Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.electronics > #32511 > unrolled thread
| Started by | F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-09 21:52 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-15 11:14 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 390 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.electronics
SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-09 21:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 03:31 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 07:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 15:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 19:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 20:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 21:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 21:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies pedro <me@privacy.net> - 2017-02-12 09:28 +0800
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 21:54 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 07:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:49 +1300
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 17:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 17:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 19:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 20:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 03:12 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 05:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:25 -0800
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 09:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 15:01 -0800
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 14:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-11 19:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-12 04:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 09:38 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 11:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 12:09 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 13:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 14:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 15:08 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-13 18:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 18:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-13 19:41 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-13 20:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 21:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-13 22:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 23:25 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 06:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 11:54 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 12:27 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 14:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 14:15 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 16:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:27 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 17:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 16:11 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 17:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-14 19:33 +1000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 21:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-14 16:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 19:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-15 14:47 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 11:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-14 12:39 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 20:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies HD <herpem@bigpond.com> - 2017-02-14 20:01 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 21:18 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-14 22:43 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-15 06:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-15 12:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 13:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-15 14:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-15 23:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 08:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 15:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 17:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 04:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 08:57 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 11:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:48 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-17 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:23 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 08:43 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 15:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 09:03 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 20:30 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 10:16 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-18 11:54 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@your.scary.shadow.edu> - 2017-02-18 23:55 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 14:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 16:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:02 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 17:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-20 04:16 +0000
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-20 16:18 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 18:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-23 04:37 +0000
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-23 15:27 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-24 04:42 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-20 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 13:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 13:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 16:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 16:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 17:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 21:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 23:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:31 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 15:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 16:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 17:41 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 17:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:25 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 16:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 08:31 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:33 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 11:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:07 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 13:52 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 16:38 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 15:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:56 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 16:35 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 17:10 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 20:40 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 21:01 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-02-16 23:34 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:50 +1100
Re: SA Greenies not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-02-16 22:02 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 09:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-17 11:12 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-17 10:36 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-02-17 13:59 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-17 13:24 +1000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:29 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-16 11:49 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 05:23 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-16 11:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-16 11:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-17 11:48 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 12:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:03 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-17 17:04 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-17 19:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 10:20 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:43 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:55 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-18 11:14 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 12:21 +1100
Re: Cats felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:20 +1100
Re: Cats Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-18 11:53 +0000
Re: Cats felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 23:47 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-19 00:07 +1100
