Skip to comments.
Clean coal test traps 95 percent carbon: Norway firm (Won't be good enough for the eco-terrorist)
Reuters ^
| 11/16/2007
| Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
Posted on 11/16/2007 6:25:07 AM PST by tobyhill
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 last
To: chrisser
I agree, I'd be more interested in the benefit to crop yields. Looks like I will be talking to my plants more often now hehe.
As a side note how harmful is cigarette smoke to plants? I know there are other pollutants like carbon monoxide, but would the extra carbon dioxide counter that?
To: norwaypinesavage
I am just going to assume your answer to my double post is the same:)
To: domenad
I work on mowers; when I change the oil I store the 2/3 quart in a five gallon bucket until full.
I then am forced to get in the car and drive two miles to the auto parts store where they will let me dump the bucket in the approved waste tank - once each day by law.
What’s it going to cost to dump all these “buckets” of waste CO2, transport them to another site, pump them into the ground or oil fields, etc?
43
posted on
11/16/2007 10:17:14 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: chrisser
It would be viewed as dumping a few million gallons of used oil on your gravel or dirt roads on the south forty with the notion of allowing it to eventually make its way back to the local oil deposit from whence it came.
44
posted on
11/16/2007 10:19:40 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: norwaypinesavage
Or any adsorbent used in the process?
45
posted on
11/16/2007 10:20:31 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: tobyhill
46
posted on
11/16/2007 10:27:17 AM PST
by
RAY
(God Bless the USA!)
To: kidd
I’m not assuming CO2 is a pollutant, the story is and what the story implies is that eco-terrorist would be satisfied with 95% of the non-pollutant being trapped for us to finally get to use more coal. The cost will be more but we can get away from the terrorist crude if that’s what people want and are willing to pay for.
47
posted on
11/16/2007 10:42:40 AM PST
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: norwaypinesavage
Scientist have their work cut out for them. It will eventually go back in the air but the question is, can it be of use with a combination of nitrogen, keeping it green, prior to release.
48
posted on
11/16/2007 10:52:21 AM PST
by
tobyhill
(The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
To: norwaypinesavage
49
posted on
11/16/2007 11:05:06 AM PST
by
Ditto
(Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
To: tobyhill
Im not assuming CO2 is a pollutant, the story is Of course. I was adressing the story. I apologize for any confusion. The cost will be more but we can get away from the terrorist crude if thats what people want and are willing to pay for.
Yes. I would willingly pay more for gasoline or electricity if we could eliminate mideast and Venezuellan oil.
50
posted on
11/16/2007 3:34:37 PM PST
by
kidd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson