Lack of Global Warming Messes with Russian Arctic LNG Plans

1 minute ago, NickW said:

I had a suspicion we would get to flash distillation technologies. 

I'd be interested to see the input energy for that process and I can't see that much of that energy is recoverable to reuse. 

Takes 50 hp to operate.  Electric motor.  Figure a 30-second cycle time for a 400-lb charge.  And no, the energy is not recoverable. Then again, if you are using hydropower (or power from the manure burining) then it is not much of a burden.  At least, that is the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Takes 50 hp to operate.  Electric motor.  Figure a 30-second cycle time for a 400-lb charge.  And no, the energy is not recoverable. Then again, if you are using hydropower (or power from the manure burining) then it is not much of a burden.  At least, that is the theory.

50HP is 37 KW so for 30 seconds is about 1.1MJ 

Getting that manure to 80 degrees C is going to take a bit more juice. 

Assuming the SHP of it is 4200J/Kg and its sitting there at say 25 degrees then you will need a net energy input of 42MJ which gross will be >50MJ. I assume thats a couple of litres of diesel equivalent up in smoke? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

50HP is 37 KW so for 30 seconds is about 1.1MJ 

Getting that manure to 80 degrees C is going to take a bit more juice. 

Assuming the SHP of it is 4200J/Kg and its sitting there at say 25 degrees then you will need a net energy input of 42MJ which gross will be >50MJ. I assume thats a couple of litres of diesel equivalent up in smoke? 

Probably.  So what?

Assume you get $50/ton for the product, which is a dozen charges.  Your cost for energy is nowhere near that.  Your materials heating is from indigenous sources, either firewood or even the output manure logs themselves.  Either way, who cares?  The point is that you are making money.  Would it be more elegant if you could drop the vacuum down to the point where it flashes to vapor without heat?  Sure, and that could be done.  I simply picked these parameters as practically available with off-the-shelf components, that's all. You have to assume it gets fine-tuned as experience is found with the machinery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Probably.  So what?

Assume you get $50/ton for the product, which is a dozen charges.  Your cost for energy is nowhere near that.  Your materials heating is from indigenous sources, either firewood or even the output manure logs themselves.  Either way, who cares?  The point is that you are making money.  Would it be more elegant if you could drop the vacuum down to the point where it flashes to vapor without heat?  Sure, and that could be done.  I simply picked these parameters as practically available with off-the-shelf components, that's all. You have to assume it gets fine-tuned as experience is found with the machinery. 

You appear to have forgotten about all the other volatile liquids and gases you will draw up in that flash distillation. 

Solid free maybe but there will be plenty of other dissolved contaminants - how do you propose to neutralise them or at least bring them down to levels to which you can discharge the water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NickW said:

You appear to have forgotten about all the other volatile liquids and gases you will draw up in that flash distillation. 

Solid free maybe but there will be plenty of other dissolved contaminants - how do you propose to neutralise them or at least bring them down to levels to which you can discharge the water

Anything that gets evaporated goes out the flue and into the atmosphere, then to waft up and onto the ski hills, where it can precipitate down as snow.  The solution to pollution is dilution  (at least, for that stuff).  I mean, who cares?  There is just not enough of anything else to get exercised about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

We can make some reasonable assumptions based on  the historical geological evidence which shows a clear relationship between high CO2 levels and higher global temperatures 

I think the greatest concern is that our oceans are dying from a multitude of factors. I mean, temperature change is something that we can deal with I think a little easier than if the oceans die. Because if the oceans die, then so do we. I think rising waterways is also something that we can navigate because it's going to happen over an extended period of time. But, what would be the fallout if the oceans started on a path of irreversible death? Obviously, deforestation is another huge issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Anything that gets evaporated goes out the flue and into the atmosphere, then to waft up and onto the ski hills, where it can precipitate down as snow.  The solution to pollution is dilution  (at least, for that stuff).  I mean, who cares?  There is just not enough of anything else to get exercised about. 

