Lack of Global Warming Messes with Russian Arctic LNG Plans

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

 

That doesn't mean its a good fuel. 

Of course it is a good fuel.  With the moisture content in your samples, you would be attempting to burn water. You have to dry the stuff first.  Then it burns just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

Of course it is a good fuel.  With the moisture content in your samples, you would be attempting to burn water. You have to dry the stuff first.  Then it burns just fine.

Which works well in a hot dry climate although you will lose a significant proportion of the fuel to fermentation / and or respiration in the process. 

You might as well argue that seaweed makes good fuel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nope, no causative evidence of that.  None whatsoever.  Be careful not to mix correlation with causation. 

Your cold cycle hits roughly every 1,500 years, when a cyclic confluence of events peak simultaneously, although on different time cycles.  You also get a _mini-winter or cold summer roughly every 87 years.  And in New England, you get a Class 4 Hurricane whacking in roughly every 65 years, so New England is in for one humdinger of a storm any day now.  It will knock down every single tree for the first 40 to 50 miles from the coast, stripping Long Island and the COnnecticut shoreline bare.  Why?  Because the last biggie was in 1938, and the forest since then now has trees 80 years old, with lots of topping and not enough root structure to withstand the torque forces. And none of that has anything to do with "global worming," that pattern is traced back to the days of the Spanish Galleons, centuries before the industrial revolution. It is what it is.

Your argued earlier that Water vapour is the main cause of the Greenhouse effect which is correct. The methodologies for proving the causative link between Water vapour and warming are the same / similar to those which prove a causative link between CO2 and its warming effect. 

As for your description of weather events that would appear to be a Cul-de-sac...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 minutes ago, NickW said:

Which works well in a hot dry climate although you will lose a significant proportion of the fuel to fermentation / and or respiration in the process. 

You might as well argue that seaweed makes good fuel. 

Nick, I give up. What I am saying to you is not sinking in. I do thank you for the tech abstract, interesting enough, although the researchers do overlook the obvious. 

My machinery is being developed for use in Vermont, which is not exactly a "hot dry climate."  It is cool and very wet. 

You have to dry and process the manure, and how to do that is what the engineers in the Govt of Vermont and I are doing now. The people in Texas only get their manure partly dry, and they were doing that (in the industrial setting, I don't know about your Ag researchers) by spreading manure over the land and letting the sun go at it. When that did not work, they put the stuff into a drying house and blew hot air over it, consuming vast amounts of natural gas.  But that cost so much that it made the entire process uneconomic.  My novel approach costs very little and gets you nice dry material, which is the keystone.  I appreciate that you don't want to hear it, and that's fine, but I trundle on nonetheless. 

Edited by Jan van Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nick, I give up. What I am saying to you is not sinking in. I do thank you for the tech abstract, interesting enough, although the researchers do overlook the obvious. 

My machinery is being developed for use in Vermont, which is not exactly a "hot dry climate."  It is cool and very wet. 

You have to dry and process the manure, and how to do that is what the engineers in the Govt of Vermont and I are doing now. The people in Texas only get their manure partly dry, and they were doing that (in the industrial setting, I don't know about your Ag researchers) by spreading manure over the lad and letting the sun go at it. When that did not work, they put the stuff into a drying house and blew hot air over it, consuming vast amounts of natural gas.  But that cost so much that it made the entire process uneconomic.  My novel approach costs very little and gets you nice dry material, which is the keystone.  I appreciate that you don't want to hear it, and that's fine, but I trundle on nonetheless. 

Prima facie it sounds like a crap idea. 

Assuming this manure is concentrated in bulk why not anaerobically digest it? 

This way you produce clean biogas for onsite CHP or injection into the gas network. The digested sludge retains all the nutrients, is pasteurised and can be used as a soil conditioner 

Burning it as a solid fuel just creates particulates and squanders one of the most precious resources - Phosphorus along with Pottasium and other micronutrients. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

Prima facie it sounds like a crap idea. 

Assuming this manure is concentrated in bulk why not anaerobically digest it? 

This way you produce clean biogas for onsite CHP or injection into the gas network. The digested sludge retains all the nutrients, is pasteurised and can be used as a soil conditioner 

Burning it as a solid fuel just creates particulates and squanders one of the most precious resources - Phosphorus along with Pottasium and other micronutrients. 

