The Environment Forum now decidedly one sided!!

Why create synthetic gas for fuel when we'll have to use natural gas for fertilizer? ...

Wait ... WHAT !?! ... what are you gasifing if not organic compounds? ... because except for the water, we can burn these organic compounds directly, without wasting energy in these in-between steps ... like plastics or paper if they can't be recycled economically ...

This happened in a community up north of me ... they built a methane gas generator at their landfill, but they also expanded the recycling center and urge folks to start composting at home ... now there's not enough organic garbage to produce any gas ... waste of money ...

Decay is a biological process ... from nano-bacteria up to brown bears ... dead things are almost always eaten by other organisms ... that's because organic carbon is very difficult to create ... why photosynthesis is so super special ... why plants are the superlative evolutionary form ... humans just smell bad is all ...
You've asked a lot of questions.

It's a matter of matching up production to requirements.

Many landfills depend on anerobic digestion to break down waste. They have flares at the landfills that just burn the methane as it comes off. No value whatsoever. You also have it mixed with other stuff (old washing machines and plastics) that won't readily decompose. People also sneak in toxic wastes.

You can only really gasify organic compounds (hydrocarbons and carbohydrates). Paper is a carbohydrate with nitrogen and other compounds mixed in (cellulose might be a better way to think of it).

So if you gasify stuff as it comes in it becomes CO and H2 which can then be converted to hydrocarbons or alcohols. There is some energy loss, but at least you get something out of it. The final product is then usable and is directly usable in transportation vehicles.

You could burn the syngas and create electricity too. Depends on economics.

By doing this you also pull out the non organic and recycle (tin, aluminum, steel, etc). The ash from gasifying is great stuff for gardens too.

Lots of options, but you have to see how it fits into the bigger scheme.
 
You've asked a lot of questions.

It's a matter of matching up production to requirements.

Many landfills depend on anerobic digestion to break down waste. They have flares at the landfills that just burn the methane as it comes off. No value whatsoever. You also have it mixed with other stuff (old washing machines and plastics) that won't readily decompose. People also sneak in toxic wastes.

You can only really gasify organic compounds (hydrocarbons and carbohydrates). Paper is a carbohydrate with nitrogen and other compounds mixed in (cellulose might be a better way to think of it).

So if you gasify stuff as it comes in it becomes CO and H2 which can then be converted to hydrocarbons or alcohols. There is some energy loss, but at least you get something out of it. The final product is then usable and is directly usable in transportation vehicles.

You could burn the syngas and create electricity too. Depends on economics.

By doing this you also pull out the non organic and recycle (tin, aluminum, steel, etc). The ash from gasifying is great stuff for gardens too.

Lots of options, but you have to see how it fits into the bigger scheme.

The bigger picture I'm looking at includes recycling ... we stopped throwing away old washing machines back in the 1980's or so ... they recycle well enough and the copper has become quite valuable ... and compostable waste should be composted for better soil health ... and the bigger picture includes too much waste ... we're running out of landfill space ... ( the ash is full of toxic metals, it needs buried deep ...

"There is some energy loss ..."

Which is why we should burn these materials directly ... produce electrical energy there at the landfill to add to the grid ... every step we take in this process takes energy, every step means less energy at the end ...

It's methane we're generating ... carbon monoxide is unstable in the environment, and I've never heard of much hydrogen gas being produced by landfills ... neither can be converted to hydrocarbons or alcohols without a tremendous input of energy ... that's what photosynthesis does ...
 
Do you think this is a good thing? ...

Scientific method thrives on civil debate ... and it is a confrontational process not unlike courts-of-law ... when Cornell produced a video of the extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker, half the ornithologists in the world said is wasn't, go get more evidence ... Cornell scientists went back to that swamp because, well, science !!! ... no other reason needed ...

If we silence the opposition, then we're no better than the IPCC ... just political hacks ...
The IPCC motto is “death to the deniers”
 
The IPCC motto is “death to the deniers”

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy."

Is that what we want here? ...
 
