-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
Just Stop Oil Protesters
- Thread starter PARAGUAY
- Start date
- Status
greenbliss
Member
Yes this makes sense. Phosphorus specifically I know builds up in soils? I read that a healthy soil ecosystem liberates minerals from the organic and non organic parts of the soil but we still need the nitrogen for yields obviously...
I wonder if what is missing in the world is empathy. In terms of solving these issues.. I know someone mentioned here or on another thread 'we consider the wrong people disabled'? Then again not all psychopathic people are bad.... everyone makes choices after all. in life. Aren't a lot of surgeons psychopaths? But they still do their part to help out. Technically. Theres a lot of psychopathic people that are helpful to the world. It's like the empathetic people and the 'good' psychopaths need to join teams?
Could be rambling. But maybe there is something to it
I could give examples of experiences in my own life but I think everyone here is too science minded and logical to get it
Hi all,
You can strip the phosphate (PO4---) ions <"from sewage discharge">, but diffuse agricultural pollution needs a more holistic response <"Focus on Phosphorus">.
Every Maize field along a watercourse is going to be a huge PO4--- source, just from the bare soil surface after late harvest <"River Stour phosphorus | Wessex Water">
cheers Darrel
It forms a lot of insoluble compounds and is also strongly bound to clay minerals. It usually ends up in water courses bound to soil particles or from manure <Phosphate pollution - CPRE Herefordshire"> and sewage works etc. running off, or being flushed, into the water course. Conversely both nitrate (NO3-) and potassium (K+) ions already in solution.
You can strip the phosphate (PO4---) ions <"from sewage discharge">, but diffuse agricultural pollution needs a more holistic response <"Focus on Phosphorus">.
Every Maize field along a watercourse is going to be a huge PO4--- source, just from the bare soil surface after late harvest <"River Stour phosphorus | Wessex Water">
cheers Darrel
Last edited:
Bradders
Member
I hate these threads!
Mother nature (thus far) is very, very forgiving. As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation (i.e. constantly changing variable inputs/outputs). That is a very dynamic situation to create solid outcomes.
I think my view is that if we know something has the potential to impact the environment, then we should err on the side of caution and give it credence. We could spend the rest of our lives combining science, opinion, fact, and debate - or we could just say that this could be a problem, so how do we react?
Mother nature (thus far) is very, very forgiving. As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation (i.e. constantly changing variable inputs/outputs). That is a very dynamic situation to create solid outcomes.
I think my view is that if we know something has the potential to impact the environment, then we should err on the side of caution and give it credence. We could spend the rest of our lives combining science, opinion, fact, and debate - or we could just say that this could be a problem, so how do we react?
G
Guest
Guest
Have you actually read the report this graphic sites as it's source? It's extremely misleading and biased, using out of date figures and objectively incorrect estimates on the working lifespan of modern reactors in order to produce the result they wanted. It also doesn't sufficiently factor in energy storage costs for renewables or the actual g CO2/kwh on which nuclear wins no contest.
greenbliss
Member
Nature could eradicate us too.. Have to be careful no?
Isn't this where cover crops come in? All that maize being grown to feed cows most likely... I mean milk is nice but it's not really extraordinarily healthy or anything. I wonder why they don't mention no P input arable... I would imagine working with nature while producing slightly less calories would produce more nutritious food vitamin and trace element wise.. Don't we eat too many calories anyways in the west? I know even 15 percent lower trace element levels have been found to cause learning disabilities in children?
Bradders
Member
Yes. Which is why I said "As we evolve, she adapts - or eradicates -and it is a changing situation"
greenbliss
Member
I mean we will be fine but its still interesting to talk about nature and such
it seems like common sense that once it all starts to get bad people will hopefully start stepping in en masse to stop it
if there is order at all levels of nature then there must be order in this too because it doesn't make sense otherwise
That is just what I think anyways
Aqua sobriquet
Member
This isn’t the first time I’ve read about the cost of Nuclear energy compared to renewables. Another report from earlier this year. This time from Australia.
Report finds nuclear power six times more costly than renewables - Energy Magazine
The Clean Energy Council has commissioned an independent report, which found that nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy in Australia.
www.energymagazine.com.au
“The research showed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity”
G
Guest
Guest
I think something that's sometimes overlooked, even if you 100% accept the dominant narrative around climate change and that it's caused by human co2 emissions, is that it really isn't going to "get bad" everywhere. It's never going to "get bad" in the Scotland. A warming climate would be a huge boon to Russia.
The problem lies in denseley populated areas that are already on the margins of habitability and particularly where there exists totally unsustainable populations dependant on foreign aid. Huge numbers of people could potentially be displaced and personally I think that's the bigger problem.
I believe the real problems presented by climate change are geopolitical rather than technical and that doesn't seem to change whether you assume that the change is man made or not.
Aqua sobriquet
Member
“Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest source of energy and just within the past year, they grew so fast that newly installed renewables managed to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 19% while saving consumers an estimated €50bn on their energy bills.”
caneurope.org
Myth buster: Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction - CAN Europe
Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe releases a myth buster to counter the recent hype around nuclear energy. It details why nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the transition to a fully renewables-based energy system and threatens to delay the urgently needed phase out of fossil fuels. %
caneurope.org
G
Guest
Guest
The previous report was also from Australia, did you mean to send a different one?This isn’t the first time I’ve read about the cost of Nuclear energy compared to renewables. Another report from earlier this year. This time from Australia.
Report finds nuclear power six times more costly than renewables - Energy Magazine
The Clean Energy Council has commissioned an independent report, which found that nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy in Australia.
“The research showed that nuclear energy is up to six times more expensive than renewable energy and even on the most favourable reading for nuclear, renewables remain the cheapest form of new-build electricity”
I'm not disputing that's what they report as their conclusions, I take issue with the calculations and figures they are using to arrive at those conclusions. For example they demonstrably underestimate the working lifespan of reactors in the CSIRO report and overestimate the working lifespan of wind turbines. There's no link to the actual report in the second case so I haven't read it yet but will do so with interest if I can find it.
Right off the bat though what's true for Australia may not be everywhere else. Calculations for the cost and efficiency of solar in Australia necessarily must be different than in the UK.
G
Guest
Guest
I find this lacking substance and credibility with a very obvious bias. There isn't even really much to respond to because they are mostly addressing straw men.“Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest source of energy and just within the past year, they grew so fast that newly installed renewables managed to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 19% while saving consumers an estimated €50bn on their energy bills.”
Myth buster: Nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction - CAN Europe
Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe releases a myth buster to counter the recent hype around nuclear energy. It details why nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from the transition to a fully renewables-based energy system and threatens to delay the urgently needed phase out of fossil fuels. %
G
Guest
Guest
Also both these reports seem to lean heavily on conclusions from Lazard which is heavily invested in non nuclear renewable energy solutions. A move towards Nuclear would be very bad for Lazard. I am as skeptical of funds heavily invested in wind and solar trashing nuclear as I am of anyone heavily invested in fossil fuels trashing wind and solar.
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Oil and gas aren’t fossil fuels and are not finite resources. They are more likely than not abiogenic and infinite, on a vast commercially viable scale.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270
Green energy ain’t so green. Compared to oil and gas it’s a dilute sources of energy, and therefore has a greater impact on the environment.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270
Green energy ain’t so green. Compared to oil and gas it’s a dilute sources of energy, and therefore has a greater impact on the environment.
The majority is. A fossil fuel is a natural fuel formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms, which includes oil, gas and coal. There's evidence to support that some oil was formed abiogenically, however the concentration of this in the earth's mantle is deemed to be very low, and lower than the proportion of oil formed organically - which is finite.
G
Guest
Guest
We probably agree about "green" energy often not being as environmentally sound as is claimed but what specifically convinced you that abiogenic hydrocarbons were more likely than not infinite on a vast commercially viable scale? I'm not disputing the existence of abiogenic hydrocarbons at all but I'm interested in why you think there might be such vast and accessible reserves.
Last edited by a moderator:
MichaelJ
Member
True, synthetic fuel can absolutely be made - its just chemistry after all - and it sequester an equal amount CO2 in the process as it release when burned, so potentially your looking at a net ZERO scenario with synthetic fuel, of course the problem is that it would spike the price at the pump to levels that no consumer will be ready to accept unless it is done at massive scale unleashing the full force of innovation and free market competition. Hydrogen is another source of energy that seems to have taken a backseat due to all the talk about wind, solar and electric... Same thing with Nuclear - that seems to be gaining a possible renaissance in the US with new and better designs - it still hold the promise of being too cheap to meter - we still just haven't cracked the waste management corundum. Climate change is happening, it's irrefutable... the physics and impact - global warming - of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere is well understood. The keeling curve is really all the evidence we need:
And global CO2 emission since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution:
We should totally be open to the idea that the phenomenon could in part be compounded by phenomena that are not well understood or natural causes as seen during the middle age as an underlying harmonic, but the huge increase suggested by the Keeling curve over a very short period of time ( < 50 years) can not be explained away by "natural variation" - the correlation between CO2 emission and warming / climate change is just way too statistically significant. We all want to save the planet but are not prepared to pay the price to do so... the question is really what are we prepared to do on the part we are responsible for. I am not optimistic. But hey, we now have a burgeoning industry of wineries in Minnesota (it was mostly impossible to grow good wine grapes here 20-30 years ago) and soon I will be able to plant some palm trees in my yard, and sell my snowblower to a Canadian while it still has some value, so it's not all bad
Unfortunately there is just too much dogmatism in the climate debate - not so much among scientists - but in the public. In my part of the world - the US (doubt its much different in Europe), it has become a political cause among a large part of the public ... almost like a badge of honor to deny that climate change even exists and belief in all sorts of wicked conspiracy theories and debunked science or on the opposite side of the political spectrum grossly overstating what the short-term effects will be unless we ban the internal combustion engine or deny people (or grossly increase prices) to heat their homes with gas or use gas stoves, or putting all sort of stifling regulations on businesses and industries for the purpose of posture and virtue signaling that proves to do very little to mitigate the problem.
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
- Status
