Diesels to be banned

[Machpoint005]

3 hours ago, mross said:

I've never seen it abreviated as te.  It should be mt or MT - metric tonnes.  Ton, on its own, is too vague for engineering or economics.  Tonne is fine for informal use.

The abbreviation for a non-SI metric ton[sic], also known as a tonne, is "t".

The nomenclature can sometimes depend on the context however.

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

I used to lug 1cwt sacks of barley off the combine, aged 18, and believe me I was at my limit, so the difference twixt ton and tonne has relevance to me.

Nowadays I struggle wth 25kg. 

 

ditto for me with bags of OPC (industry term for cement - Dr Bob will appreciate the irony).

[LadyG]

38 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Only in that respect. As far as I can remember, the half-life of carbon-12 is effectively zero, which is a bit less worrying than (say) 25,000 years for some plutonium isotopes.

ie a sack half the weight (1cwt is very close to 50kg).

I know, 1 cwt = 112lbs = 50.803kg, it would be illegal now to ask folks to carry 50kg, but in those days I  was a lot fitter, after 17 years of age it is all downhill. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by LadyG

[Murflynn]

8 hours ago, Athy said:

I have no idea whether that is true (surely different woods vary?) but people still perceive burning wood as a Good Thing because it smells far more pleasant than burning diesel. I haven't noticed Meggers telling us that "I love the smell of diesel smoke in the morning".

There's no need to apologise. Jargon contributes much to the richness of our language.

burning wood is in theory carbon neutral, provided you re-plant what you burn.   so power stations that burn willow (or whatever) which is harvested on a commercial basis for that purpose should be OK.

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

If ever I buy a pub I'm changing the name to "The Three Tonnes"

if the pub is currently called the Three Tuns, then a tun is a large barrel (also used as a measure of tunnage of a cargo ship, and is not quite the same thing as a ton. However the shipping industry has confused things by calling a ship's capacity 'tonnage' which is wrong.

[Murflynn]

8 hours ago, Robbo said:

Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.  Just because you can grow it doesn't mean to say that burning it is a good thing!

I assume by 'pollution' you mean CO2.   It's OK (carbon neutral) if you replant it.

[Chewbacka]

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

burning wood is in theory carbon neutral, provided you re-plant what you burn.   so power stations that burn willow (or whatever) which is harvested on a commercial basis for that purpose should be OK.

What about all the diesel used to plough up the land before planting, then the fuel used in cutting and collecting the timber, not to mention the fuel used to then process the wood into chips, and the fuel to move the chips from chipper to power station.  I think you will find that commercial wood burning is anything but carbon neutral.

[Murflynn]

Just now, Chewbacka said:

What about all the diesel used to plough up the land before planting, then the fuel used in cutting and collecting the timber, not to mention the fuel used to then process the wood into chips, and the fuel to move the chips from chipper to power station.  I think you will find that commercial wood burning is anything but carbon neutral.

manpower, horses and oxen.   if you're gonna do it, do it right.  

[Robbo]

5 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I assume by 'pollution' you mean CO2.   It's OK (carbon neutral) if you replant it.

co2 is not a pollution, it’s a gas that if there is too much of it causes global warming.  The pollution is the fine particles that you get when you burn stuff, and a growing tree miles away doesn’t help to combat this.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Robbo

[Chewbacka]

13 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

manpower, horses and oxen.   if you're gonna do it, do it right.  

Unfortunately cattle are a great source of methane - which is about 30 times worse for global warming than CO2.  

[GUMPY]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

Unfortunately cattle are a great source of methane - which is about 30 times worse for global warming than CO2.  

Yes and if we all stopped eating meat then we could rid ourselves of most cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and chickens.

Oh and I havent eaten any of the above since 1983, over half my lifetime and am all the better for it.

[Murflynn]

all we need to do is stop reproducing ourselves at a replacement or greater rate, then all the problems we have created on the planet will fade away over time.

SIMPLES  

4 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Yes and if we all stopped eating meat then we could rid ourselves of most cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and chickens.

Oh and I havent eaten any of the above since 1983, over half my lifetime and am all the better for it.

you still seem to create methane though judging by your avatar; as cows demonstrate very well, eating vegetables creates a load of methane.

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

co2 is not a pollution, it’s a gas that if there is too much of it causes global warming.  The pollution is the fine particles that you get when you burn stuff, and a growing tree miles away doesn’t help to combat this.

I'm not disputing that but you said 'Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.'  What pollutants are you referring to?

[Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I'm not disputing that but you said 'Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.'  What pollutants are you referring to?

I have already said.  Fine particles.

[Chewbacka]

2 hours ago, Robbo said:

co2 is not a pollution, it’s a gas that if there is too much of it causes global warming.  The pollution is the fine particles that you get when you burn stuff, and a growing tree miles away doesn’t help to combat this.

If you accept the definition of a pollutant as "A substance released into the environment that has undesired effects" then an excessive amount of CO2 - which if you agree with global warming - would include releases of CO2 that result in harmful and unwanted climate change.  So currently I would say that mankind's release of CO2 is indeed a pollutant.

[Murflynn]

2 hours ago, Robbo said:

I have already said.  Fine particles.

 

of what?  talcum powder ....  flour  .....   ???

[LadyG]

54 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

of what?  talcum powder ....  flour  .....   ???

particulate matter [PM], [soot]

https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/emi_intro.php

Edited July 28, 2017 by LadyG

[Robbo]

9 hours ago, Murflynn said:

 

of what?  talcum powder ....  flour  .....   ???

