasing. The atmosphere is warming much more quickly than are the seas but as they catch up, there will be more ice loss, increased humidity which will both continue to increase atmospheric temperatures.

So why are we in the US shooting our economy in the head with the Green New Deal?

We are not.

It has no merit and no need to be done

Both incorrect.

so why are we being forced to go down a road that has no benefit to man or our planet?

Forced? Last time I checked, DESPITE the efforts of Donald J Trump to illegally seize power, we are still a democracy. If you don't like the way we're headed, vote.

As an atmospheric physicist I want to know what it is they are thinking.

As a blatant liar, you don't deserve to know

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 scrubbing, whether using monoethanolamine (MEA, which is used on submarines) or aqueous ammonia, removes 80-90 percent of the original CO2 in flue gases. Since that level started at roughly 15% of the flue gas volume, the final exhaust is still 1.5 to 3% CO2 (15,000 to 30,000 ppm). The claim that scrubbed oil, gas and coal exhaust is as clean as the output of a nuclear plant's cooling towers is beyond hyperbole; it's simply pure bullshit.

The claim that CO2 makes exhaust "dirty" is bullshit.

 

[Crick]

The claim that CO2 makes exhaust "dirty" is bullshit.

You have quotes around the word dirty yet I never used it. Who are you quoting Todd? And if you think the statement of mine you did paste in there is bullshit, I'd like an explanation as to why.

 

[ding]

You have quotes around the word dirty yet I never used it. Who are you quoting Todd? And if you think the statement of mine you did paste in there is bullshit, I'd like an explanation as to why.

It's used for emphasis. You do believe CO2 is a pollutant, right? Do you consider pollutants to be "clean" or "dirty?"

 

[Crick]

Todd, you have quotes around the word dirty yet I never used it. Who are you quoting, Todd? And if you think the statement of mine you did paste in there is bullshit, I'd like an explanation as to why.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Acid rain is not produced by particulates but by sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, both gases. Wet scrubbers use fine mists of water or other chemicals to remove particulates, mists and soluble gases and so have helped reduce acid rain. Sulfur dioixide is removed with a mist/spray of a limestone slurry while nitrous oxide requires a multi-stage scrubber utilizing multiple chemicals.

CO2 scrubbing, whether using monoethanolamine (MEA, which is used on submarines) or aqueous ammonia, removes 80-90 percent of the original CO2 in flue gases. Since that level started at roughly 15% of the flue gas volume, the final exhaust is still 1.5 to 3% CO2 (15,000 to 30,000 ppm). The claim that scrubbed oil, gas and coal exhaust is as clean as the output of a nuclear plant's cooling towers is beyond hyperbole; it's simply pure bullshit.

The logarithmic argument is well debunked but it is unsurprising you would try to use it. It fails for several reasons: 1) The actual deviation between the current CO2/temperature relationship and a linear relationship is small - at the lower levels that existed on Earth for the past million years or so, the effect was rather dramatic and variations of 100 ppm along with Milankovitch cycles was able to create and eliminate ice ages. The effect today is less but still positive: increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. 2) Human GHG emissions are still increasing at an exponential rate - the rate of level increase makes up for the logarithmic reduction in CO2's impact. 3) Carbon sinks currently absorb roughly half our GHG emissions but there are good reasons to conclude that will not continue. 4) Due to its multi-century lifespan, CO2 in the atmopshere is cumulative. Human emisssions rise and fall, but even if they were to fall dramatically, atmospheric levels would continue to increase because the stuff just isn't going anywhere for a very long while. 5) Time-delayed warming processes, such as the warming of the oceans and the loss of albedo from snow and ice melting will continue long after CO2 emissions have ceased and even after temperatures have stopped increasing. The atmosphere is warming much more quickly than are the seas but as they catch up, there will be more ice loss, increased humidity which will both continue to increase atmospheric temperatures.

We are not.

Both incorrect.

Forced? Last time I checked, DESPITE the efforts of Donald J Trump to illegally seize power, we are still a democracy. If you don't like the way we're headed, vote.

As a blatant liar, you don't deserve to know

SO much you think you know, but do not.

These plants at TAD-CMDS removed everything. had they not, they would have triggered alarms and shut down total systems. This tech is very good at removing all harmful particulates.

Everything you just posted is fantasy Crick. CO2 is not a pollutant... get over yourself.
I even posted an example of how they clean up stack emissions. Yet you bloviate on...Empirical evidence is lacking proving your point of view.

 

[Crick]

SO much you think you know, but do not.

These plants at TAD-CMDS removed everything. had they not, they would have triggered alarms and shut down total systems. This tech is very good at removing all harmful particulates.

Everything you just posted is fantasy Crick. CO2 is not a pollutant... get over yourself.

I knew diddly-squat about scrubbers before reading your post. Everything I put in there (and then some) I picked up from 5 minute's reading. I did already know that acid rain was produced by sulfur and nitrous oxides, not particulates but what scrubbers removed and how they did it was all new to me. Initally, my only point was that acid rain was not solved by the scrubbing of particulates from exhaust gases. Part of the problem is that the systems you claim you were working are absolutely trivial when compared to the volume of gases being produced by the energy industry. There was no reason for you to have learned anything about acid rain. YOU didn't solve acid rain. You were likely working for a maintenance contractor cleaning filters, the most labor-intensive part of any scrubbing operation.

Nothing I posted is fantasy. CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and its emission needs to be reduced and stopped if possible. I don't give two shits whether or not you want to call it a pollutant.

 

[ding]

I knew diddly-squat about scrubbers before reading your post. Everything I put in there (and then some) I picked up from 5 minute's reading. I did already know that acid rain was produced by sulfur and nitrous oxides, not particulates but what scrubbers removed and how they did it was all new to me. Initally, my only point was that acid rain was not solved by the scrubbing of particulates from exhaust gases. Part of the problem is that the systems you claim you were working are absolutely trivial when compared to the volume of gases being produced by the energy industry. There was no reason for you to have learned anything about acid rain. YOU didn't solve acid rain. You were likely working for a maintenance contractor cleaning filters, the most labor-intensive part of any scrubbing operation.

Nothing I posted is fantasy. CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and its emission needs to be reduced and stopped if possible. I don't give two shits whether or not you want to call it a pollutant.

Says the guy who admittedly learned everything he knows about scrubbers in 5 minutes. My God! You must be an expert!