General Discussions:
Green Talk
Kids Eco Corner
Spam-Carbon Footprint
Natural Skin Care
Transportation:
Eco Roadside Assistance
Biodiesel/Clean Diesel
Carbon Offsets
Electric Bicycles
Electric Vehicles
Fuel Cell & Concept Vehicles
Hybrid Vehicles
Public Transportation
Clean Power Alternatives:
Batteries & Storage Devices
Geothermal & Ground Source Power
Hydro-Electric
Solar Power
Wind Power
Green Events:
Eco Chic Events
Green Hollywood
Garage:
Hazardous Material Storage/Disposal
Garden & Yard:
Green Garden & Yard
Compost
Recycling
Household:
Green Building
Energy Efficient Homes
Food
Green Furniture
Retrofitting Older Homes
Stop Your Junk Mail
Want Us to Add a Forum?
click here
Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Coal plants of any type are unlikely to find favor in the future
Our technology will be submitted to EarthTech International for evaluation in the not-too-distant future.
A National Laboratory is interested as well.
A self-running example will be tested by both.
Everyone knows the Wright Brothers flew in 1903. Yet, most scientists acused them of fraud until 1908.
The high price of fuel and Global Warming suggest there is no longer time for arrogant ignorance such as you express.
Re: Coal plants of any type are unlikely to find favor in the fu
We agree on the high priced.
You've mistaken my disgust and contempt of your attempted con, as arrogance; try anger, it's much closer to what I feel towards your game.
As for ignorance, well I'm amazed and disappointed that so few folks have the stones to call you out for the fraud you're trying to perpetrate.
The Wrights kept their work secret far as long as they could... Many called them 'crackpots' for trying, but never attributed any malice to their attempts.
You are playing a confidence game! Please go away.
Re: Coal plants of any type are unlikely to find favor in the fu
Human history is riddled with examples of
innovations and research that had been suppressed and derogated by the leading
science community and the accepted scientific conventions of the time.
Throughout human history, many innovators became the victims of the insults of
the skeptical scientific, governmental and corporate power elites.
Many scientists and scholars know that disagreeing with the dominant view is
risky, especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. When
someone presents a new research, unconventional or unpopular scientific view,
or comes out with a new way of doing things that threatens a powerful interest
group, typically a government, industry or professional body, representatives of
that group attack the innovator's ideas and the innovator
personally. Such attacks are carried out by censoring writing, blocking
publications, withdrawing or denying grants, taking legal actions, or spreading
rumors.
What are the effects of suppression of new ideas, intellectual dissent,
unconventional, or unpopular scientific views? Suppression is not only a
denial of the open debate that is the foundation of a free society, it also creates
artificial barriers and in effect retard innovation and creativity. Moreover, it has a chilling effect that breeds external
censorship as well as self-censorship. If we can learn anything from the
history of science, it is the dissidents and the unconventional thinkers who have
spurred science on.
Incidently, we received an unsolicited notice of your posts on this topic and only replied as more kept arriving.
When your angry, ignorant, insults end, we will be happy to stop responding.
Re: Coal plants of any type are unlikely to find favor in the fu
If you don't want 'unsolicited' notices, use your profile editor to unsubscribe from this thread. It's a board issue that's been acting up for a few weeks.
I'm not suppressing your "science", I'm not impeding your work thru lawsuits, I'm not blocking your publication here, although I am rebutting it. If you and your idea can't take a few insults... well to bad. The result is that no gullible fools will be taken advantage of by your pseudo-science.
I'm calling you a con-man! Prove me wrong! Proof is an absolute defense against libel & slander. But failure to assert that proof gives me the right to continue to call you a liar and a con-man
Show us some real science, some real technology. Stop with the hopeful announcements, the appeal to authority. The dot-org you mentioned is a machine shop with less equipment than I have in my shop by 6 CNC machines.
Re: Real Science
You might take a look at our work with Ultraconductors(tm).
These were the subject of four completed SBIR Contracts including a Phase II with the USAF.
The Air Force also had Fractal Systems reproduce our polymer Ultraconductors independently with full success.
This work has been the subject of several articles in refereed journals including the Journal of Superconductivity. The www.ultraconductor.com website includes a list. More will be added when we update the site.
The lab you ridicule is headed by Dr. Harold Puthoff, who is a recognized expert in Zero Point Energy and its potential. His work has been published in Physical Review as well as several other distinguished journals.
A half-dozen multi-billion dollar domestic firms, four of them headquartered here in Northern California, have signed NDAs with us. Nobody who has visited our labs, which includes some well known scientists and engineers (one of the latter, Lee Felsenstein EE, has stated on our website that he believes the work as important as the invention of the transistor) doubts this is real science and very promising technology.
Demonstration Devices are under development precisely because skepticism is understandable.
Since this technology may one day successfully compete with your own, efforts to discredit are as well.
How sad!
Re: Real Science; NOT!
What is really sad is that you forgot that you got your clock cleaned on this topic some months ago.
You had nothing then, you have exactly the same nothing now.
Your persistence simply demonstrates that you think so little of the intelligence of most people, that you determined that a 2-3 month absence was enough to cleanse you of your dirty stench.
Re: Coal Fired as opposed to New Energy
If you really think your angry, ignorant, comments amount to cleaning a clock you need to look in a mirror at how stupid your posture happens to be.
Real science is done in the lab.
Hot fusion is a good example of difficult work that has taken decades and never yet exceeded breakeven.
We have done so repeatedly working on a relative shoestring.
A rapid reversal for the need to burn fossil and uranium fuels will only result from radically new technology.
That technology is still emerging from the caterpiller stage. To the surprise of you and many others, it will fly!
Independent laboratory tests are now on the horizon. A National Laboratory called this week and asked to be included. We intend to invite them to the party.
Re: Coal Fired as opposed to New Energy
One more time...
PROVE ME WRONG!
Go ahead... I'll apologize, even make an act on contrition. But you're a con-man, a scammer, I'm just pointing that out.
Fusion is based on real science; stars & H-bombs both "break even" quite well. Harnessing it in the lab is an engineering problem, not a pseudo-science experiment.
My posture is only "offensive" to you because you cannot defend your claims with facts, only distractions.
All you've done is read some popularized books on some serious subjects in physics and claim that you can harness the processes that the best minds in the world can only describe with the most complex mathematics known.
Look up "charlatan" in the dictionary.
Duplicate post - please delete
Coal plants of the type suggested here are probably never going to be built.
Our technology will be evaluated by EarthTech International in the not-too-distant future.
Yesterday, a National Laboratory representative asked that, following that event, we bring a device to that facility for testing.
Although the Wright Brothers flew in 1903, most scientists believed their claims to be fraudulant until 1908.
The world no longer has time for your arrogant ignorance.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Like I said... corn burners made me think.
I know coal mining is very nasty business. I'm not well versed with mountain range coal, but I know North Dakota lignite, and Powder River Basin low sulfur.
Since the "home based" coal mine is out of the question, I was trying to analyze the final phase of coal-energy production... the burning of the rocks.
I'm not even certain that a _home based_ model is ever going to be possible, but a city-wide or a county-sized facility that serves a modest population 10,000 - 100,000 people per power plant. The coal still comes in by truck, just like the groceries go into the supermarket.
The difference is that the power plant also takes some of the garbage from certain sources... and burns it with the coal... but ... ***REALLY BIG BUT***
** ZERO EMISSIONS ** not even CO2. Everything gets 'packaged' and sent someplace else for reuse or recycling etc. The CO2 can be sequestered in an oil well or something...
But again, I'm trying to look at just one small portion of the problem. Trying to fix the world in a single stroke isn't feasible. One piece at a time.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
ctyankee
Up here we have a tinkerer using a plasma arc to convert garbage into gas which gets burnt to drive a generator - to produce electricity and water and a glass/clinker that traps the toxins. No pollution released. -Plasco- I asked them if they could vaporize tar sand but they haven't answered.
Apparently, they use 20% of the energy to run the system. If that is the case Canadians may be able to open up the tar sands- but selling electricity is sure different than selling oil. That could explain why Can Govs are turning the electrical system over to the private sector. They will still be able to set the retail price and control the economy.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Yup, the plasma will pyrolyze anything. The cost is high, and maintenance is prohibitive.
These systems were designed to destroy hazardous wastes, PCB's, dioxins, nerve agents, etc...
