Zero Carbon Methane is Missing !! How can this be?? One of the fastest ways to reduce carbon dioxide release from gas turbine power plants is to feed them with zero carbon methane. The only exhaust is water vapor. No need for carbon capture and deep well sequestration. There is no carbon to capture. By putting the methane pyrolysis unit between the gas pipeline and the gas power turbine, then carbon comes out before burning and only non-polluting hydrogen goes into fuel the gas turbine. Exhaust is just water vapor. See this link for details:
Every four years it's the same. A bunch of folks all cranked up about a doc that ultimately doesn't matter. Keep in mind that the real point here is what the activists in the swing electoral states, WI, MI, PA FL etc. are comfortable with and can sell to their constituents. So far Joe and his team have done a great job of threading the needle between the needs of the campaign and the often groundless demands of the lefties.
Anyone have any thoughts about the fossil fuel industry with respect to the huge outdoor rec act that passed the House yesterday? Everything I'm reading suggests the package is great because it forwards unprecedented sums of money toward public lands maintenance backlog, etc., but that all of this money comes from oil royalties (like the LWCF, but it's broader than that). In fact, the API published a statement that explicitly linked the conservation of public lands with the long-term resilience of fossil fuel, and I'm tearing my hair out because if we have any intent of drawing down fossil fuels, we'll need brand new legislation for anything that relies on those revenue, for lack of a better word, pipelines.
Nuclear needs to get a lot more popular, but it also needs to get a lot cheaper if it’s going to be an actual useful tool in decarbonizing at least the USA. I never can quite tell where environmental progressives actually fall on nuclear, and it seems to vary more than just about any other aspect of environmental activism. But modern options are REALLY attractive, and if the US government simply adopted a policy of fuel reprocessing, there are basically no negative externalities (just operating costs and the reality of simple value economics).
Zero Carbon Methane is Missing !! How can this be?? One of the fastest ways to reduce carbon dioxide release from gas turbine power plants is to feed them with zero carbon methane. The only exhaust is water vapor. No need for carbon capture and deep well sequestration. There is no carbon to capture. By putting the methane pyrolysis unit between the gas pipeline and the gas power turbine, then carbon comes out before burning and only non-polluting hydrogen goes into fuel the gas turbine. Exhaust is just water vapor. See this link for details:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-potentially-low-cost-low-emissions-technology-methane.html
And here is a link to a tech company working on this (no personal benefit to me)
https://www.czero.energy/
Every four years it's the same. A bunch of folks all cranked up about a doc that ultimately doesn't matter. Keep in mind that the real point here is what the activists in the swing electoral states, WI, MI, PA FL etc. are comfortable with and can sell to their constituents. So far Joe and his team have done a great job of threading the needle between the needs of the campaign and the often groundless demands of the lefties.
Yes, please do keep us updated. Thanks, Emily!
Anyone have any thoughts about the fossil fuel industry with respect to the huge outdoor rec act that passed the House yesterday? Everything I'm reading suggests the package is great because it forwards unprecedented sums of money toward public lands maintenance backlog, etc., but that all of this money comes from oil royalties (like the LWCF, but it's broader than that). In fact, the API published a statement that explicitly linked the conservation of public lands with the long-term resilience of fossil fuel, and I'm tearing my hair out because if we have any intent of drawing down fossil fuels, we'll need brand new legislation for anything that relies on those revenue, for lack of a better word, pipelines.
Emily, please post ideas of how we can send our concerns to DNC and Biden campaign so they will be heard! Thanks
Nuclear needs to get a lot more popular, but it also needs to get a lot cheaper if it’s going to be an actual useful tool in decarbonizing at least the USA. I never can quite tell where environmental progressives actually fall on nuclear, and it seems to vary more than just about any other aspect of environmental activism. But modern options are REALLY attractive, and if the US government simply adopted a policy of fuel reprocessing, there are basically no negative externalities (just operating costs and the reality of simple value economics).
Where does everyone else here fall on nuclear?