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy."

Is that what we want here? ...
I want climate “scientists” to post one single scientific experiment
 
Now why would a political organization ever allow dissent ... this would be like Obama speaking at the next Republican Convention ... "not in this universe" ...

There's too many failures in the assumptions the IPCC makes ... they could never withstand scientific scrutiny ... so they have to suppress those who disagree ... it's their job as diplomats ...
True
Yet i'll refer you to the last time Trump stood up to them Reiny ~S~
 
The bigger picture I'm looking at includes recycling ... we stopped throwing away old washing machines back in the 1980's or so ... they recycle well enough and the copper has become quite valuable ... and compostable waste should be composted for better soil health ... and the bigger picture includes too much waste ... we're running out of landfill space ... ( the ash is full of toxic metals, it needs buried deep ...

"There is some energy loss ..."

Which is why we should burn these materials directly ... produce electrical energy there at the landfill to add to the grid ... every step we take in this process takes energy, every step means less energy at the end ...

It's methane we're generating ... carbon monoxide is unstable in the environment, and I've never heard of much hydrogen gas being produced by landfills ... neither can be converted to hydrocarbons or alcohols without a tremendous input of energy ... that's what photosynthesis does ...

When you gasify you break things down under heat. It produces CO and H2, commonly called syn-gas.


Syngas is then used to make a variety of products, including motor fuels.

Here is something from Haldor Topsoe, a large supplier of transportation fuels catalysts.

 
When you gasify you break things down under heat. It produces CO and H2, commonly called syn-gas.


Syngas is then used to make a variety of products, including motor fuels.

Here is something from Haldor Topsoe, a large supplier of transportation fuels catalysts.


From your citation:

"In principle, but rarely in practice, biomass and related hydrocarbon feedstocks could be used to generate biogas and biochar in waste-to-energy gasification facilities.[7] The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas. Generation of conventional syngas (mostly H2 and CO) from waste biomass has been explored."

Further ... the syngas your citation refers to is " ... produced by coal gasification ... " and " ... Syngas has less than half the energy density of natural gas ... "

Neither carbon monoxide or hydrogen gas are products of biology ... and facilities in operation today rely on organic materials and the products of decomposition ... including methane ... which can be burnt to produce electricity for the grid ...

We're better off just burning the coal in coal-fired power plants than fool with syngas replacement for gasoline ... both add carbon dioxide to the air making plants grow more violently ..
 
From your citation:

"In principle, but rarely in practice, biomass and related hydrocarbon feedstocks could be used to generate biogas and biochar in waste-to-energy gasification facilities.[7] The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas. Generation of conventional syngas (mostly H2 and CO) from waste biomass has been explored."

Further ... the syngas your citation refers to is " ... produced by coal gasification ... " and " ... Syngas has less than half the energy density of natural gas ... "

Neither carbon monoxide or hydrogen gas are products of biology ... and facilities in operation today rely on organic materials and the products of decomposition ... including methane ... which can be burnt to produce electricity for the grid ...

We're better off just burning the coal in coal-fired power plants than fool with syngas replacement for gasoline ... both add carbon dioxide to the air making plants grow more violently ..

Syngas is a feedstock, not a product. That is how commercial hydrogen is made.

And I agree it isn't done in to many places. It is not economical.

If you are thinking you just want to burn biomethane, I would suggest that you'll never collect enough for it to make a difference.

Several large municipalities have looked garbage to gasification operations with a Fischer-Tropse on the end.

Did you see the catalyst offerings. Obviously someone is starting to think this will get legs...eventually.
 
Syngas is a feedstock, not a product.

The link you gave us said syngas is a product of coal ...

All the gas production from landfills in my region is for methane ... which in the past was flared off ...

In any event ... it assumes we will continue to be massively wasteful with our food ... [raises eyebrows] ... when we need to be wasting less ...
 
The link you gave us said syngas is a product of coal ...

All the gas production from landfills in my region is for methane ... which in the past was flared off ...