 

And that's fine, Nick. You think my ideas are "crap,"  which you are perfectly entitled to do.  The realities on the ground in the dairy industry are different.  The time frame for digestion is 22 days, and given the amount of manure developed, you would need digester installations parked side by side from Montpelier to Montreal to begin to make a dent in the volume.  And nobody has either the land or the money for that. 

You cannot use the material as a "soil conditioner" because there is just far too much of it.  Putting that material back onto the soil guarantees that a good percentage washes off into the streams, and then goes and pollutes the lakes, including Lake Champlain, which is heavily affected and under an Order from the EPA to go clean up.  The price tag is $2 Billion - that is Billion with a "B".  And the State of Vermont does not have that kind of coin, so they look to me to develop the machinery to do it at zero cost. Which I will do.  And make a ton of coin doing it. 

Edited by Jan van Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And that's fine, Nick. You think my ideas are "crap,"  which you are perfectly entitled to do.  The realities on the ground in the dairy industry are different.  The time frame for digestion is 22 days, and given the amount of manure developed, you would need digester installations parked side by side from Montpelier to Montreal to begin to make a dent in the volume.  And nobody has either the land or the money for that. 

You cannot use the material as a "soil conditioner" because there is just far too much of it.  Putting that material back onto the soil guarantees that a good percentage washes off into the streams, and then goes and pollutes the lakes, including Lake Champlain, which is heavily affected and under an Order from the EPA to go clean up.  The price tag is $2 Billion - that is Billion with a "B".  And the State of Vermont does not have that kind of coin, so they look to me to develop the machinery to do it at zero cost. Which I will do.  And make a ton of coin doing it. 

I said Prima Facie

How come Europe has no particular issue with AD as a technology to process organic wastes. In the UK we have a lot less space than you guys and some pretty massive feedlots. 

This will give you an idea of the number of installations. 

http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/map/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And that's fine, Nick. You think my ideas are "crap,"  which you are perfectly entitled to do.  The realities on the ground in the dairy industry are different.  The time frame for digestion is 22 days, and given the amount of manure developed, you would need digester installations parked side by side from Montpelier to Montreal to begin to make a dent in the volume.  And nobody has either the land or the money for that. 

You cannot use the material as a "soil conditioner" because there is just far too much of it.  Putting that material back onto the soil guarantees that a good percentage washes off into the streams, and then goes and pollutes the lakes, including Lake Champlain, which is heavily affected and under an Order from the EPA to go clean up.  The price tag is $2 Billion - that is Billion with a "B".  And the State of Vermont does not have that kind of coin, so they look to me to develop the machinery to do it at zero cost. Which I will do.  And make a ton of coin doing it. 

The UK has a higher density of diary cattle per km2 than Vermont . Why don't have the same issues? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NickW said:

The UK has a higher density of diary cattle per km2 than Vermont . Why don't have the same issues? 

Do your rivers empty into large lakes, or do they run into the sea?  You tell me, I dunno. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

The UK has a higher density of diary cattle per km2 than Vermont . Why don't have the same issues? 

Your cows only poop out Royal Poop, and everybody knows that that stuff is totally pure.  Sounds reasonable enough to me. One of the advantages of a monarchist system, to be sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't predict the next week's weather but we are certain about the climate thousands of years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

My machinery is being developed for use in Vermont, which is not exactly a "hot dry climate."  It is cool and very wet. 

You have to dry and process the manure, and how to do that is what the engineers in the Govt of Vermont and I are doing now. The people in Texas only get their manure partly dry, and they were doing that (in the industrial setting, I don't know about your Ag researchers) by spreading manure over the land and letting the sun go at it. When that did not work, they put the stuff into a drying house and blew hot air over it, consuming vast amounts of natural gas.  But that cost so much that it made the entire process uneconomic.  My novel approach costs very little and gets you nice dry material, which is the keystone.  I appreciate that you don't want to hear it, and that's fine, but I trundle on nonetheless. 

 

 

I dont know if this can help you for your project or if you already know this work but there is an indian study by Kartikey Kumar Gupta, Kamal Rai Aneja and Deepanshu Rana on the "Current status of cow dung as a bioresource for sustainable development" containing a huge scientific bibliography focusing on recent findings being made on cow dung that could be harnessed for usage in different areas such as medicine, agriculture and industry.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40643-016-0105-9

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Do your rivers empty into large lakes, or do they run into the sea?  You tell me, I dunno. 

Funnily enough yes. 

Having appropriate manure handling practices tend to minimise the risk of watercourse pollution. 