It takes energy to get the oil out of the shale. The plasma is the most expensive way to supply that energy. Simply burning the shale with limited oxygen accomplishes the same thing for a fraction of the cost. Save the plasma reactors for the important stuff we can't kill any other way!
I like tinkerers, but we need commercial scale projects to make a dent in the problem. We need to look at solutions that can be applied at infrastructure scale... hundreds or thousands at a time... and not tiny ones either.
Does anyone realize that a million solar roofs of 2-5kW would take 10+ years to roll out in the US.
I'm seeking committments, binding letters of intent, for hundreds to thousands of commercial units per month... THAT will make a difference.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
CTYankee,
What are you on about now?
I see JStacks point, and I too agree with him concerning the mining. Mountain top removal does not sit to well with some of us. If and only if the detrimental impacts of mining were diminished or altogether irradicated I would pay a premium for "clean" coal.
I believe if I was faced with a decision I would be wiling to pay 4x the amount I pay now to "fuel" my home with "clean coal".
What are you working on now, Dr. Frankenstein?
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
I wouldn't pay anything for so called Clean Coal.
Just ask a miners family if it could ever be clean.
Now if you asked would I pay extra to have our utilities meet the clean air act of 1978 with scubbers. I'd say yes and would pay twice the cost for it. It would still be dirty but would be clearner.
I already DONATE about $27 a month so my utility will make 700 KwH of renewable energy every month. I don't even use it 6 months of the year since I have grid tied solar and make extra , the other 6 months I haven't even used half of that. But I really want them to be cleaner even if it cost me more.
the solar stacks
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
I appreciate the feedback, but it's not an answer to the question, or is it?
You wouldn't pay anything for clean coal? $0.00/kWh ???
I asked about emissions from combustion only; not mining.
The 1978 act had nothing to do with CO2, only SOx & NOx, and 'particulates'
I asked about *ZERO EMISSIONS* no CO2... nothing out sequester everything.
$27 / 700kWh = $0.038 / kWh... OK, it's not much but it's an answer.
--------------
See I'm discussing a radical technical shift in the economics of the process. If the combustion of coal is carried out in "laboratory" conditions, there are no emissions from the plant... but obviously we can't spend $1/kWh to burn coal... yet at $0.05 people are still angry about the pollution.
There has to be a happy middle ground...
Now I have to ask, do you believe that that 4 cents is enough financial incentive to accomplish the task? I didn't think so.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Cheap?
We have a very complex civilization that relies on energy. We need so much that no one source can supply all that we need. Oil/gas are the most abundant sources of hydrocarbons used in chemicals and plastics and burned as fuel. All other energy sources including solar are either subsidized or controlled at the retail or wholesale level to keep prices equal to oil/gas. We have been known to subsidize both the producer and consumer. The whole process is an industry by itself. This prevents a run on the cheap fuels and makes equal distribution of available supplies to both the rich and the poor. All Governments have pretty much the same mandate from their populations.
Our Gross National Product is the sum total of all the money that moves between traders. As long as that is going up our economy is growing and our financial sector (money traders) are happy because we (they) are getting richer.
Anything (and I mean anything) that causes a reduction in the GNP is "a disaster" - "treason" - "end of the world".
If we simplified our tax , financial and/or Government systems, 1/2 the population would be out of work and if we put an end to war we would have to lay off the other half. As people reduce their consumption of fuel, Government revenues (control) drops - and God forbid - we are in "a recession".
Now - are you selling solar or electricity,- because electricity is a controlled substance? Think tobacco and booze. No one can "afford" to do any differently.
Because of our symbiotic relationship with our civilization we have no choice but support the enemy. Our civilization will not change until we change ourselves.
Up the revolution! Visit www.howtoboilafrog.com
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Hey athena,
----------------------------------------------
I'm confused... The board is fouled up, and support hasn't replied to e-mails...
----------------------------------------------
<< electricity as controlled substance >>
Yeah, in a way it is... Did you know that during Prohibition, Italians still had 'legal' access to red wine? Homemade of course... My solar solution will operate the same way... Local produntion & consumption don't _show up_ on the books... Cost avoidance, meand the owner gets full value regardless of what prices are doing. And it's not taxable either... (until the left starts hitting us with "imputed income")
BTW since energy has value, and it won't have to be bought it will add to GDP in a meaningful way.