In any event ... it assumes we will continue to be massively wasteful with our food ... [raises eyebrows] ... when we need to be wasting less ...
Syngas is CO and H2.

It can come from anywhere. The water-gas shift reaction is used in the production of H2 and is a big part of ammonia production.

Landfills don't produce enough methane to justify any capital investment. They are not decaying as fast as they are being filled.

I don't know what you mean by massively wasteful with our food.

Syngas can be made from any organic material......plastic is actually a hydrocarbon and could easily be used to make syngas (and then motor fuels).
 
Dang... anybody else noticing?:ack-1:

The last couple of weeks in here, a massive drop off in AGW pom-pom wavers spirit.

Sure as hell appears to me like November 5th crushed the true believers....so obvious.

I warned those meatheads like Abu and Crick et. al. to best butter up leading up to the election.:fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:. Nobody was caring about AGW before and now it's a total train wreck.

The big bumpy has arrived for the climate crusaders...the sceptics reveling in the hot and stingy being endured by these droids....

View attachment 1051078
I guess we won.
 
First....
For any reasonable conversation...

You have to establish that mankind, through the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, is actually destabilizing the environment in a way that is harmful.

Then you have to prove that CO² levels are rising or falling outside of established pattern norms for this planet.

Then if you have proven an increase in CO² you have to provide man made portion vx natural portion of CO². (Prove nature itself is not creating more CO²)

Climate stability is derived from numerous sources and is a highly complicated science. There are no simple solutions or answers for any of it.

Then....
The object of the exercise is to save lives....
People want to live. So....will reducing or stopping hydrocarbon fuels save lives or cost them? The workaround must be viable. So far I'm not aware of any.

Cheap energy is necessary. Not just any energy....Cheap energy.
 
Syngas is CO and H2.

It can come from anywhere. The water-gas shift reaction is used in the production of H2 and is a big part of ammonia production.

Landfills don't produce enough methane to justify any capital investment. They are not decaying as fast as they are being filled.

I don't know what you mean by massively wasteful with our food.

Syngas can be made from any organic material......plastic is actually a hydrocarbon and could easily be used to make syngas (and then motor fuels).

Do you have a citation? ... the reference you provided disputes your claims ...

If you don't know what I mean by wasted food ... then your information is very limited it appears ...

Syngas is made from coal ... period ... here let me throw your link back into your face:


"In principle, but rarely in practice, biomass and related hydrocarbon feedstocks could be used to generate biogas and biochar in waste-to-energy gasification facilities.[7] The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas.

[emphasis mine]
 
Then you have to prove that CO² levels are rising or falling outside of established pattern norms for this planet.

Then if you have proven an increase in CO² you have to provide man made portion vx natural portion of CO². (Prove nature itself is not creating more CO²)


Actually, first they have to proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and the ACTUAL DATA never showed that, which is why they FUDGED it in 2005...



satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.




Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE... which necessitated a CO2 FRAUD FUDGE JOB of that data...
 
Actually, first they have to proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and the ACTUAL DATA never showed that, which is why they FUDGED it in 2005...



satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.




Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE... which necessitated a CO2 FRAUD FUDGE JOB of that data...
It's all very complicated. Rotation of the earth around the Sun is not consistent....there are wobbles in it.
All kinds of factors that no climate model has actually been made to figure out if we actually can do anything to affect the weather except Nuclear holocaust.
 
Actually, first they have to proves that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming, and the ACTUAL DATA never showed that, which is why they FUDGED it in 2005...



satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.




Translation from NBC spin - for more than three decades of rising CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE... which necessitated a CO2 FRAUD FUDGE JOB of that data...

Which satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature? ... here's a list you can choose from ...

 
It's all very complicated. Rotation of the earth around the Sun is not consistent....there are wobbles in it.
All kinds of factors that no climate model has actually been made to figure out if we actually can do anything to affect the weather except Nuclear holocaust.


Try the cause of homO's silence from 2010-2012




Just the OPs will suffice...












 
Back
Top Bottom