1.1 MJ of energy to drive a vacuum pump to effectively de-water 400lb of manure and turn it into water vapour

🤣from my wife who is a Chemical Engineer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HermitMunster said:

I think the greatest concern is that our oceans are dying from a multitude of factors. I mean, temperature change is something that we can deal with I think a little easier than if the oceans die. Because if the oceans die, then so do we. I think rising waterways is also something that we can navigate because it's going to happen over an extended period of time. But, what would be the fallout if the oceans started on a path of irreversible death? Obviously, deforestation is another huge issue.

A former oil industry colleague of mine is an Oceanographer and the Co2 acidification of the ocean genuinely frightens him. Consider the implications of a general collapse of ocean food sources which are upwards of 100 mt of Protein each year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

1.1 MJ of energy to drive a vacuum pump to effectively de-water 400lb of manure and turn it into water vapour

🤣from my wife who is a Chemical Engineer

 

And here is how the farmer heats the charge:

 

image.png.9b63f57eacf5b35f1c54ad733b784f75.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I'm not an expert in global warming. All I know is that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that global warming does exist and that it is because of human activity.

I AM an expert in risk assessment. I make my living speculating in the stock market and have for many years. My risk assessment leads me to oppose betting the future of human inhabitation of the planet on the minority of human scientists against the overwhelming majority. Most of the climate deniers are paid by people or corporations with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry or who are committed to extreme right wing ideology and thus are unconcerned about others or future generations.

Their bet is an especially bad one when the technology exists -- solar, wind, ocean current -- to phase out fossil fuels.

Major risk for minimal reward doesn't make any sense. It certainly isn't the way to survive long term, either as a financial speculator or as a human inhabitant of the planet. In addition, I have sons. It isn't just about us here now but about future generations who will look back and judge us harshly, given that the science is known and generally accepted.

As far as the scientists who don't believe that global warming exists or that it is not caused by human activity, there are still people who believe that the world is flat or that tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer. Mostly, they are wackos.

Edited by Rod MacIver
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rod MacIver said:

I'm not an expert in global warming. All I know is that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that global warming does exist and that it is because of human activity.

I AM an expert in risk assessment. I make my living speculating in the stock market and have for many years. My risk assessment leads me to oppose betting the future of human inhabitation of the planet on the minority of human scientists against the overwhelming majority. Most of the climate deniers are paid by people or corporations with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry or who are committed to extreme right wing ideology and thus are unconcerned about others or future generations.

Their bet is an especially bad one when the technology exists -- solar, wind, ocean current -- to phase out fossil fuels.

Major risk for minimal reward doesn't make any sense. It certainly isn't the way to survive long term, either as a financial speculator or as a human inhabitant of the planet. In addition, I have sons. It isn't just about us here now but about future generations who will look back and judge us harshly, given that the science is known and generally accepted.

As far as the scientists who don't believe that global warming exists or that it is not caused by human activity, there are still people who believe that the world is flat or that tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer. Mostly, they are wackos.

A standard response to any denier, particularly those who claim to have a PHD from Yale, Harvard, Oxford , Cambridge etc is - use your skills and knowledge then  to build a scientific model that disproves the overwhelming scientific consensus on Global Warming. 

If you do then the Fossil Fuel industry (particularly coal) will literally shower you in your own weight in Gold every week. 

Thats got to be a better future than writing articles for Brietbart, The Daily Caller or The Daily Telegraph where they might pay your $100 if you are lucky. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2018 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Eck said:

And here is how the farmer heats the charge:

 

image.png.9b63f57eacf5b35f1c54ad733b784f75.png

Given the quantities you describe do you think there could be a potential to export your poo fuel to Europe which seems intent (along with NA forest owners)  on burning down North Americas forests in the form of wood pellets (an awful policy) 

BTW the picture above looks more like a gasifier? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 2:11 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Global warming has zero to do with CO2 and everything to do with slight wobbles or tilts in the north-south rotational axis.  The explanation is a bit technical.  The masses on the earth's crust are not evenly distributed, so the spinning globe acts a bit like your car wheel when you knock the weights off: it tends to wobble.  Every now and then a wobble gets beyond the ability of the globe to re-stabilize and a new tilt occurs, changing the surface temperature.