Re: Cats Peter <noemail@pigpond.com> - 2017-02-19 10:23 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:47 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:09 +0000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:37 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 08:46 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-19 09:27 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-19 09:25 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-19 18:52 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 14:02 +0000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 11:49 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 09:58 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:20 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 11:23 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:16 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:39 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 13:16 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-20 02:21 +0000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 14:28 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 14:26 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 17:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:03 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 12:06 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:38 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:03 +0000
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 17:45 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:26 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-19 14:32 +1000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 15:57 +1100
Re: Cats Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-19 10:04 +0000
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-19 18:46 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:16 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:37 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 10:42 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 08:23 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-20 09:18 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:48 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-20 16:25 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 17:08 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-20 16:21 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 10:31 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 12:37 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 18:04 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-20 16:12 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-21 10:10 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:33 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-21 11:15 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:44 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:42 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 00:54 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:21 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-23 09:53 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:17 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:10 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-19 10:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-19 12:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 09:27 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 11:28 +1100
Re: Cats Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-20 11:29 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 19:43 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 19:53 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-20 20:26 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-20 20:42 +1100
Re: Cats Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-23 09:56 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-20 23:59 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-21 00:39 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:50 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 01:46 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:30 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:52 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 18:07 +1100
Re: Cats Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-23 04:10 +0000
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 16:26 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-25 10:41 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 16:06 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-25 21:36 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 08:57 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-26 18:01 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-21 10:41 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:50 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:52 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:33 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 00:58 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:31 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-22 09:29 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:26 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:44 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:55 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:45 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 13:07 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 13:39 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 14:55 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 15:19 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 17:34 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-22 17:47 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 18:04 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 18:56 +1100
Re: Cats Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-22 21:54 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 18:55 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:17 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 14:32 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 15:00 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:19 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-23 00:29 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:14 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-23 00:30 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 15:43 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:23 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:35 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 16:36 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:38 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 15:49 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-01 16:11 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:05 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-01 23:06 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 00:16 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-02 08:13 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-02 12:49 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-03-02 14:26 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:15 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-03 10:48 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-03 11:16 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-03-03 10:35 +1000
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-03 14:52 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-03-02 14:22 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 18:03 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 18:12 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-28 09:46 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:57 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:40 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 09:56 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-03-01 14:39 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 16:38 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:28 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-27 18:06 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-27 18:52 +1000
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 06:14 +1100
Re: Cats Fran Snortilus <nuts@loathsomeneedshelp.com> - 2017-02-28 17:43 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:25 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:52 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 11:47 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:46 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-23 00:23 +1100
Re: Cats Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 10:19 +1100
Re: Cats felix <felix@real_felix.invalid> - 2017-02-22 10:57 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:46 +1100
Re: Cats "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-21 12:14 +1000
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 18:10 +1100
Re: Cats F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 01:00 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-22 07:33 +1100
Re: Cats de chucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-21 11:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-17 09:28 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-18 09:46 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:08 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-18 21:30 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-02-18 15:18 +0000
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-12 10:20 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:07 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-13 10:54 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-13 00:34 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-13 14:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-13 15:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-13 15:36 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-13 15:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-15 11:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:19 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-15 10:37 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 07:32 +1100
