🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 04:38:58 UTC No. 16563224
Coal is carbon in a solid form, and smoke is carbon in a gaseous form. When coal is burned, smoke (carbon) is generated, and when carbon is subjected to lots of pressure it forms coal. When smoke is generated in a contained environment it cannot escape from, pressure in that environment becomes very high, so, therefore, if a piece of coal were ignited in a sealed container and allowed to burn until the container was filled with smoke, when the pressure became great enough the smoke would turn back into coal, which could be ignited again and then the process could be repeated, as many times as desired, meaning it could produce unlimited energy while generating zero harmful emissions (because the smoke would never go anywhere.) Scientists have been researching ways of increasing energy efficiency and decreasing energy generation's emissions levels for decades now and never realised this was possible. Pathetic.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 04:45:36 UTC No. 16563226
>>16563224
>cirno pic
>retarded text
yeah, spot on
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:01:04 UTC No. 16563615
>>16563224
The prblem is if it's sealed there's no way to observe the combustion and without observation it just stays in superbposition forever and doesn't release its energy.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 17:57:30 UTC No. 16563739
>>16563224
Combustion is generally not a reversible process. If it was in a sealed container, the combustion would stop once the oxygen in the surrounding air was depleted, and if there was enough air in the box to burn the coal to completion, there definitely wouldn't be enough pressure to reform the coal. Additionally, the chemical structure of coal is in a higher energy state than combustion byproducts (obviously, otherwise it wouldn't release energy when it burned), and requires energy in order to form from those byproducts, this means that if there were any energy lost from the system you described, less coal would reform than what you started with, and you would need to take out energy in order to use the burning coal to power anything.
TL;DR: You are retarded, OP. You don't understand chemistry or thermodynamics, and the people designing power plants do.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:01:15 UTC No. 16563748
Coal is almost pure carbon
They take it out of the ground
They burn it thus releasing CO2 and getting energy for _needs_
They complain CO2 is in air so must capture it
Making same almost pure carbon from CO2 requires at least the energy you got out of it in the first place
Trying to make carbon capture make economic sense is pure trolling at this point. It's a shameless "Fuck You".
Just buy 1 tonne of coal from your local mine and bury it. It's cheaper than capturing it for fucks sake. Makes more economic sense.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:14:48 UTC No. 16563770
>>16563748
>>16563615
>>16563224
You want to use biochar. Feed it to your livestock or put it in your compost and then apply it to agricultural soil for the best results. It reduces the methane and nitrous oxide produced by the microbes in gut flora and compost piles which mitigates powerful greenhouse gasse. There's not enough land in earth to sequester all of our emissions with biomass or biochar, but every bit helps.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:20:41 UTC No. 16563781
>>16563770
It's a fucking scam anon. It's like paying for gas then paying to get all of that gas back. You shouldn't have used it in the first place for fucks sake. That's the cheapest option. It doesn't make logical sense, it's crazyland. How do you not understand it.
It's like taking 100$ from someone and then asking others for 100$ (at least) to cover your debt. Shouldn't have taken the money in the first place. Having mines take out coal and trying to capture it back is a fucking scam. How is this something hard to comprehend?
The only way this makes sense is close ALL of the mines and THEN start capturing the carbon. If there are mines which sell coal no matter what just buy coal and bury it. At the end you buried more coal than you would if you captured it for the same money. It's a scam, you end up paying coal mines not to take it out of the ground just because they can.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:27:04 UTC No. 16563787
>>16563748
Or, you know, you could just fucking grow plants amd algae because that's how the coal and oil got there in the first fukken place
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:30:03 UTC No. 16563792
>>16563770
>he believes in the cow fart greenhouse gases meme
You do know that those gases came from fucking living plants on the Earth's surface and that those materials will then be gathered by more plants and then the whole cycle starts over again, right?
I'm not eating ze bugs, fuck you
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:31:28 UTC No. 16563795
>>16563787
When those die they release what they capture. They rot. The activity consumes their carbon and makes it CO2 again. They're temporary.
The only way to "carbon capture" is to close the mines. If not whoever can get it out makes you pay for not taking it out.
If they take it out, convert it to CO2, you must now pay at least the energetic cost they got out of it + extra because you never have 100% efficiency in energy conversions. And the resources you pay with to capture that carbon are fueled by carbon. It's stupid psychotic game of politics lol.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:35:26 UTC No. 16563798
>>16563792
>>16563795
and when fossil was created there were no microorganisms that rotted them. there's a period between when they first appeared and when organisms specialized on them when plant life died but did not rot, thus keeping carbon inside. those got buried and we take it out now releasing what microorganisms would back then if they were around.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:37:30 UTC No. 16563804
>>16563792
>I'm not eating ze bugs, fuck you
don't care not my problem. I'm only telling you what's up with carbon capture, it's a pure scam. you end up paying for someone else's energy. they get the energy for absolutely free because everyone else pays to reverse the process. lol.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:39:36 UTC No. 16563805
>>16563795
>grass captures greenhpuose gases to grow
>cut grass
>bury it in a hole somewhere
>???
>PROFIT
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 18:47:03 UTC No. 16563816
>>16563805
>cut grass
>bury it in a hole somewhere
>PROFIT
no you don't profit that's the scam. there is no profit for you lol. you invest in cutting the grass, in burying it. that is not profit, that is work you are doing because they can get it out of the ground.
again, it's simple logic. you find 1000kWh, free for the taking. you use it up. now you ask everybody else to come up with 1000kWh so you can put it back. everybody pays for your energy when you put it back.
if they pay with carbon fueled energy then you do not put back 1000kWh, you put less. if you use clean energy to pay it back, congrats, you just wasted time collecting clean energy and offering it for free to whoever can take coal out of the ground.
people just don't fucking get it. science doesn't care about human bullshit.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 19:00:05 UTC No. 16563836
People keep missing the point.
They can take coal out of the ground to leverage it as power. You cannot stop them, and they do it. Them being able to get carbon out of ground empowers them. Again, you cannot stop them from doing it. They are doing it by force, and use that coal to exert their force.
Then, they tell you there is a big problem. Them doing that makes things bad, and if you don't want everyone to die, you need to reverse THEIR damage.
Now, since you are fucking powerless, you cannot force them NOT do that. You just can't, you have to eat it up. But there are clear implications, you better start working to make air right or there will be consequences. And no, you cannot tell them they have to stop.
Now, your only choice is to start working to reverse their damage, under the threat of consequences, and when you are done, and you add things up, they made you pay for the energy they used. From their perspective the carbon they used is back from where they took it from, air is clean again, and you all paid for their energy. Just because they can and you can't do anything about it.
This is the coal&carbon capture story. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:45:28 UTC No. 16564120
>>16563770
You don't get a lot of biochar from efficient burning of coal, you get mostly CO2. Like the other anons said, if you are going to "sequester" biochar by using it for agricultural purposes, it is going to return to the air as CO2 anyway and you didn't even get to use the energy for power production.
>>16563795
>The only way to "carbon capture" is to close the mines.
>>16563836
> From their perspective the carbon they used is back from where they took it from, air is clean again, and you all paid for their energy.
This maybe applies if you are sequestering something equivalent to coal like biochar but does not apply to capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide like any practical system would. If you sequester the CO2 geologically, you got the energy from turning coal and O2 into CO2, and you are not turning it all back into coal, just moving it into the ground to be turned into carbonate minerals by the heat and pressure of that rock, which does not cost all the energy you got from burning the coal. Still, the capture of CO2 requires ongoing and capital costs for the industries emitting it, so they are not the ones arguing for its implementation, except as a way to save their industry from being replaced by cleaner alternatives.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:49:57 UTC No. 16564127
>>16563224
Cirno my cute frosty wife
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:50:12 UTC No. 16564128
>>16564120
Carbon capture is using machines to get it out of the air. Even if you had it all together it would still cost you at least whatever was released + some extra losses. IF you had all the CO2 that was released from random_quantity gathered up. It being dispersed will make you spend even more energy on recapturing it.
It's silly anon. The only way carbon makes any sense is either during major emergencies/catastrophe either as a means to bootstrap clean energy. You use carbon to build your clean energy infrastructure then pay that later. That makes sense sure.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:52:34 UTC No. 16564130
>>16564128
Carbon capture isn't getting it out of "the air", it's getting it out of the flue gasses at the factory or power plant, which can be done a lot more efficiently. Nobody is seriously proposing to take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:55:00 UTC No. 16564133
>>16564130
Where do you get the energy to capture it from?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:56:15 UTC No. 16564136
>>16564133
From burning the coal. You still keep most of the energy because you aren't turning it back into coal, just moving the CO2 around.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:00:34 UTC No. 16564143
>>16564136
So you're passing the puck to later suckers which will have to deal with it. How are they capturing the CO2? In what material? How much of it is available? How much does harvesting it, capturing CO2 with it and storing it cost? Why won't it release later? How are you making sure? Isn't it the same story as with radioactive waste?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 Jan 2025 22:09:14 UTC No. 16564162
>>16564143
I'm not an expert so I can't answer all the questions but I will answer those I know.
>So you're passing the puck to later suckers which will have to deal with it.
Carbon capture is done locally directly on the exhaust produced by the emitter, so they will be the ones paying for it, unless it's subsidized or something.
>How are they capturing the CO2? In what material?
I don't know much but wikipedia says this is typical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine
>How much of it is available?
Amines are mainly synthesized from ammonia and other easily obtainable chemicals I think, and also the capture process regenerates most of the amine so you aren't consuming it disposably.
>How much does harvesting it, capturing CO2 with it and storing it cost?
I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo
>Why won't it release later?
If sequestered geologically, it will get turned into carbonate rock by the pressure.
>How are you making sure?
I don't know, I suppose you would have sensors around the sequestration facility or something.
>Isn't it the same story as with radioactive waste?
The CO2 in the ground doesn't require as much protection as nuclear waste, and the aboveground facilities are only needed to do the actual sequestration.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:24:53 UTC No. 16564944
>>16563781
It's never too soon to start sequestering carbon and the improvements to your soil are worth the cost.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:28:12 UTC No. 16564951
>>16563792
That's irrelevant. You understand that methane is 60 times more powerful than CO2 and nitrous oxide is 275 times more powerful, right? The fact that there's the same number of carbon atoms doesn't mean that every substance behaves exactly the same way which is why carbon dioxide equivalent isn't calculated just by counting carbon atoms.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:31:04 UTC No. 16564953
>>16564120
>efficient burning of coal
Are you stupid? You don't get any. Biochar is lump charcoal. It's wood heated in the absence of oxygen in a process called pyrolysis. Depending on the wood you use and how you've tuned your process you can yield around 1/3 of the mass as charcoal. Coal has nothing to do with it.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 15:32:04 UTC No. 16564955
>>16564143
They put it in bottles and sell it.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 16:44:43 UTC No. 16565079
>>16564953
Ok sorry. But in theory you could collect the soot from burning coal and use it like biochar
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 16:51:01 UTC No. 16565095
>>16564953
>Coal has nothing to do with it.
you can do the same shit to coal and activate it no?
>>16565079
bro what just make your own
https://youtu.be/nGMAErpQOS4
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:24:14 UTC No. 16565151
>>16565095
No. Activating coal just means that you change the structure which is energy intensive. Coal is already removed from the carbon cycle so digging it up and burying it somewhere else doesn't do anything. Biochar is made from plants which get their carbon from the atmosphere. Because the structures of biochar and activated coal are different they do not have the same effect in soil so you shouldn't apply any form of coal to soil in place of biochar.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:26:17 UTC No. 16565152
>>16565079
No. Biochar gets it's structure and properties from the structure of the wood. Carbon residue isn't the same and doesn't confer the same benefits to livestock, compost, or soil.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 18:34:55 UTC No. 16565226
>>16565151
activating is removing volatiles exposing cavities which in turn trap shit, bacteria/filtering purposes whatever. you can do it to everything carbon based. plants, insects. you could also capture the volatiles and use them as some kind of fuel.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:17:54 UTC No. 16565725
>>16565226
No. You're thinking of activated charcoal. Coal cannot be used for filtration, activated or not.
Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 01:48:16 UTC No. 16565743
>>16565725
indeed. ESL thing but yeah the whole thing are the cavities which are formed in plants. whatever was in coal is long gone. never knew there's coal and charcoal