Unfortunately, not all tilt changes will bring us a nice warm climate.  History shows that the majority of changes have brought on cold.  You can expect the planet to stay pleasantly warm for another 400 years, and  then it is back to Ice Planet Hoth.  Unfortunately the long-term prognosis is for a very cold planet and sheets of ice over large chunks of the earth surface; the last time around, the ice was a mile thick over New York City.  Altogether an unpleasant prospect. The future of the planet is to be ice-bound for 90% of the time, so enjoy the warmth while it is still around. 

It has to deal with CO2, it has a not-so-bad heat capacity, and at difference of water steam that condenses and goes down as rain Carbon dioxide has to wait until is absorbed.

BUT, the planet absorbs 2,364 billion tons of CO2 a year while it produces 2,313 billion tons a year, by comparison the entire civilization it's producing 105 billion tons of CO2 a year, with things like global warming making sub-arctic forest advancing into the tundra, the projects for desert greening and the fact that life tends to adapt is likely that global warming is going to stop by itself in 2090-2110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2018 at 1:36 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Takes 50 hp to operate.  Electric motor.  Figure a 30-second cycle time for a 400-lb charge.  And no, the energy is not recoverable. Then again, if you are using hydropower (or power from the manure burining) then it is not much of a burden.  At least, that is the theory.

Is not easier to use the dung, pump it into a insulated storage silo, then recovering methane to burn it into a reciprocating gas engine, or a steam turbine and using the water to cold down the turbine (or the engine) to mantain a warm temperature inside the poop-silo? At least you don't have to deal with the problems of drying poop or the brutal heat capacity of water.

Plus the manure after it liberated methane can be sold to organic farmers thingy or places that have money or soil depletion, or most likely both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Is not easier to use the dung, pump it into a insulated storage silo, then recovering methane to burn it into a reciprocating gas engine, or a steam turbine and using the water to cold down the turbine (or the engine) to mantain a warm temperature inside the poop-silo? At least you don't have to deal with the problems of drying poop or the brutal heat capacity of water.

Plus the manure after it liberated methane can be sold to organic farmers thingy or places that have money or soil depletion, or most likely both.

Sure, you can do that.  And here there are even electric utilities (small co-ops) that have funded such installations.  The problem for "dairy country" is not tapping the heat value of the methane, or of the manure itself; it is removing the Phosphorus {"P"}  from the environment.   Remember that what happens is that the P washes off the fields, where today it is spread, in concentrations so large that it causes these cyanobacteria blooms down on the Lakes the rivers feed into. And that is the problem area.  Removing the methane by digestion does not remove the P, so you still have the pollution problem to contend with. 

You cannot sell the digested matter as some fertilizer as there is then going to remain the problem of excessive P getting into the waterways.  Yes, you could go ship the stuff to say Morocco for building up new soils there in the desert, but simply leaving the stuff lying around in the local ecosystem is not going to resolve the problem. 

So:  you can burn it, or you can truck it to some abandoned quarry and dump it in, or some other solution.  SOme small fraction can be spread on local lands that need soils regeneration, but there is just so much of it that that is not a solution. And you have to make some money doing all this, or there is no incentive for the dairyman to participate.  So my solution is to convert into firelogs and go burn the stuff in industrial boilers.  Maybe that works, maybe it dies not, but I figure it is worth a try.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Cheers!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure, you can do that.  And here there are even electric utilities (small co-ops) that have funded such installations.  The problem for "dairy country" is not tapping the heat value of the methane, or of the manure itself; it is removing the Phosphorus {"P"}  from the environment.   Remember that what happens is that the P washes off the fields, where today it is spread, in concentrations so large that it causes these cyanobacteria blooms down on the Lakes the rivers feed into. And that is the problem area.  Removing the methane by digestion does not remove the P, so you still have the pollution problem to contend with. 