Re: SA Greenies "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2017-02-11 07:08 +1000
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-11 08:13 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-09 22:17 +0000
Re: SA Greenies Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-02-10 10:05 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-02-10 10:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-02-10 14:37 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Tony <nomail@nospam.com> - 2017-02-10 08:46 +0800
Re: SA Greenies ellefranqq@gmail.com - 2019-03-15 19:06 -0700
Re: SA Greenies FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-16 17:21 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 12:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-23 12:52 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 12:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 12:42 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 16:00 +1100
Re: SA Greenies F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:26 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-10 22:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:58 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 15:36 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 18:24 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:15 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 22:44 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:01 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-12 08:16 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:03 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Fran Snortilus <ask@itsahoot.com> - 2017-02-11 16:45 +1100
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-13 15:06 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 17:28 +1100
Re: SA Greenies Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2017-02-13 21:07 +0000
Re: SA Greenies felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-02-15 11:14 +1100
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 08:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoaddtp.vv4.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32745 |
felix wrote: > Petzl wrote: ----snip---- > > Fran Snotilus > > thinks by putting people down she looks smart > > it doesn't work.. There's a reason she thinks otherwise, guys. And it does not reflect well on the way her abuses are dealt with. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 15:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <58a67e04$0$51804$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #32725 |
Xeno wrote: > On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson >> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: > <snip> >>> >>> **All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of >>> coal-fired power. >>> >> You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)? > > If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and > smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will > end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic > chemistry*! > > <snip> > >>>>>> They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut >>>>>> down >>>>> >>>>> **Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major >>>>> contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations >>>>> must >>>>> be shut down. >>>> >>>> So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down? >>> >>> **They should simply be shut down. >>> >> Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2 >> emissions. > > > There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero > CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are > stating is a chemical impossibility. > > http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey > > Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane. > > CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O > > In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide > and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed. > > Look at the formula under this heading in the above link; > > Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen > > Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link; > > Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air > > In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic > substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these > straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your > car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water > and carbon dioxide. > > http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3 > > Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2 > Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2 > Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: > CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O. > > The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are. > >> >>>> Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply. >>> >>> **I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally >>> screwed up. >>> >> oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever. > > The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use > of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the > world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards? >> >>>> CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming. >>> >>> **It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a >>> problem. >>> >> [snip actual web page below] >>> **Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2 >>> releases have caused the present warming! >> >> Your credibility as a Climatologic is? > > You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess > CO2 in the atmosphere. > >> Or you just copying Ordung? >> Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor) >> translated from Swedish >> https://is.gd/NzPGOu >> original >> http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/ >> >> https://is.gd/7iZhfG >> > If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without > producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely. > > Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high > school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You > can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies. > Start with the links I supplied. > > methods that show promise, http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 16:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egnfigF1tj7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32734 |
On 17/02/2017 3:37 PM, F Murtz wrote: > Xeno wrote: >> On 17/02/2017 10:04 AM, Petzl wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:57:51 +1100, Trevor Wilson >>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >> <snip> >>>> >>>> **All of which pales into insignificance beside the mess made of >>>> coal-fired power. >>>> >>> You ever smelled Geo thermal emissions (you would die if you did)? >> >> If you clean up those geothermal emissions by removing the toxic and >> smelly substances, usually by either oxidation or reduction, you will >> end up with *more* carbon dioxide and water, not less. This is *basic >> chemistry*! >> >> <snip> >> >>>>>>> They got Labor to stop selling it then had the coal stations shut >>>>>>> down >>>>>> >>>>>> **Coal-fired power stations emit large amounts of CO2. CO2 is a major >>>>>> contributor to global warming. Therefore, coal-fired power stations >>>>>> must >>>>>> be shut down. >>>>> >>>>> So why not sell them to Chinese THEN shut them down? >>>> >>>> **They should simply be shut down. >>>> >>> Maybe but not yet. Also there are coal powered that have zero CO2 >>> emissions. >> >> >> There are no (none, zero, zip) coal fired power stations that have zero >> CO2 emissions. There is no such animal as *clean coal*. What you are >> stating is a chemical impossibility. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/q5x2yey >> >> Look on the above link for graphic of the perfect combustion of methane. >> >> CH4 + 2O2 ----> CO2 + 2H2O >> >> In case you don't get it, in perfect combustion you get carbon dioxide >> and water. The ratio depends on the fuel consumed. >> >> Look at the formula under this heading in the above link; >> >> Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in oxygen >> >> Then look at the formula under this heading in the above link; >> >> Stoichiometric combustion of a hydrocarbon in air >> >> In your car you get somewhat less than perfect combustion so toxic >> substances are produced, most notably NOx, CO and HC. In these >> straightened times, it is the role of the catalytic converter in your >> car to convert these substances to neutral substances - notably water >> and carbon dioxide. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/jzrkxk3 >> >> Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2 >> Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2 >> Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: >> CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O. >> >> The above link will serve to prove just how naive you are. >> >>> >>>>> Knee jerking has cost SA a reliable power supply. >>>> >>>> **I agree. When the Liberals sold electricity assets, they royally >>>> screwed up. >>>> >>> oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens" do no better ever. >> >> The *only* way to control or minimise CO2 emissions is to minimise use >> of fuel. Why do you think vehicle emission control bodies around the >> world include fuel consumption reduction measures in emission standards? >>> >>>>> CO2 may not even be the or a player in Global warming. >>>> >>>> **It is a major player. With a CO2 level of 300ppm, we wouldn't have a >>>> problem. >>>> >>> [snip actual web page below] >>>> **Humans ARE, ALREADY controlling the climate, you moron. Our CO2 >>>> releases have caused the present warming! >>> >>> Your credibility as a Climatologic is? >> >> You don't need to be a climatologist to understand the effects of excess >> CO2 in the atmosphere. >> >>> Or you just copying Ordung? >>> Mine is from a Criminologist Scientist (Doctor and Professor) >>> translated from Swedish >>> https://is.gd/NzPGOu >>> original >>> http://klimatsans.com/2017/02/05/klimatfragan-grundad-pa-vetenskap-eller-dogm/ >>> >>> >>> https://is.gd/7iZhfG >>> >> If he is the one saying that it is possible to burn coal without >> producing CO2, then I have to dismiss his credibility entirely. >> >> Might I respectfully suggest that you learnt nothing from your high >> school chemistry classes. Fret not for it seems you are not alone. You >> can redress this significant lack by undergoing some remedial studies. >> Start with the links I supplied. >> >> > > > methods that show promise, > http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH > > > http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901 **You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 16:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <sg2dach5k8pj47jmad5op7hj6uri64k5kn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32735 |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:16:34 +1100, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >> methods that show promise, >> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH >> >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901 > >**You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's >dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. That is where you are wrong! By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. oxyfuel coal combustion is what to look for -- Petzl Says a Liberal card carrying *SHILL*! "FRAN" the Shill" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill#Marketing To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 19:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egnqmkF3ul1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32739 |
On 17/02/2017 4:37 PM, Petzl wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:16:34 +1100, Trevor Wilson > <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: > >>> methods that show promise, >>> http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/19/future.coal.plant/index.html?_s=PM:TECH >>> >>> >>> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24225901 >> >> **You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. There's >> dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. > > That is where you are wrong! > By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are > no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. > oxyfuel coal combustion is what to look for > **Bullshit. Burning coal for electricity emits more CO2 than gas and ALL renewable sources. Coal is dirty, due to the CO2 released. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 09:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoadf3l.vv4.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32739 |
Petzl wrote: > Trevor Wilson wrote: ----snip---- > > You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. > > There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. > > That is where you are wrong! No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute. > By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are > no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 20:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dggdact9oi4busulpqrd2o0h8umt7luob5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32758 |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >Petzl wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: > >----snip---- > >> > You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. >> > There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. >> >> That is where you are wrong! > >No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal >is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been >boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use >is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the >alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which >is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You >can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute. > >> By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are >> no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. > >That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain >that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting >from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that >burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon >dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. > >----snip---- > >Ned Even Australia are experimenting with the process called "oxyfuel coal combustion process" <http://www.callideoxyfuel.com/What/CallideOxyfuelProject.aspx> -- Petzl -- Tiberius Caesar who reigned for 22 years, and his last year was AD 37. wrote: "The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms, have received the religion of Christ."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 10:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoadjcb.vv4.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #32761 |
Petzl wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Petzl wrote: > > > Trevor Wilson wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. > > > > There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. > > > > > > That is where you are wrong! > > > > No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal > > is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been > > boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use > > is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the > > alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which > > is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You > > can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute. > > > > > By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there > > > are no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. > > > > That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain > > that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting > > from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that > > burning carbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon > > dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. > > Even Australia are experimenting with the process called "oxyfuel > coal combustion process" > <http://www.callideoxyfuel.com/What/CallideOxyfuelProject.aspx> The thing is, as I said, nothing will change the fact that burning carbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. All they can do is make it, as Trevor said, slightly less dirty. It's not good enough. There's another reason we should eschew the burning of coal: like oil, it's a fossil product, and burning it destroys it forever. OTOH, like oil, it is already the basis of many types of manufactured product. That can expand greatly, and the products cam be made recyclable. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 09:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <r9teacpenc3deds3104mrhnjqctk1npdoi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32758 |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >Petzl wrote: >> Trevor Wilson wrote: > >----snip---- > >> > You still don't get it. There's no such thing as 'clean coal'. >> > There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. >> >> That is where you are wrong! > >No, he's right, Petzl. The nearest think we have to clean coal >is coke, which is coal from which all the hydrocarbons have been >boiled away. But it's not used as a fuel anyway; its major use >is in steel manufacture, which requires pure carbon to make the >alloy. The hydrocarbons are often wasted (simply burnt off, which >is highly polluting), but they can be collected and used. You >can manufacture, for example, a petrol substitute. > >> By recycling Coal flue gas, mixing with oxygen adding coal there are >> no stack emmisions from oxyfuel coal combustion. > >That's essentially a coal industry myth. Yes, it's absolutely certain >that they can significantly clean up their act, but they're starting >from an extremely dirty base, and nothing will change the fact that >burning catbon produces carbon monoxide, which is toxic, and carbon >dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. > Yes Australian coal miners get away with murder in not treating their "coal wash" But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as liquid CO2) Diagram <http://www.power-technology.com/uploads/project/callide-coal/images/1-oxyfuel-project.jpg> -- Petzl In 2009, Buzz Aldrin commented on climate change by saying: "I think the climate has been changing for billions of years. If it's warming now, it may cool off later. I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today. I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all, I think the world is causing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o89cku$21k$4@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #32765 |
On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham ><nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: > > > But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other > places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed > > (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as > liquid CO2) You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of coal how can that be "little". -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ördög <devil@your.scary.shadow.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a47cfc.v8d.19.10@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
Jasen Betts declared > On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >><nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >> >> > >> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >> >> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as liquid >> CO2) > > You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of > coal how can that be "little". Don't mind the village idiot of aus.politics, poor old Petz. Concepts like chemical equations and the concept of volume and density are beyond his current capabilities. Purely on weight: Carbon atomic weight 12 Oxygen atomic weight 16 and that times 2 (remember CO2) That makes CO2=44 vs pure carbon=12. That is a 3.7 times weight increase per mole of substance. Carbon is a solid. CO2 is in this case liquefied. Their densities are still very different meaning that the resulting liquid will need to take up more space than the removed carbon. So far science has not been able to create real magic. Maybe we need qualified alchemists to solve this problem. -- Rest assured I am not going anywhere
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 11:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mfphacdhjri6prrs7vj6crbbvsvq2gt16o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32796 |
On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >><nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >> > >> >> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >> >> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as >> liquid CO2) > >You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of >coal how can that be "little". Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much reduced and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere -- Petzl The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Ba----rds." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years. John Cleese, British writer, Atheist, actor and tall person
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 11:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egs972F1457U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32815 |
On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote: > On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: > >> On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >>> <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >>> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >>> >>> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as >>> liquid CO2) >> >> You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of >> coal how can that be "little". > > Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers > they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated > "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which > removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much > reduced **"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal. There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as > carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere **Great. And just how do you propose to GUARANTEE that all this captured CO2 will NEVER escape? Never ever. Do you know how much space will be required to store this dangerous stuff? Hey, I've got an idea (I know, it's wild and whacky): Let's stop using coal for making electricity and use, oh, I dunno, Solar PV or Solar/thermal. Just a thought. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 13:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <m32iach4do2f3skeafhnsvk33rsmh547l6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32820 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote: >> On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >>>> <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >>>> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >>>> >>>> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as >>>> liquid CO2) >>> >>> You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of >>> coal how can that be "little". >> >> Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers >> they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated >> "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which >> removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much >> reduced > >**"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal. > 100% >There's dirty coal and slightly less dirty coal. > > > and liquefied and pumped thousands of feed underground as >> carbon capture. Nothing goes to atmosphere > >**Great. And just how do you propose to GUARANTEE that all this captured >CO2 will NEVER escape? Never ever. Do you know how much space will be >required to store this dangerous stuff? > >Hey, I've got an idea (I know, it's wild and whacky): Let's stop using >coal for making electricity and use, oh, I dunno, Solar PV or >Solar/thermal. Just a thought. -- Petzl None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see. Matthew Henry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 14:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egsh8fF2eeaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32826 |
On 19/02/2017 1:53 PM, Petzl wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson > <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: > >> On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote: >>> On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >>>>> <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >>>>> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >>>>> >>>>> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as >>>>> liquid CO2) >>>> >>>> You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of >>>> coal how can that be "little". >>> >>> Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers >>> they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated >>> "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which >>> removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much >>> reduced >> >> **"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal. >> > 100% **I call bullshit. Cite your proof. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 15:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <1i7iac11offt6b7jcdlrhckjmv3c9ohsp6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32829 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:15:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>On 19/02/2017 1:53 PM, Petzl wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham
>>>>>> <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other
>>>>>> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as
>>>>>> liquid CO2)
>>>>>
>>>>> You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of
>>>>> coal how can that be "little".
>>>>
>>>> Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers
>>>> they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated
>>>> "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which
>>>> removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much
>>>> reduced
>>>
>>> **"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal.
>>>
>> 100%
>
>
>**I call bullshit. Cite your proof.
Sounds like you have shit on your liver
Get a hose get flow to 1 litre a minute
Show it up yourse for one minute hold water there for a least one
minute (or longer and bend forward and back while waiting) and have a
crap/dump.
You can't google and snip out other cites of proof?
<https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/03/are-emissions-free-fossil-fuel-power-plants-too-good-to-be-true/>
https://is.gd/V5o2O7
A fossil-fuel power plant that will produce low-cost electricity with
zero emissions? It sounds too good to be true. And it is for the
forseeable future.
Carbon capture and storage technology, which can bury up to 90 percent
of the power plant emissions, according to the EPA shows promise but
still has huge hurdles to overcome. The technology is expensive and
unproven — the captured carbon must remain permanently trapped
underground — and in requires massive public subsidies. All of the
US-based projects, which are still in the demonstration phase, are
publicly-financed in part.
However, Net Power thinks it is on the road to success. “You’re
definitely not the first person to say that,” admits Walker Dimmig, a
spokesman for Net Power, when asked if the company’s technology is too
good to be true. Earlier this week the company said it is building a
zero-emissions plant in Texas, which it says is a “first-of-a-kind.”
“Every piece of equipment except for the turbine is already in
operation today,” Dimmig told Environmental Leader. “We’ve done
thousands of thermodynamic models, and others have done the same.
We’ve even tested the novel combustor that the turbine needs.
Everything indicates this works the way we believe it does. And now
we’re building the demo to confirm it. I guess you could say the only
downside is that it doesn’t exist yet and we’re having to go prove it.
We have a great deal of commercial interest, but since it’s a brand
new technology, everyone wants to see if it will work.”
Dimmig says the company says it expects its future utility-scale power
plants using Net Power technology will be able to sell electricity at
a comparable cost natural gas power plants.
Net Power is a collaboration between Exelon Generation, CB&I, and 8
Rivers Capital. Almost two years ago the company announced it had
secured funding for the $140 million project. This week it broke
ground on the 50-megawatt demonstration plant in in La Porte, Texas.
The power plant uses Net Power’s power generation technology with
inherent carbon capture, which means it doesn’t require expensive,
efficiency-reducing carbon capture equipment.
“Traditional carbon capture approaches begin by assuming today’s best
methods of power generation, such as natural gas combined cycle, are
also the best starting point for developing a carbon capture system,”
Dimmig explains. “So they design additive systems that bolt onto
traditional plants to capture, cleanup and then compress their
emissions streams. By their very nature, these systems will always be
cost-additive to existing technologies: if you add a bunch of
equipment, complexity, and processes that require energy, these
systems will by necessity lower the efficiency and increase the
capital cost of current plants. The only question is can we get those
increased costs to an acceptable level; so far, it hasn’t worked out.”
Net Power, on the other hand, produces a high-pressure, high-quality
CO2 stream that can be removed via a pipeline and sequestered or used
in various industrial processes, including enhanced oil recovery.
The company says this works because:
It uses CO2 (instead of steam) as the working fluid to drive a
turbine. “So, when we go to remove part of that working fluid, it’s
already in the condition needed to put it in a pipeline,” Dimmig says.
The power plant uses an oxy-combustion system, which means it burns
fuel with pure oxygen instead of air. This produces combustion
products of CO2 and water, while eliminating NOx and other impurities.
The system then removes water from this working fluid.
It recycles the majority of the CO2 working fluid back into the front
of the combustor, rather than using that hot CO2 to boil water and
drive a steam turbine. “Because most of what we put into our combustor
is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and
therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” Dimmig says.
The demonstration plant will generate power that will be fed to the
grid. Net Power expects commissioning to begin in late 2016 and be
completed in 2017. The company says the 50MW plant will also provide
the validation to begin constructing the first 295MWe,
commercial-scale Net Power plants.
Lux Research analyst Daniel Choi says the major advantage of Net
Power’s technology is that the emissions-free aspect. The company’s
primary competition comes from companies developing carbon capture
utilization and sequestration technologies; “however, because Net
Power has a bottom-up approach to cleaner power generation — whereas
CCU/CCS is fitted to traditionally designed plants — it is a promising
long-term solution for new projects,” Choi says.
The downsides to Net Power’s technology involve cost — because the
process requires an extremely pure oxygen stream, it needs to also
build a cryogenic air separation unit, which is very capital intensive
— and future finding, Choi says. Most of the $140 million Net Power
raised in 2014 will be spent on the demonstration project, which means
it will need to raise more money to build the 295 MW commercial
plants.
“Overall, the company is well positioned to capitalize on the overall
trend toward lowering carbon emissions,” Choi says. “The management
team has a solid technical background, and the company is supported by
major players. If the demonstration and planned commercial project are
successful, NetPower may be able to fully take advantage of the shift
from coal to natural gas power not only in the US, but possibly in
other countries as well.”
--
Petzl
In 2009, Buzz Aldrin commented on climate change by saying:
"I think the climate has been changing for billions of years.
If it's warming now, it may cool off later.
I'm not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.