--------------------------------------------
I hope this reply finds a proper location in relation to the other posts!
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
Energy is actually an oligopoly (think oil). The product is all the same and suppliers set their price to a leader. When someone else tries to take the lead they either can't sell the stuff or they make such a small profit, they go out of business. For an alternate energy to "take the lead" it has to be cheaper, and although solar and methane are "free" the dollars needed to put them into production are controlled by people who make their living from conventional oil. Investors also expect a "reasonable" return on investment. When there is no better place to invest, we will have the funds to produce alternate power.
For now, the people who control the money - rich people and Governments - certainly don't want individuals being independent and paying nothing to survive. The whole power structure gets upended.
Independence Day will be when enough Americans make enough of their energy needs to survive independently - independent of any decision made by a politician or banker, a condition reached by conservation and alternate energy production.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- What would you pay?
ct - just had another thunk
We subsidize the price of electricity so that poor people can afford it, but rich people just buy more and waste it.
How about selling electricity on a sliding scale? If the number of users on each meter could be registered, we could charge the lowest rate up to a quantity determined by the number of users, and then a higher rate when this amount is exceeded on an escalating sliding scale. The reverse of more is cheaper.
Your concept of selling to the user/owner cuts out the overhead of Government. It's probably the easiest sell.
Re: Zero Emission Coal Fired Energy -- Will Not Fly...
IMHO, coal will soon no longer be needed.
Perhaps, few will believe the following release at this time.
http://www.renewableenergyworld
But, before the year is over, there will be confirmation of our work by one or more independent laboratories.
Demonstration Devices will be in production next year.
Toys will inevitably follow.
As the song used to go: Why buy a cow, when milk is cheap?"
New Forum Topics
- BECOME UTILITARIAN
- CURB YOUR TEMPER(ature)!
- No Pane - No Gain!
- Truly Fixing The Planet
- Dodge the Draft!
- Ed on Larry King -- Aug 4, 08 panelist for T. Boone Pickens
- Los Angeles to ban plastic bags by 2010
- New "Food" Forum on FTP
- Interior paint, insulation & lighting questions
- Central AC Mister
- 48v 1000w ebike 70kph+ with gears for massive power!
- 3000 sq ft 1890's Victorian in Central NY
- cfc bulbs and disposal
- Burt's Bees bought by Chlorox for $925 Million
- California Government Buildings Go Green!
- Can you really run car with water?
- bath salts as natural skincare
- Finding a "green" architech9did I spell that wrong?)
- Flush Green!
- Boston Oil Party, Anyone?
Active Forum Topics
- CURB YOUR TEMPER(ature)!
- BECOME UTILITARIAN
- No Pane - No Gain!
- Dodge the Draft!
- Solar Stocks are hot
- 48v 1000w ebike 70kph+ with gears for massive power!
- Truly Fixing The Planet
- Nmg myer motors electric vehicile
- cfc bulbs and disposal
- Electric bike kits that use the bikes gears
- Los Angeles to ban plastic bags by 2010
- New "Food" Forum on FTP
- 3000 sq ft 1890's Victorian in Central NY
- Cost of Solar Cells
- Ed on Larry King -- Aug 4, 08 panelist for T. Boone Pickens
Please consider this an open questionnaire... short answers are just fine!
Completely clean coal burning is possible! No CO2, no NOx, no SOx, no Hg(Mercury), no Cl, As, Te, etc... nothing at all, not even H2O (from combustion)!
The system would take in coal, air, and cooling water. The products would be electricity, warmer water, the filtered nitrogen from the air, and clean compressed CO2, and some glassy sintered coal ashes.
This is very doable today. The technology exists, there is no voodoo science, but the entire system of pumps, conveyors, filters, pipes, yada, yada, yada, is complicated.
So the challenge question is what are the benefits of completely clean coal energy worth to each of you, as a free, thinking, adult person -- What would you pay for the power?
Right now regular CO2 emitting coal fired electricity costs <$0.05 per kWh. That's ten 100W lightbulbs lit for 1 hour costs a nickel. (YMMV) -- What would you pay for the *clean* power?
I'm a problem solver, but this problem needs a hard target. Saying "as little as possible" is a poor answer, it's a moving target, so I ask you all for a little firm input. Then the target is either hittable or not. But at least we'll know.