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

[Murflynn]

can you just answer the question and tell me what are the dangerous polluting fine particles arising from burning wood in a modern power station designed to minimise emissions?  I'm not denying it, just asking a kweshtun.

[Robbo]

23 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

can you just answer the question and tell me what are the dangerous polluting fine particles arising from burning wood in a modern power station designed to minimise emissions?  I'm not denying it, just asking a kweshtun.

And you have one of these on your stove?  

[Dr Bob]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:25, Jerra said:

If I am nit picking then somebody is exaggerating.  Surely there should be no increase in figures just to try to make things seem worse.  THey could have simply said nearly or almost or probably more likely 1.5 t for each t burned.

I dont think I am exagerating because of Units. A 'te' is standard in the industry and therefore I use it all the time.

 

[Dr Bob]

22 hours ago, mross said:

I've never seen it abreviated as te.  It should be mt or MT - metric tonnes.  Ton, on its own, is too vague for engineering or economics.  Tonne is fine for informal use.

The whole of the refining and chemical industry world wide including all design data for plants and all the commercial stuff uses "tes" as a unit of weight. Barrels are used for crude oil (as well as tes) and Kgs are used for smaller amounts but anyone who has worked in the refining and chemicals industry should be familar with the term. In my 40 years in the industry I have NEVER heard anyone use the term "t" or "ts".

A chemical engineer will design a distilation column to work at say 4.75te/hr, A commodity trader will sell 3Ktes of acetic acid to a buyer, a plastic separation (for recycle plastic) will be rated at 1.5te/hr.  Not a 't' in sight.

[Murflynn]

3 hours ago, Robbo said:

And you have one of these on your stove?  

perhaps if you trace this thread back you will find that I have only discussed burning wood in a power station (as an alternative to fossil fuels).

if you feel the need to divert the discussion to wood burning stoves, then I infer that you can't provide an answer.

[Murflynn]

7 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

The whole of the refining and chemical industry world wide including all design data for plants and all the commercial stuff uses "tes" as a unit of weight. Barrels are used for crude oil (as well as tes) and Kgs are used for smaller amounts but anyone who has worked in the refining and chemicals industry should be familar with the term. In my 40 years in the industry I have NEVER heard anyone use the term "t" or "ts".

A chemical engineer will design a distilation column to work at say 4.75te/hr, A commodity trader will sell 3Ktes of acetic acid to a buyer, a plastic separation (for recycle plastic) will be rated at 1.5te/hr.  Not a 't' in sight.

as a pipeline construction engineer I am familiar with the concept that a soil with zero moisture deficit is important when considering the environmental impact of doing such work in a country with a temperate climate; however I wouldn't introduce science/industry-specialist terms into a public forum like this.  I would say 'mud'.  

oddly, searching for 'te abbreviation' in google didn't throw up any reference to tonne as used in the chemical industry.

[Dr Bob]

4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

can you just answer the question and tell me what are the dangerous polluting fine particles arising from burning wood in a modern power station designed to minimise emissions?  I'm not denying it, just asking a kweshtun.

We now have two issues.

One is pollution which arises from burning things and gives particulates or other nasties viz NOx....and

Two is CO2 which heats up the planet and kills everyone on it when it gets too high.

So Two problems.

The 'pollution' from wood (and I am not going to say it is it worse than diesel - or better) is all about what  you are burning and HOW you burn it. Diesel is a straight chain hydrocarbon - similar to candle wax but it also contains a % of aromatics and napthenics. Aromatics have less hydrogen than straight chain hydrocarbons but can burn clean if enough heat is present. Napthenics contain Nitrogen as well as the carbon/hydrogen and it is this nitrogen that causes NOx and other nasties.

Wood is cellulose and therefore contains carbon/hydrogen and oxygen. The snag here is that the oxygen atoms are already combined with the carbon so when burnt can form nasties as well - ie Dioxin which is incredably toxic. There is therefore a potential for nasties when burning wood. The biggest issue though is how well it is burnt. If there is enough heat then combustion can proceed through to the ultimate breakdown ie CO2 but if it is only partial combustion then a lot of intermediate products can remain ie Dioxin. When therefore comparing Diesel to wood, you have to look at the efficiency of the burning, ie a diesel engine should be reasonably efficient - but will polute if there are high levels of naphthenics (and aromatics) but a piece of wood smouldering on a camp fire will be making a lot of nasties but a good blaze and it will be a lot better (ie in a power station).

I'm not that convinced there is much difference in the two.

For me there is a huge issue in to what the refineries put into our diesel (and gasoline). Their profitability comes from throwing as much of the 'bottom of the barrel' (of crude oil) into transportation fuels and not having to dispose of the bottom half of the barrel as ashphalt, blacking for canal boats or to be upgraded in cokers etc. I the cr*p wasnt put in the fuel from the bottom of the barrel we would be a lot better off pollution-wise, but at a big financial cost.

[Robbo]

33 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

perhaps if you trace this thread back you will find that I have only discussed burning wood in a power station (as an alternative to fossil fuels).

if you feel the need to divert the discussion to wood burning stoves, then I infer that you can't provide an answer.

Perhaps you should look back yourself as I brought up the sub thread of wood burning stoves quite a while back and what would happen to them as they are becoming more popular and I can see these getting restricted/banned in high pollution environments if there polualitity increases.   You were the one to divert that sub-thread to power stations.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Robbo