I emailed the authors after I wrote that and they emailed me back quickly. They said the only NOx comes from the Nitrogen in the Coal. None is produced in the combustion of Iron.
This would significantly lower the scrubbing requirements and cost.
Thanks for the link. That is exactly what I thought was going on but the journalist didn't understand. It is basically putting the oxygen plant at the power plant.
I'm not a chemist but will the combuster portion where they burn the iron to make iron oxide create NOx?
You are forgetting the other part of the reaction. Air is 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. In this reaction the Iron removes the Oxygen from the air before it gets into the reactor. So no Nitrogen in the reactor means NOx and no Nitrogen gas to remove from the waste stream.
I think it is because when you burn in air (Mostly Nitrogen) you create NOx compounds. When you burn your exhaust gas contains lots of nitrogen which you have to remove the CO2 from to process. It seems they are using rust as a way to take the oxygen out of the air first so when it reactions with the carbon you get pure CO2 which can easily be compressed without having to deal with Nitrogen and it's oxides.
Reading between the lines the difference is you aren't getting air into the reactor. So you don't have to heat and separate the Nitrogen. It says the iron pebbles are exposed to air in the reactor but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I think they are exposed after they give up their oxygen to the carbon and are still hot but outside of the actual reactor. This would provide an easy way to chemical way to separate the oxygen from the nitrogen. So the only gaseous byproduct is pure CO2 not CO2 mixed with Nitrogen which is harder to process.
Looks like you agree with the Libertarian Homesteading Principle. You only get to own unclaimed land by actually using it. Putting a beacon isn't using it. Heck even if you land a robot or crew on it and start mining there is no reason another person can't land there and do the same as long as they don't interfere with your operation.
I don't see why a corporation couldn't be handled by a contract. Even limited liability would work well for people that choose to deal with the company. If you want to lend or buy something from the company you will sign a contract that you are holding the company only liable for it's assets not the personally held assets of the owners. Where a private contract is different (and in my opinion superior) is that when there is external damage to a third party (pollution, accident, etc.) that never agreed to the contract the limited liability would no longer apply. If you could prove in court that polluting something was a policy set by management and could prove individual guilt all of their personal assets could be taken to restore a victim.
Who says you need individual contracts? If there was a market for contracts I'm pretty sure every church would have a standard contract and there would be open source contracts available online.
I just don't think you should gain or lose rights based on a predefined marital status. The law should be blind to all of that stuff and just treat us as individuals. What if someone doesn't want to be married at all but just wants to list a friend as a person they trust with their life? What if that other person is married? I just think all of these laws just get in the way of people getting along.
Congratulations. Everything you have identified is due to government involvement in marriage in the first place and can and should be removed from law. No benefit or penalty should come based on marriage status as far as the law is concerned.
There is a relatively scientific and objective description of a fish. Not so with the liberal and conservative labels. How many times do you read he/she isn't a real liberal/conservative?
The linear left right is too simplistic. A better but more complex description would not just ask what someones position is on an issue but at what level (individual, family, voluntary group, neighborhood, town, county, state, national, world) a binding agreement should be made and enforced on that issue. A person can be personally conservative (traditional morality) and yet have a live and let live attitude. A person can also claim to be liberal and yet want to force everyone to do as they say.
The whole concept of the federal government was an agreement between the existing state governments. They had some common things they wanted delegated to this federal government while retaining the vast majority of the powers in the states. The purpose if the Senate was to make sure the state governments had a say in the matter. It was another layer in the separation of powers. It is no coincidence the expansion of the federal governments power came after the 17th Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I was in B&N I saw a whole aisle marked "Teen Paranormal Romance". I pretty much knew it was over.
What else are you supposed to do with those Trillions of dollars the Fed loaned you at zero interest?
You put primarily in the wrong place.
The currency primarily used by terrorists, druggies, and child pornographers is the US Dollar.
You may have intended to say the currency used primarily by those groups.
So it's OK for the politician to buy your vote by promising to give you tax payers money but not someone buying your vote using their own money?
The value of bitcoin comes from its ability to be securely, remotely, and anonymously traded. People value those things so the currency has value.
What would really destroy the value of bitcoin would be if countries were more free. Then there would be little use for it.