Aside I assume the cattle are at least partly fed on pasture so I assume the farmers have to do something to fertilise those pastures - perhaps NPK fertilisers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

 

I dont know if this can help you for your project or if you already know this work but there is an indian study by Kartikey Kumar Gupta, Kamal Rai Aneja and Deepanshu Rana on the "Current status of cow dung as a bioresource for sustainable development" containing a huge scientific bibliography focusing on recent findings being made on cow dung that could be harnessed for usage in different areas such as medicine, agriculture and industry.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40643-016-0105-9

Thank you !!!!! 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, HermitMunster said:

We can't predict the next week's weather but we are certain about the climate thousands of years ago. 

The past is generally easier to examine than the future. In any case climate and weather are not the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

 

I dont know if this can help you for your project or if you already know this work but there is an indian study by Kartikey Kumar Gupta, Kamal Rai Aneja and Deepanshu Rana on the "Current status of cow dung as a bioresource for sustainable development" containing a huge scientific bibliography focusing on recent findings being made on cow dung that could be harnessed for usage in different areas such as medicine, agriculture and industry.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40643-016-0105-9

Interestingly the first part seems to focus on using cow manure to produce biogas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Funnily enough yes. 

Having appropriate manure handling practices tend to minimise the risk of watercourse pollution. 

Aside I assume the cattle are at least partly fed on pasture so I assume the farmers have to do something to fertilise those pastures - perhaps NPK fertilisers? 

The problem is not so much "watercourse pollution" as it is Lake Pollution.  Here the rivers dump into Lakes, and the P settles out to the bottom, and then the trouble starts.  If all it does is wash out into the NOrth Sea, then hey, who cares? It gets diluted. 

Now, the problem remains that the cows are not fed on pasture.  They get stuffed into large barns, a thousand or 2,500 head toa barn, and are fed an enhanced food with lots of additional chemicals, and the land is used to grow corn to feed to the cows.  So you have this dynamic of tilled land getting eroded, and cows being fed a feed with vast amounts of extra P, and then all the manure is channelled into a giant lagoon of between 3 and 6 million gallons, and then when some rainstorm overflows the lagoon or busts the dikes then it all washes out.  So you can see the problems.  The solution is to process the manure straight out of the barn (they use a trench scraper on a set of chains to do that) and process it right there by removing the fluids.  And that should do the trick (plus make money for the players, as the dried stuff can be sold). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

And that's fine, Nick. You think my ideas are "crap,"  which you are perfectly entitled to do.  The realities on the ground in the dairy industry are different.  The time frame for digestion is 22 days, and given the amount of manure developed, you would need digester installations parked side by side from Montpelier to Montreal to begin to make a dent in the volume.  And nobody has either the land or the money for that. 

You cannot use the material as a "soil conditioner" because there is just far too much of it.  Putting that material back onto the soil guarantees that a good percentage washes off into the streams, and then goes and pollutes the lakes, including Lake Champlain, which is heavily affected and under an Order from the EPA to go clean up.  The price tag is $2 Billion - that is Billion with a "B".  And the State of Vermont does not have that kind of coin, so they look to me to develop the machinery to do it at zero cost. Which I will do.  And make a ton of coin doing it. 

Another  exaggeration? 

This states Vermont has 132000 dairy cattle.

https://eu.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2016/06/09/dairy-farm-production-increases-in-vermont/85597744/

What do they produce - 12kg of manure a day?

Density 0.5kg/m3?

Assuming you capture all of it. Thats approx 3200m3/ day

Over a 22 day cycle - thats 70,000 m3 in storage. 

Thats the equivalent of about 8 large oil storage tanks at a refinery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The problem is not so much "watercourse pollution" as it is Lake Pollution.  Here the rivers dump into Lakes, and the P settles out to the bottom, and then the trouble starts.  If all it does is wash out into the NOrth Sea, then hey, who cares? It gets diluted. 

Now, the problem remains that the cows are not fed on pasture.  They get stuffed into large barns, a thousand or 2,500 head toa barn, and are fed an enhanced food with lots of additional chemicals, and the land is used to grow corn to feed to the cows.  So you have this dynamic of tilled land getting eroded, and cows being fed a feed with vast amounts of extra P, and then all the manure is channelled into a giant lagoon of between 3 and 6 million gallons, and then when some rainstorm overflows the lagoon or busts the dikes then it all washes out.  So you can see the problems.  The solution is to process the manure straight out of the barn (they use a trench scraper on a set of chains to do that) and process it right there by removing the fluids.  And that should do the trick (plus make money for the players, as the dried stuff can be sold). 

Fair point. 

The beauty of the industrial farm. 

No opportunities to export the digested sludge interstate?

I read some years back that digested Sewage sludge was being shipped west to improve marginal soils mid west. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Do your rivers empty into large lakes, or do they run into the sea?  You tell me, I dunno. 

Thats avoiding the question. I asked you why AD isn't an option? AD will leave you with a fairly dry substrate after dewatering which is what you describe happening to the raw manure. Ultimately in both cases you will have to process and treat that water. The NN, P, & K doesn't magically disappear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Dung is  used because like Lignite, its cheap / free and readily available. 

That doesn't mean its a good fuel. 

get use to it - may be one of few affordable energy sources if grinnies win battle with humanity and fossil fuels are outlawed

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Your argued earlier that Water vapour is the main cause of the Greenhouse effect which is correct. The methodologies for proving the causative link between Water vapour and warming are the same / similar to those which prove a causative link between CO2 and its warming effect.  

forgetting clouds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nope, no causative evidence of that.  None whatsoever.  Be careful not to mix correlation with causation. 

Your cold cycle hits roughly every 1,500 years, when a cyclic confluence of events peak simultaneously, although on different time cycles.  You also get a _mini-winter or cold summer roughly every 87 years.  And in New England, you get a Class 4 Hurricane whacking in roughly every 65 years, so New England is in for one humdinger of a storm any day now.  It will knock down every single tree for the first 40 to 50 miles from the coast, stripping Long Island and the COnnecticut shoreline bare.  Why?  Because the last biggie was in 1938, and the forest since then now has trees 80 years old, with lots of topping and not enough root structure to withstand the torque forces. And none of that has anything to do with "global worming," that pattern is traced back to the days of the Spanish Galleons, centuries before the industrial revolution. It is what it is.

 

I hear the correlation  - causation argument used so many times by denialists its a fairly predictable response. 

In any case correlation in many cases is often a heads up that there is a causative / contributory relationship

Lots of correlations here: 

Smoking - lung cancer

Smoking - Heart Disease

Blue Asbestos - Mesothelioma

Sulphur emissions - Acid rain

Respirable crystalline silica - Silicosis

Low iodine - Hypothyroidism

Excessive noise exposure - hearing damage

High Uric Acid - Gout

the list goes on and on...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

forgetting clouds?

Clouds are made of water (in liquid rather than gaseous form)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

You would have to ask the guys who wrote the studies.  I did not. 

The issue is more complex than Milankovitch, and further there is no discernible correlation between human activity and global warming.  THat sounds counter-intuitive, as people have for the past 200 years burned staggeringly huge amounts of coal and impossibly large amounts of oil, so you would intuitively think that all that burning just has to affect something. It probably does, but surface temperatures are not part of it. 

I don't like discussing this either in public or in private as the subject has turned into some sort of religious hysteria, and the people that are not scientifically trained are never going to accept rational thoughts, it is just too explosive an issue. And although Oilprice is a serious forum I shudder to test the waters here.  Let me say, however, that the amount of CO2 has zero impact, other than to let trees and crops grow a bit faster.  CO2 is measured in parts per million; it is a trace gas, roughly at the same concentration as Argon.  Do you hear cries of some Argon crisis?  Now, CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas, and you can prove this to yourself by comparing what happens in some balmy area such as the coast of Delaware to the high desert of New Mexico.  In Delaware the day temp is say 75 degrees and at night it might drop off to 60-65 on a summer evening.  Now go up onto the high desert in New Mexico, where the day temp could be say 110 F.  And at night by midnight you will be frantically scavenging for firewood to keep from dying from hypothermia, it gets so cold.

Now if CO2 is this big greenhouse gas then as a gas it will be equally dispersed throughout the atmosphere, and you have the same concentrations in New Mexico as you have in Delaware.  So your night temps should be about the same.  And it is not.  The reason is the amount of water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas; the water vapor in Delaware is plenty high, as the ocean provides that.  And in the desert of New Mexico the air is dry and no vapor, so the heat just blasts off into space and you freeze to death. 

So much for all those hysterical and crazy theories about CO2. 

^  Jan, I would like to shake your hand and buy you a beer one of these days.

And you studied Physics at Yale... I certainly can't compete.  But now I'm starting to get why many of your lengthy comments are so well thought out and logically sound.  Were you on a debate team at Yale?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites