Australian Politics.

OK Damien, sorry about the hyperbole.

I want toknow where you get the right to poo poo the business of more enrgy from the same amount of coal. I'm sorry, but you sit and pontificate, deride suggestions put by others and at times make yourself generally difficult to cope with. I don't see you, or anyone else, as the fount of all knowledge and it is unwise of you to put yourself across in this manner. Educated, knowledgable and intelligent you may be, but possessor of all knowledge you are not.

Is it not possible that the idea of extracting more energy from coal is true? Look at what has happened with other fossil fuel technologies. The power turned out by modern diesel and petrol engines was unheard of 10-15 years ago, and probably not even dreamt of.

As far as I know there is little in the way of heat capture going on in the power stations here in Aus. I know there is little or none happening in industry. Correct me if Im wrong. And yes its an idea born in academia, and there are billions to be saved world wide,

Why the diatribe about academics Damian? Im sure you have no qualms benefiting from medical research and I know you are not claiming to have superior knowledge to the combined uni's of the world. The most essential process is called peer review. This basically means that other people look over your work before you proclaim your discoveries to the world. Now the peer review process is not perfect but how many tax evaders are there in the world?

Kindly remember that boilers in power stations use super heated steam. that is, in simple terms, steam passed through a heating chamber before it gets to the turbines.

the problem with any idea of extracting more energy, ie heating ability from coal as I have indicated earlier is going to be more difficult, and hence has commercial implications, as not economic, and it may also by its nature be non green.
There are several coal used in power stations and each type has its own burning or more correctly its flame thermodynamics. This is dependent on non combustibles and moisture as the two main points of concern.

A bituminous coal is significantly different to a sub bituminous not to mention a lignite. So any concept designed for a bituminous cola will have no effect on a sub bituminous coal.

artme: any chance of providing a pointer to this research paper?

Besides are we not tracking off the topic of Australian politics?:o

Indeed we are tracking off topic!!:doh::doh::doh:

This was a news item I heard one afternoon while driving. Sorry,c an't point you to any papers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

OK Damien, sorry about the hyperbole.

I want toknow where you get the right to poo poo the business of more enrgy from the same amount of coal. I'm sorry, but you sit and pontificate, deride suggestions put by others and at times make yourself generally difficult to cope with. I don't see you, or anyone else, as the fount of all knowledge and it is unwise of you to put yourself across in this manner. Educated, knowledgable and intelligent you may be, but possessor of all knowledge you are not.

Is it not possible that the idea of extracting more energy from coal is true? Look at what has happened with other fossil fuel technologies. The power turned out by modern diesel and petrol engines was unheard of 10-15 years ago, and probably not even dreamt of.

---

I am sorry you find me difficult. I have been told by writing style is rather abrupt. You may not believe me but I do not set out to offend.

You might consider that apart from knowing something about this I don't just "sit", I've spent a signifigant part of my life "doing", actually rolling up my sleeves and trying to improve the way we do things. I have many years of first hand experience of how hard it is to get all the dominos to fall in a project like this and frankly resent people glossing over all that hard work as if it's easy and obvious.

I never said it wasn't true. The essential difference between a scientist and an engineer is we have to make stuff work AND make money out of it. All sorts of things can be done in a lab, but run the numbers and this wonderful new technology usually costs more money than it makes. My point was that if this process your talking about was economically viable the coal burning industries would be all over it like a rash. They spend hundreds of millions on research every year. I was part of that industry for years, searching for ways to squeeze cents per ton of cost off production. They were always grateful for every little improvement we could make.

The reason I am negative about this stuff is your repeating one side of the story, some fiction some academic is spreading because their idea isn't taken up or they missed out on a research grant. They sit in their ivory towers and think the world should bow down to them. If it actually made economic sense the coal burning industries would be all over it.

No doubt you've read about Ken Talbot's death recently in Africa ? You know how he made his billions ? He found a way to use a lower grade of coal in steel making. Trust me, if you come up with a way for them to increase profit you will be well rewarded.

Cultana: coking coal gets more $ per ton. Steaming coal is the mud that isn't clean enough or old enough for coking. If you want to have a protracted discussion about coal classifications I'm happy to do so, but is there really any point ?

Quick search: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalprice.html

Kiwigeo: Ok, you probably know more about the distribution than I do, but I was under the impression there was buckets of crude all over the place, including in western Queensland. Stuff like the oil sands in Cananda that just cost more to recover and refine. The point I was making is that if oil disappeared tomorrow we'd get on alright, we'd just be paying more for energy. The idea that we're about to "run out" is alarmist propoganda.

[QUOTE=damian;1174642]
The reason I am negative about this stuff is your repeating one side of the story, some fiction some academic is spreading because their idea isn't taken up or they missed out on a research grant. They sit in their ivory towers and think the world should bow down to them. If it actually made economic sense the coal burning industries would be all over it.QUOTE]

There you go again!!

Who says it's fiction and propaganda? Many of these things take time to come on line or even be heard about by Joe Public.

I cannot prove any of what I said to be true or backable. I simply made the statement that I had heard of this process. I also said in an earlier post, elsewhere in these forums, that if this was the case why wasn't something being done about it by governments and industry

BTW _ Do you have a particular, or several, problem/s with academics?

Ok. I am prepard to believe I have misunderstood your previous posts but they read like a complaint to me.

Case 1, the development is new and it makes sense and it will be rolled out in due course. Why are you unhappy about that ?

Case 2, the development has been assessed and rejected. My point is that there wold have been good reasons for that. Cultana pointed out rather better than I did that the likelyhood of a conspiricy to hold back development is unlikely, while the economic imperitive to embrace any advantage is tremendous.

Regarding academics:

(I assume we can agree that a loose definition of academic is someone with a PhD or with a senior position in research)

I know lots of them, many of my friends have PhD's. I have worked with them for many years. In my experience they are like every other group of humans you can identify. Some are criminals, some amoral, some hard working and honest. Some are competant, many aren't. The reason I rail against them is they are often held up as absolute authorities and morally pure. The same attitude that is often promoted for indigenous peoples and other groups. The oppsoite is also true, some groups are universally demonised (lately muslims). If you want to win an argument first convince your audience that some person or group is perfect, then quote them, debate over.

So my intention is to show that their motives may not be pure, or even reasonable. In my experience the better academics work in the background, and like most groups you can identify the sort that actively seek out the media, fame, power and money are not people I would choose to spend my time with, and not people I am prepared to trust or "believe".

I am cynical and I know it.

So to answer your question: I have a problem putting my faith in anyone, it just happens that academics have been held up regularly of late as messiahs so I have felt compelled to point out that they are not.

As it happens I am attending a birthday party tomorrow for ladyfriend with a PhD and there will be quite a few others there also. :)

:no::no::no::no::no:

Meanwhile.... back with the red heads.
In Queensland, apparently red-necks rule, (although Kevin was a lighter shade)

Now in Canberra, by her own admission, red heads rule.

And they rule far and wide, even here. Earlier in this thread I made a sexist pathetic remark about our new ruler and it was thankfully pulled within 30 seconds.

But then again.......When I think back to the remarks made in the forum abut Kevin, many of which were worse, they all remained because he is not a red head.

Poor Tony.

Greg

You need special character to be a sucessful young redhead. John Howard wouldn't have be a sucessful redhead until his 60's. You need a blend of cantankerousness and pig headedness not often found in those under 60.
so get stuffed

When I was travelling in Sweden, there were more blonds than red heads. They were a happy lot and talked about mooses a lot

When I travelled in Scotland, there were more red heads than blonds. They weren't quite as happy as the Swedes and they talked about football a lot.

When I travelled in Ireland, there weren't any red heads or blonds at all, they weren't at all happy and they talked about Cromwell a lot.

I don't think I want to travel in Wales

Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

When I was travelling in Sweden, there were more blonds than red heads. They were a happy lot and talked about mooses a lot

When I travelled in Scotland, there were more red heads than blonds. They weren't quite as happy as the Swedes and they talked about football a lot.

When I travelled in Ireland, there weren't any red heads or blonds at all, they weren't at all happy and they talked about Cromwell a lot.

I don't think I want to travel in Wales

Greg

---

Probably smell of fish and squid.....................................oh not wHales :o
Pete

What of the major problems in Australia is as a whole the population is so apathetic to incompetence and not to consider anyone else other then ourselves. You just have to see how many people post in this thread to believe that..

You sometimes have to ask yourself, if another country came and invaded us, is this lot worth fighting for?

There's certainly a lot of wailing going on.


As for gnashing of teeth: under our current medical system, I wouldn't recommend this action, stick with the wailing

I'm actually moving on to mourning, not for our mate Kev, but for Australia if Labor get re-elected again, which looks like happening
Greg

Looks like this thread has been cut to its political size..
Meltdown politically, apathy ..
no just the server suffering its political heat..
:D