You cannot sell the digested matter as some fertilizer as there is then going to remain the problem of excessive P getting into the waterways.  Yes, you could go ship the stuff to say Morocco for building up new soils there in the desert, but simply leaving the stuff lying around in the local ecosystem is not going to resolve the problem. 

So:  you can burn it, or you can truck it to some abandoned quarry and dump it in, or some other solution.  SOme small fraction can be spread on local lands that need soils regeneration, but there is just so much of it that that is not a solution. And you have to make some money doing all this, or there is no incentive for the dairyman to participate.  So my solution is to convert into firelogs and go burn the stuff in industrial boilers.  Maybe that works, maybe it dies not, but I figure it is worth a try.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Cheers!

When its burnt is the P retained in the ash? 

I ask because the finite supply of P is probably what will be mankinds doom (rather than energy). 

If this poofuel was burnt in a dedicated WTE plant I would have thought it would have been worth bagging up the ash for sale into the fertiliser manufacturing sector. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sure, you can do that.  And here there are even electric utilities (small co-ops) that have funded such installations.  The problem for "dairy country" is not tapping the heat value of the methane, or of the manure itself; it is removing the Phosphorus {"P"}  from the environment.   Remember that what happens is that the P washes off the fields, where today it is spread, in concentrations so large that it causes these cyanobacteria blooms down on the Lakes the rivers feed into. And that is the problem area.  Removing the methane by digestion does not remove the P, so you still have the pollution problem to contend with. 

You cannot sell the digested matter as some fertilizer as there is then going to remain the problem of excessive P getting into the waterways.  Yes, you could go ship the stuff to say Morocco for building up new soils there in the desert, but simply leaving the stuff lying around in the local ecosystem is not going to resolve the problem. 

So:  you can burn it, or you can truck it to some abandoned quarry and dump it in, or some other solution.  SOme small fraction can be spread on local lands that need soils regeneration, but there is just so much of it that that is not a solution. And you have to make some money doing all this, or there is no incentive for the dairyman to participate.  So my solution is to convert into firelogs and go burn the stuff in industrial boilers.  Maybe that works, maybe it dies not, but I figure it is worth a try.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Cheers!

Wouldn't that be like shipping Oil to KSA. Morocco has the largest P reserves in the World😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

When its burnt is the P retained in the ash? 

I ask because the finite supply of P is probably what will be mankinds doom (rather than energy). 

If this poofuel was burnt in a dedicated WTE plant I would have thought it would have been worth bagging up the ash for sale into the fertiliser manufacturing sector. 

Q:  Is the P retained in the ash?    A:  I dunno.  COuld be.  Or it could be attached to some vapor component and waft back out over the hills, to be widely dispersed back into the ecosystem (best possible result). 

Q:  Finite supply of P.  Bag it and sell it?   A:  Not likely.  P is cheap, and readily available.  I think the cost of doing so would be way over the value of the P.  You could try to convert the P into struvite through chemical processing, some guys are trying to do that, but it would be heavily subsidized, and in the Vermont iteration, would not be realistic, as there is no player out there able to pay that subsidy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

Wouldn't that be like shipping Oil to KSA. Morocco has the largest P reserves in the World😀

Sure.  But they don't have soil, they have desert (or, to be accurate, not enough soil).  So the manure and earth sediment in those alluvial fans provides new dirt, nicely enriched.  And if not interested, there is also Qatar  (which is seriously short of both earth and water) and Saudi Arabia  (same problems).. Those States are not food-secure, and they view that as a problem.  So creating new farmland by taking in drybulker loads of manure and sediment dredged out of the Lake is a bonanza, if you can make the numbers work.  Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Q:  Is the P retained in the ash?    A:  I dunno.  COuld be.  Or it could be attached to some vapor component and waft back out over the hills, to be widely dispersed back into the ecosystem (best possible result). 

