3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, billvon said:

What are they going to power it with - unicorn farts?  Moon fairies?  Maybe JFK will just wave a magic wand and levitate a man to the moon!  Stupid libs!

Bill, you gotta love that I was able to wrap unicorn farts and rainbows (aka wind and solar) into a single emoji. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, billvon said:

What are they going to power it with - unicorn farts?  Moon fairies?  Maybe JFK will just wave a magic wand and levitate a man to the moon!  Stupid libs!

Bill, you gotta love that I was able to wrap unicorn farts and rainbows (aka wind and solar) into a single emoji. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, DJL said:

Both of those use fossil fuel 

“It may be more cost-effective to put a concrete plant next to a source,” says Schuler. An obvious source would be an oil refinery. “
 

“However, Kavanagh pointed out that electrolysis is only as clean as the grid that feeds it, so if the energy comes from a coal-fired power plant, there may not be any carbon emissions savings.“

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can heat steel with electricity. This is done in a thermal arc furnace. How the electricity is generated doesn't matter as long as enough current is available. The rub is that producing steel from iron requires more than heat. Carbon must still be added, as well as a few other elements whose quantities depend on the final product you are after. The industry standard for much of the carbon part of the mix still still seems to be coking coal added in during the process. Not sure how the industry would address that to become carbon neutral. Still, burning fossil fuel isn't necessary to heat it up, although it may presently be the cheapest way to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The carbon in steel (typically 0.02% to 0.4% depending on grade and purpose)  is NOT  in the form of greenhouse gas.  It's chemically combined with the iron as Fe3C, or in solid solution, or, in alloy steels, in the form of carbides like Mo23C6.

 

Just another red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kallend said:

The carbon in steel (typically 0.02% to 0.4% depending on grade and purpose)  is NOT  in the form of greenhouse gas.  It's chemically combined with the iron as Fe3C, or in solid solution, or, in alloy steels, in the form of carbides like Mo23C6.

 

Just another red herring.

I didn't mean it as such, and I'm in agreement with you as far as the general topic is concerned. I merely meant to point out that coal was used a source of carbon. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

I didn't mean it as such, and I'm in agreement with you as far as the general topic is concerned. I merely meant to point out that coal was used a source of carbon. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

Coal itself isn't necessarily 'bad'.

However, the virtually unlimited mining and use of it has some bad side effects.

It will never go completely away. It will always have some usefulness.


We just need to cut down on it's use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Coal itself isn't necessarily 'bad'.

However, the virtually unlimited mining and use of it has some bad side effects.

It will never go completely away. It will always have some usefulness.


We just need to cut down on it's use.

That is true with virtually everything on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That is true with virtually everything on the planet.

Nope.  Using resources sustainably does not necessarily, or even in most cases, imply cutting down on use.  It does, however, require thought and will, and rejection of denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kallend said:

Nope.  Using resources sustainably does not necessarily, or even in most cases, imply cutting down on use.  It does, however, require thought and will, and rejection of denial.

It's easier said to just be responsible about it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3