This is a fantastic idea, here in the UK we’ve just been dumping raw sewage in the rivers and poisoning the coast because it’d cut into water companies record profits to treat it (also Brexit chemical shortages or something)- if we can turn the poop into something useful that can sell then the won’t let a drop off that precious filth go to waste.
Read about thermal depolymerization. Not only will there be no medication, there won’t be anything more complicated than some moderately long carbon chain oils. That system can even break down the prions from mad cow disease, so it’s safer than most methods for getting rid of biological waste.
I think you’re arguing “there’s so much heat it won’t be medication anymore.” I’m unconvinced that, that means it’s less dangerous … consider cases like the [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_pit](burn pits).
Cool, you go be unconvinced. That has no bearing on reality. If you can’t tell the difference between open fire burning and closed vessel pyrolisis (or more advanced methods of chemical decomposition), nothing I have time to present will correct that misconception.
Idk if it’s bad idea or not, but I’ll happily provide them with some of the precious material to experiment on. For a small fee, obviously, for science!
Trains aren’t the solution to every problem. They are slower than planes, don’t work on water, and need infrastructure (tracks). They are great where they do work, but where electric planes work, there’s no need to put them down.
They seem to be since electric planes don’t really exist for passanger flight and are unlikely to exist in a future near enough to be meaningful. For water we got boats so that’s the one place where trains aren’t the solution.
Tracks are a lot cheaper than airports as far as infrastructure is concerned while also going to more places and the speed of travel is a worthwhile sacrifice to stop pollution from planes. Plus sleeper trains are so comfy compared to the hell that is the cramped airplane seat with less leg room than you need to actually fit your legs there.
Let’s replace all intercontinental flights with high speed rail and sleeper trains, and only use planes for long haul flights over water. For those planes that do stay in the sky, let’s fuel them with renewables. Poo based jet fuel does not add carbon to the environment.
Is this another one of these “eco-fuels” that take about ten times the energy they store just to produce them, and no one will tell you where that energy will come from?
I mean if you can get it from actually good sources (solar, geothermal) where that type of energy is in excess then use ships powered by it to transfer it around the world is that a huge problem?
I mean, if we can’t build more high speed rail, planes will be used. And they’re the largest contributor in transportation, right? Or at least the highest output/least efficient means of travel. Eliminating a huge contributor is a good thing.
Of course there would be other things that are worth curbing, but I don’t think we should shit on (eh?) killing emissions from a large contributor.
The energy comes from excess generation in renewables for load balancing, that base load thing people mistakenly say they can’t do.
It’s clever and simple, you put a whole load of potential generation in knowing that to meet your essential and desired demand on low generation days you’ll need excess capacity which will over produce on high generation days. You then plug that in to a system which has tanks of feedstock in this case poo and empty storage capacity so that in peek generation periods it can run at maximum, when it’s only a little over the requested load it runs at limited power and if there’s a time with no excess power it turns off for a bit.
That’s why all the carbon capture and processing facilities are focusing on modular parallel design, it’s very easy then to create scalable production tied to excess load.
Of course this is only one of the many possibilities, the nuclear lovers want to build nuclear powered sequestration and processing facilities, Iceland made one using geothermal, the American one is wind and the proposed Saudi one trailer about being solar thermal.
Oh and actually the efficiency is incredibly impressive now, with some of the active catalyst chemistry they’re developing we’re getting into heat pump style efficiency gains and it’ll looking more likely we’ll be able to go below parity in cost per gallon Vs mined hydrocarbons.
I know it feels like people never explain the complex side of things but that’s because journalists are bad at their jobs, there’s whole organisations out there dedicated to this sort of planning and a lot of the stuff they talk about and work towards ia incredibly well thought out and sensible.
It converts it to co2 and its a structure like carbon capture stuff. Im not big on carbon capture but if you running this thing anyway it might make sense to run the output into some carbon capture scheme as it should reduce both the production and running energy since it can use some of what this is already doing as far as pulling in and exhausting the air. might be good for the exhaust to go down an old well or something to.
Not sure if there is much chance for effective carbon capture. The article states that this works for getting rid of very low concentrations of methane (so burning is not possible). That means that even with the methane 100% turned into carbon, we are talking about very small concentrations.
well there would be the native co2 in the air its taking in too. My point is if it was worth it enough to do on its own its already done most of the heavy lifting so I bet if a carbon capture technique was worth it, it would be riding the output of this.
The atmospheric half life of methaine is just under 10 years. So if you release 1k lbs of methaine in 10 years there will be 500 lbs left 10 years after that ther will be 250 ect.
Indeed that’s 10 hundredweight. Which maybe ironically enough is rather intuitive for me, Germany still uses pounds and hundredweight (Zentner) in informal and sectorial use, meaning 500g and 50kg.
It's complicated. The breakdown of methane in the atmosphere depends on hydroxyl radicals that are created at a regular rate. If you have more and more methane released, and/or you have other chemicals that also react with those radicals, the overall average half life will increase. Both those things are happening, so the old half life really isn't as accurate as it used to be. Guess which number the IPCC still uses for its models though.
Yes but the heat it retains in that time is 85x the effect of base CO2, which makes sense: decomposition of the methane releases energy. It does a much better job of reflecting the IR until it breaks down, then in the act of breaking down releases energy.
"Today's livestock farms are high-tech facilities where ammonia is already removed from the air. As such, removing methane through existing air purification systems is an obvious solution,"
sounds like it will be something they can just add to existing systems at big livestock operations, and the removal rate is pretty high
Sure, reducing the methane emissions of a few farms might lead to an increased consumption of meat. Which would annihilate the positive effect brought by such innovation.
interestingengineering.com
Hot