Q:  Finite supply of P.  Bag it and sell it?   A:  Not likely.  P is cheap, and readily available.  I think the cost of doing so would be way over the value of the P.  You could try to convert the P into struvite through chemical processing, some guys are trying to do that, but it would be heavily subsidized, and in the Vermont iteration, would not be realistic, as there is no player out there able to pay that subsidy. 

And therefore potentially washed back into the rivers and lakes that are so threatened by Eutrophication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

Sure.  But they don't have soil, they have desert (or, to be accurate, not enough soil).  So the manure and earth sediment in those alluvial fans provides new dirt, nicely enriched.  And if not interested, there is also Qatar  (which is seriously short of both earth and water) and Saudi Arabia  (same problems).. Those States are not food-secure, and they view that as a problem.  So creating new farmland by taking in drybulker loads of manure and sediment dredged out of the Lake is a bonanza, if you can make the numbers work.  Cheers.

Why not fill those empty Carriers returning to Morocco after delivering all that Phosphate rock........

I am presuming here that the USA probably imports a fair amount!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

And therefore potentially washed back into the rivers and lakes that are so threatened by Eutrophication?

Probably not.  In a situation of wide dispersal, it would likely be absorbed into the soils and plants where it lands.  It is all a question of concentration. When these dairy farmers dump vast layers of liquid manure onto small land surfaces, and then go do it again and again, the stuff will inevitably wash out into the creek.  If you put a thin layer on the land then it stays on the land, and the plants use it to grow.  The issue is that current dairy concentrations produce way too much manure, and then the trouble starts.  Now, you can also deal with it by converting the dairy herds into hamburger meat, but nobody really wants to do that, although it would be by far the cheapest solution.  Politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Probably not.  In a situation of wide dispersal, it would likely be absorbed into the soils and plants where it lands.  It is all a question of concentration. When these dairy farmers dump vast layers of liquid manure onto small land surfaces, and then go do it again and again, the stuff will inevitably wash out into the creek.  If you put a thin layer on the land then it stays on the land, and the plants use it to grow.  The issue is that current dairy concentrations produce way too much manure, and then the trouble starts.  Now, you can also deal with it by converting the dairy herds into hamburger meat, but nobody really wants to do that, although it would be by far the cheapest solution.  Politics. 

I appreciate the distribution is more diffuse but I assume the input of P to Vermont is via the huge amounts of feed brought in for the Livestock? 

Ultimately burning and dispersing would just add to the P load on the local environment. 

Also what goes up the chimney just adds to the local particulate load in the air. Better to capture as ash including what can be pulled out of the airstream by cyclone filters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NickW said:

I appreciate the distribution is more diffuse but I assume the input of P to Vermont is via the huge amounts of feed brought in for the Livestock? 

Ultimately burning and dispersing would just add to the P load on the local environment. 

Also what goes up the chimney just adds to the local particulate load in the air. Better to capture as ash including what can be pulled out of the airstream by cyclone filters. 

1.     Yes, input of P is also by import of P-laced feedstock for the cattle, principally corn, and to grow the corn locally, P is imported for that purpose.  There is some talk of banning the import of P.  Probably won't happen.  Politics.

2.     As to burning, that depends on the final form that P is out there.  If placed into a stable molecule structure, then unlikel to have a dramatic adverse effect. 

3.     Local particulates, yes of course.  I don't control that.  A bag filter would work fine, if somebody can be persuaded to spend the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

1.     Yes, input of P is also by import of P-laced feedstock for the cattle, principally corn, and to grow the corn locally, P is imported for that purpose.  There is some talk of banning the import of P.  Probably won't happen.  Politics.

2.     As to burning, that depends on the final form that P is out there.  If placed into a stable molecule structure, then unlikel to have a dramatic adverse effect. 

3.     Local particulates, yes of course.  I don't control that.  A bag filter would work fine, if somebody can be persuaded to spend the money. In large WTE facilities surely this is regulated with emissions controls?

A comparable area - burning of wood waste in Maine and use of the Ash as a fertiliser. 

https://extension.umaine.edu/publications/2279e/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites