Nuclear, coal and finished against global warming?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28

Nuclear, coal and finished against global warming?




by Addrelyn » 05/07/11, 10:16

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/energie-environnement/actu/reuters_00358308-la-pollution-atmospherique-en-asie-freine-le-rechauffement-189891.php

Air pollution in Asia curbs warming


Coal emits CO2 -> greenhouse effect
Coal emits sulfur -> less solar radiation reaches the ground

The two compensate, so we found the perfect energy!
: Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

(A little humor does not hurt ...)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79323
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11044




by Christophe » 05/07/11, 10:20

Great news! So let's all drive to RED (heating oil less desolate) to fight against the warming! : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
FPLM
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 306
Registration: 04/02/10, 23:47
x 1




by FPLM » 05/07/11, 11:08

As regards emissions (waste), it is clear that the capture, neutralization / storage or, better, the useful recycling of CO2, H2S, ... is technologically acquired (ion exchange membranes, soot filter, Zeolites, etc.) and risk-free compared to the disastrous management of nuclear waste which, whatever it may be, remains radioactive.

To believe in the safety of the massive addition of 2 compounds whose certain effects are canceled out in the complex atmospheric soup is a mistake!
This is forgetting a whole part of the life cycle of a molecule. Many transformations take place in an atmosphere (T °, pressure, UV radiation, oxidation, reduction, ...) before falling to the ground or, afterwards, a significant amount of reaction will occur.

On the other hand, which says burning of carbonaceous matter does not necessarily say GES!
As far as fossil materials are concerned, no rejection should be made, neither CO2 nor H2S.
In the case of organic matter, the amount of waste discharged should be calculated in such a way as to stick to the amount released naturally (decomposition, fires, etc.) by this organic matter.
In 2 cases, there must be recovery of gas output especially since they are not so much waste as raw materials for other applications.
The supercritical CO2 is a valuable solvent and is even considered as heat transfer fluid. It is also a nutrient for certain aquatic plants with high added value (spirulina), ...
H2S is very useful also, redox with a reducer (metal) which gives on one side a sulfur compound (naturally present), which in some cases is biologically harmless, and on the other H2.
More simply, the remaining ash has a basic character and H2S, an acid character, the 2 can therefore neutralize.
Here, just a few ideas of use related to the combustion.
Regarding nuclear waste, people have no idea how to use them otherwise than to hurt more.
0 x
"If you are not careful, the newspapers will eventually make you hate the oppressed and the oppressors worship. "
Malcolm X

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 383 guests