The word salary comes from sal or salt because people were paid in that commodity.
The problem with the N2 mixed with CO2 is you have to somehow separate them to sequester the CO2.
If you have a Kindle and Prime you can bowwor ebooks. I don't have a kindle so I don't know how well it works.
I emailed the authors after I wrote that and they emailed me back quickly. They said the only NOx comes from the Nitrogen in the Coal. None is produced in the combustion of Iron.
This would significantly lower the scrubbing requirements and cost.
Thanks for the link. That is exactly what I thought was going on but the journalist didn't understand. It is basically putting the oxygen plant at the power plant.
I'm not a chemist but will the combuster portion where they burn the iron to make iron oxide create NOx?
You are forgetting the other part of the reaction. Air is 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. In this reaction the Iron removes the Oxygen from the air before it gets into the reactor. So no Nitrogen in the reactor means NOx and no Nitrogen gas to remove from the waste stream.
I think it is because when you burn in air (Mostly Nitrogen) you create NOx compounds. When you burn your exhaust gas contains lots of nitrogen which you have to remove the CO2 from to process. It seems they are using rust as a way to take the oxygen out of the air first so when it reactions with the carbon you get pure CO2 which can easily be compressed without having to deal with Nitrogen and it's oxides.
Reading between the lines the difference is you aren't getting air into the reactor. So you don't have to heat and separate the Nitrogen. It says the iron pebbles are exposed to air in the reactor but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I think they are exposed after they give up their oxygen to the carbon and are still hot but outside of the actual reactor. This would provide an easy way to chemical way to separate the oxygen from the nitrogen. So the only gaseous byproduct is pure CO2 not CO2 mixed with Nitrogen which is harder to process.
I could be wrong.
What about direction? Can you direct the signal towards satellites and away from ground radar?
If you want to live like you did in the 1950's you wouldn't have to work that hard.
1 car per family, 1000 sqft house with 1 car garage, 1 19inch TV, no cable, no cell phone, etc.
The fact is people value luxury and are willing to work for it.
I guess it doesn't hurt the US provided your defense for the last 60 years?
Looks like you agree with the Libertarian Homesteading Principle. You only get to own unclaimed land by actually using it. Putting a beacon isn't using it. Heck even if you land a robot or crew on it and start mining there is no reason another person can't land there and do the same as long as they don't interfere with your operation.
I don't see why a corporation couldn't be handled by a contract. Even limited liability would work well for people that choose to deal with the company. If you want to lend or buy something from the company you will sign a contract that you are holding the company only liable for it's assets not the personally held assets of the owners. Where a private contract is different (and in my opinion superior) is that when there is external damage to a third party (pollution, accident, etc.) that never agreed to the contract the limited liability would no longer apply. If you could prove in court that polluting something was a policy set by management and could prove individual guilt all of their personal assets could be taken to restore a victim.
Who says you need individual contracts? If there was a market for contracts I'm pretty sure every church would have a standard contract and there would be open source contracts available online.
I just don't think you should gain or lose rights based on a predefined marital status. The law should be blind to all of that stuff and just treat us as individuals. What if someone doesn't want to be married at all but just wants to list a friend as a person they trust with their life? What if that other person is married? I just think all of these laws just get in the way of people getting along.
Congratulations. Everything you have identified is due to government involvement in marriage in the first place and can and should be removed from law. No benefit or penalty should come based on marriage status as far as the law is concerned.
There is a relatively scientific and objective description of a fish. Not so with the liberal and conservative labels. How many times do you read he/she isn't a real liberal/conservative?
The linear left right is too simplistic. A better but more complex description would not just ask what someones position is on an issue but at what level (individual, family, voluntary group, neighborhood, town, county, state, national, world) a binding agreement should be made and enforced on that issue. A person can be personally conservative (traditional morality) and yet have a live and let live attitude. A person can also claim to be liberal and yet want to force everyone to do as they say.
Can you state any implication that cannot be handled via private contract?
The whole concept of the federal government was an agreement between the existing state governments. They had some common things they wanted delegated to this federal government while retaining the vast majority of the powers in the states. The purpose if the Senate was to make sure the state governments had a say in the matter. It was another layer in the separation of powers. It is no coincidence the expansion of the federal governments power came after the 17th Amendment.