Why deal with such a sticky mess.

Meet "BioCoal".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/28 ... r_130_mph/

Biocoal' fuels steam train comeback

Uni of Minnesota steampunks plot loco speed record

" . . .The university, along with Sustainable Rail International, are to restore a 1930s locomotive – 3463, a 4-6-4 Hudson-type loco built by Baldwin that’s spent its retirement at the Kansas Expocenter in Topeka – as a test bed for bio-coal. The locomotive has already been stabilized prior to the trip to Minnesota for restoration. . . ."

". . . Its biocoal – cellular material processed into a solid fuel – exhibits the same energy density and material handling properties as coal, the university says, but without coal’s heavy metals. The biomass is also carbon-neutral, and produces less ash, less smoke (sorry to those for whom the ‘magic of steam’ includes the smell of burning coal), and fewer volatile off-gases. . ."

What about CO2?

Moi

There's a logical explanation but tonight I'm sleepy.

I'll type it out tomorrow for you.

Moi, less ash and less smoke, is this like less Radiation? so let me see, its ok to pollute as long as its not nuclear? I don't care what its half life is, I am only here for 70 or 80 years maybe a bit longer if I am lucky. fewer volatile gasses?

What a joke,

Wind farms don't pollute at all, ZERO. Oh wait, thats what you keep wanting for a nuclear number, ZERO, but its really is ok for other kinds of pollutions, yea.

River

Dave (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:33 pm There's a logical explanation but tonight I'm sleepy.

I'll type it out tomorrow for you.

If you think in terms of the Carbon Cycle then the difference between short term carbon and long term carbon in the carbon cycle is apparent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Growing a tree and then burning it and growing a replacement uses the same carbon over a period of years less than most of our lifetimes. The carbon is recycled on a short term basis. It is carbon that comes from the atmosphere and returns to the atmosphere -- or comes from wood and returns to wood.

Taking coal out of the ground or taking those tar sands out of the ground removes carbon from the ground that has been there for hundreds of thousands of years and puts it into the atmosphere. It will not return to the ground in less than geologic times. Therefore it adds to the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere never to return to the ground. This carbon increases the greenhouse gas effect.

That is as logical as

Obama has accomplished more drone kills and knocking off more Al Qaida #2 men

then any President.

but Bush, butt Bush , all the "but Bushies",( )0( ) Bush,

You see how there is a lack of logic? ?

By the same logic, farting methane is okay and not as bad as the release from the Siberian permafrost thaw.

CO2 is not always equal,

Why not methane. CH4

Sounds like so much political science.

So of course the farts required to grow my steak is evil per the fish eating & vegetable eating scientist.

But, (i won't do it) beans are ok.

Gives new meaning to

Political Science.

No doubt a most valuable degree in upcoming years.

Moi for Truthiness

I grant you ground level Ozone O3 is diff from high altitude O3.

Maybe we should collect ground level O3 & pipe it up and release it.

Terraforming starts with Terra Control.

PM investment interest.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:00 pm I grant you ground level Ozone O3 is diff from high altitude O3.

Maybe we should collect ground level O3 & pipe it up and release it.

Terraforming starts with Terra Control.

PM investment interest.

When I was still a kid, my dad had a car cleaning company. One of the interesting cleaning tools he had, was an ozone generator. It would electrically generate O3, and the ozone would absorb the odors of pretty much anything. To give you an idea of how effective it was, he bought it second hand from the city police department's crime lab. They would use it to eliminate odors from particularly nasty crime scenes. (Bodies left for days kinda-thing.)

It was dangerous. Despite the only thing it used to make the ozone was the available oxygen in a room, or trapped inside a car, what it pumped out was not breathable. Left overnight in a car, or sealed off in a room, it would kill whatever produced an odor. It would make a smoker's car smell like new. As a teenager I once accidentally flooded my car ( Meaning we had a flash flood, and I didn't see the dip in the road. What I thought was a puddle was more accurately, a small lake.) Even after I dried it all out, mildew smell had moved in to stay. One night with the ozone generator, and it smelled like new again.

The one thing I learned from seeing the ozone generator in operation, was that, though it is an easy process, it is very costly energy-wise. The generator could not be on any circuit with any other appliance.

I used to think (as a kid) that if we could build ozone generators large enough, we could patch the hole in the ozone layer. When I realized how much energy that would take, I grew up and dropped the fantasy. It was a childish fantasy after-all.

You'd have to find a way to collect the ozone at ground level, and transport it to the upper atmosphere at the poles, without consuming more energy than it is worth, or creating more pollutants than you are trying to clean up. If you can figure that out, and make it a profitable endeavor to boot, you'll win a Nobel Prize, and I'll certainly invest in that.

I wonder

Is , 's 21st Century fresh water reservoir?

I mean with global warming, what are they going to do with all that fresh, liquid, water?

Dump it in the ocean and stall the Japanese and Atlantic conveyor currents?

Is it Manifest Destiny that all that fresh water was kept in storage for "us", there.

Just asking?

For decades I have considered one term Democratic President James K. Polk my #1 favorite President.

So my conclusions have a logic.

Moi

And it is a matter of national security

that the oceanic thermal conveyor currents not be disturbed.

I wonder

Is it constitutional when a public right of way run by a toll road agency

that refuses to accept American currency.

One must "rent" a transponder from them and soon have an alternative of

registering licence plates and leaving a + account balance with them.

They make it difficult for anyone who is not a habitual toll way user to pay the fee.

No wonder revenues are down.

Regardless, is it constitutional for them to refuse American cash money as the toll on a public right of way?

Yes, they have the power.

Moi

Toll Road Avoidance in Practice

So that's why they called them "Freeways" eh River?

What are you talking about?????

Freeways are just that, a federally payed for public road, can never be a toll road, because it was built with federal tax dollars. Now states can build roads without federal dollars and can make them toll roads. it is not unusual for them to use a token over cash. The red line comes to mind.

River

I don't have a problem with them requiring correct change,

or don't expect change and pay over the amount due.

It is refusing cash money that makes me unhappy about the management of my public right of way.

When the California Freeways were built and over the years I don't think we appreciated the

FREE in FREEway. It was just a name. "Freeway".

Now the name makes sense witnessing a competing set of toll roads.

Economic infrastructure rationing.

Is it legal on a public right of way?

Moi