I'm not necessarily of the school that we are causing it all,
I think the world is causing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 16:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8bake$mce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32830 |
On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote: > “Because most of what we put into our combustor > is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and > therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” I'd like you to explain the above. CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor? Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*? The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph. Can you link to the research documents? -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 17:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <duciac1s3phgnpv9qh2vnf21qjag08lciq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32834 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:33:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote: > >> “Because most of what we put into our combustor >> is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and >> therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” > >I'd like you to explain the above. > >CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor? >Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*? > >The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph. > >Can you link to the research documents? Not rocket science. When you burn coal in air 80% is nitrogen When you burn coal in pure oxygen it is only CO2 produced at much ore efficient combustion. Emissions must therefore only be what the amount of oxygen is converted to gas allowing economic recapture -- Petzl None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see. Matthew Henry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 17:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o8be7u$u9o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32836 |
On 19/02/2017 5:02 PM, Petzl wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:33:35 +1100, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >> On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote: >> >>> “Because most of what we put into our combustor >>> is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and >>> therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” >> >> I'd like you to explain the above. >> >> CO2 being inert, how is it able to lower oxygen needs in a combustor? >> Besides, CO2 in, CO2 out. Where is the *gain*? >> >> The rest of the article poses as many questions per paragraph. >> >> Can you link to the research documents? > > Not rocket science. When you burn coal in air 80% is nitrogen That much I am aware of. After all, I deal with automotive diesel and petrol engines and NOx emissions are of great concern. > > When you burn coal in pure oxygen it is only CO2 produced at much ore > efficient combustion. CO2 and Water. The issue here is that we are not burning a gas such as methane. We are burning coal and there are *pollutants* in the coal. That, however, is not the point I alluded to in the above excerpt. I would like to know how CO2, being inert, is able to lower oxygen needs in the combustor. After all, it will be adding nothing to the combustion process save for dilution. Since NOx isn't an issue in the combustor, why the need to dilute the fuel / oxygen mixture? > Emissions must therefore only be what the amount of oxygen is > converted to gas allowing economic recapture > What gas? CO2? The chemical processes are already available. I gave the one for Methane in both air and oxygen in a past post. Coal, being a solid, is a different beast - unless you convert it to something else and purify it. -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-20 09:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egum7fFfrv7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32830 |
On 19/02/2017 3:31 PM, Petzl wrote: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:15:55 +1100, Trevor Wilson > <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: > >> On 19/02/2017 1:53 PM, Petzl wrote: >>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:58:37 +1100, Trevor Wilson >>> <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19/02/2017 11:32 AM, Petzl wrote: >>>>> On 18 Feb 2017 11:54:06 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-17, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:03:49 GMT, Ned Latham >>>>>>> <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But working oxyfuel coal fired power station in Germany USA and other >>>>>>> places have zero CO2 atmospheric emissions. When working as designed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (they pump what little they make underground called recapture as >>>>>>> liquid CO2) >>>>>> >>>>>> You lieing liar, it makes Two to Three tons of CO2 for every ton of >>>>>> coal how can that be "little". >>>>> >>>>> Oxyfuel Coal powered station latest technology are NOT air breathers >>>>> they use liquid Oxygen vaporized and mixed with the recirculated >>>>> "flue/stack" gas the coal is combusted over a fluidized bed which >>>>> removes the waste as carbon particles. The CO2 emissions are very much >>>>> reduced >>>> >>>> **"very much reduced"? By how much? 10%. Big fucking deal. >>>> >>> 100% >> >> >> **I call bullshit. Cite your proof. > > Sounds like you have shit on your liver > Get a hose get flow to 1 litre a minute > Show it up yourse for one minute hold water there for a least one > minute (or longer and bend forward and back while waiting) and have a > crap/dump. > > You can't google and snip out other cites of proof? > <https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/03/are-emissions-free-fossil-fuel-power-plants-too-good-to-be-true/> > https://is.gd/V5o2O7 > A fossil-fuel power plant that will produce low-cost electricity with > zero emissions? It sounds too good to be true. And it is for the > forseeable future. > > Carbon capture and storage technology, which can bury up to 90 percent > of the power plant emissions, according to the EPA shows promise but > still has huge hurdles to overcome. The technology is expensive and > unproven — the captured carbon must remain permanently trapped > underground — and in requires massive public subsidies. All of the > US-based projects, which are still in the demonstration phase, are > publicly-financed in part. > > However, Net Power thinks it is on the road to success. “You’re > definitely not the first person to say that,” admits Walker Dimmig, a > spokesman for Net Power, when asked if the company’s technology is too > good to be true. Earlier this week the company said it is building a > zero-emissions plant in Texas, which it says is a “first-of-a-kind.” > > “Every piece of equipment except for the turbine is already in > operation today,” Dimmig told Environmental Leader. “We’ve done > thousands of thermodynamic models, and others have done the same. > We’ve even tested the novel combustor that the turbine needs. > Everything indicates this works the way we believe it does. And now > we’re building the demo to confirm it. I guess you could say the only > downside is that it doesn’t exist yet and we’re having to go prove it. > We have a great deal of commercial interest, but since it’s a brand > new technology, everyone wants to see if it will work.” > > Dimmig says the company says it expects its future utility-scale power > plants using Net Power technology will be able to sell electricity at > a comparable cost natural gas power plants. > > Net Power is a collaboration between Exelon Generation, CB&I, and 8 > Rivers Capital. Almost two years ago the company announced it had > secured funding for the $140 million project. This week it broke > ground on the 50-megawatt demonstration plant in in La Porte, Texas. > > The power plant uses Net Power’s power generation technology with > inherent carbon capture, which means it doesn’t require expensive, > efficiency-reducing carbon capture equipment. > > “Traditional carbon capture approaches begin by assuming today’s best > methods of power generation, such as natural gas combined cycle, are > also the best starting point for developing a carbon capture system,” > Dimmig explains. “So they design additive systems that bolt onto > traditional plants to capture, cleanup and then compress their > emissions streams. By their very nature, these systems will always be > cost-additive to existing technologies: if you add a bunch of > equipment, complexity, and processes that require energy, these > systems will by necessity lower the efficiency and increase the > capital cost of current plants. The only question is can we get those > increased costs to an acceptable level; so far, it hasn’t worked out.” > > Net Power, on the other hand, produces a high-pressure, high-quality > CO2 stream that can be removed via a pipeline and sequestered or used > in various industrial processes, including enhanced oil recovery. > > The company says this works because: > > It uses CO2 (instead of steam) as the working fluid to drive a > turbine. “So, when we go to remove part of that working fluid, it’s > already in the condition needed to put it in a pipeline,” Dimmig says. > The power plant uses an oxy-combustion system, which means it burns > fuel with pure oxygen instead of air. This produces combustion > products of CO2 and water, while eliminating NOx and other impurities. > The system then removes water from this working fluid. > It recycles the majority of the CO2 working fluid back into the front > of the combustor, rather than using that hot CO2 to boil water and > drive a steam turbine. “Because most of what we put into our combustor > is hot, recycled CO2, we are able lower our oxygen needs, and > therefore lower its overall cost impact on our system,” Dimmig says. > The demonstration plant will generate power that will be fed to the > grid. Net Power expects commissioning to begin in late 2016 and be > completed in 2017. The company says the 50MW plant will also provide > the validation to begin constructing the first 295MWe, > commercial-scale Net Power plants. > > Lux Research analyst Daniel Choi says the major advantage of Net > Power’s technology is that the emissions-free aspect. The company’s > primary competition comes from companies developing carbon capture > utilization and sequestration technologies; “however, because Net > Power has a bottom-up approach to cleaner power generation — whereas > CCU/CCS is fitted to traditionally designed plants — it is a promising > long-term solution for new projects,” Choi says. > > The downsides to Net Power’s technology involve cost — because the > process requires an extremely pure oxygen stream, it needs to also > build a cryogenic air separation unit, which is very capital intensive > — and future finding, Choi says. Most of the $140 million Net Power > raised in 2014 will be spent on the demonstration project, which means > it will need to raise more money to build the 295 MW commercial > plants. > > “Overall, the company is well positioned to capitalize on the overall > trend toward lowering carbon emissions,” Choi says. “The management > team has a solid technical background, and the company is supported by > major players. If the demonstration and planned commercial project are > successful, NetPower may be able to fully take advantage of the shift > from coal to natural gas power not only in the US, but possibly in > other countries as well.” > > **OK, so it DOES produce shit-loads of CO2. The burying of the CO2 is a different process. How will you guarantee that the CO2 will NEVER escape? Do you realise how much space will be required to store all the CO2? Who will pay to store all that CO2 forever (while ensuring it is never released)? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics
csiph-web