• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Not As Environmentally Friendly As Promised

CO2 is a good thing. I’m not sure why there’s cry to reduce it.

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
Click to expand...
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
 
Dick Turpin said:
The real problem is the over population of mother earth.
Click to expand...

Over population is definitely part of the problem, it's the big elephant in the room which - because it is such a sensitive issue - is almost impossible to address on a global scale. And the same goes for the new burdens that we have created on our energy production, namely those unnecessary things like cryptocurrency that are putting a huge strain on our ability to create enough energy without harming the environment.

I must admit I do worry about increasing our reliance on nuclear power though. Nuclear energy has been through a re-branding recently as a 'low carbon' part of the energy mix. I'm with EDF and I often get letters from them listing nuclear along with solar and wind as if it's comparable to them in terms of being environmentally friendly because it's supposedly low carbon. But what about the mining and transportation of the uranium which requires a lot of energy (usually oil-based). And of course the decommissioning of nuclear plants is incredibly expensive, as is the building of them in the first place of course. And I worry about what we're doing with all this waste nuclear fuel, and the cost of storing that safely (which requires energy) or dealing with it by expensively re-processing it.

Nuclear energy seems to me to be far from ideal as an energy source and I don't believe that any advances in technology will improve on that. It's too complex and too expensive. There is a saying that the simplest solutions are almost always the best, and I think that applies especially to energy production.

Politically, nuclear makes a lot of sense, it provides employment for many excellent scientists, and (conveniently) it maintains support and expertise for the military use of nuclear submarines, and (best of all!) it's paid for by the French who have invested heavily in nuclear for years.

Personally, I think that the billions that is spent on nuclear would be much better spent on creating simpler renewable solutions, and investing in the many different forms of storage technology that already exist (but NOT batteries!).

That's what I think anyway. I know it's not quite as simple as that because relying on renewables is not without its challenges but surely it's a better option in the long term!
 
Robin said:
Over population is definitely part of the problem, it's the big elephant in the room which - because it is such a sensitive issue - is almost impossible to address on a global scale. And the same goes for the new burdens that we have created on our energy production, namely those unnecessary things like cryptocurrency that are putting a huge strain on our ability to create enough energy without harming the environment.

I must admit I do worry about increasing our reliance on nuclear power though. Nuclear energy has been through a re-branding recently as a 'low carbon' part of the energy mix. I'm with EDF and I often get letters from them listing nuclear along with solar and wind as if it's comparable to them in terms of being environmentally friendly because it's supposedly low carbon. But what about the mining and transportation of the uranium which requires a lot of energy (usually oil-based). And of course the decommissioning of nuclear plants is incredibly expensive, as is the building of them in the first place of course. And I worry about what we're doing with all this waste nuclear fuel, and the cost of storing that safely (which requires energy) or dealing with it by expensively re-processing it.

Nuclear energy seems to me to be far from ideal as an energy source and I don't believe that any advances in technology will improve on that. It's too complex and too expensive. There is a saying that the simplest solutions are almost always the best, and I think that applies especially to energy production.

Politically, nuclear makes a lot of sense, it provides employment for many excellent scientists, and (conveniently) it maintains support and expertise for the military use of nuclear submarines, and (best of all!) it's paid for by the French who have invested heavily in nuclear for years.

Personally, I think that the billions that is spent on nuclear would be much better spent on creating simpler renewable solutions, and investing in the many different forms of storage technology that already exist (but NOT batteries!).

That's what I think anyway. I know it's not quite as simple as that because relying on renewables is not without its challenges but surely it's a better option in the long term!
Click to expand...
Maybe it's time to start using Thorium reactors? It's currently treated as a waste by-product of nuclear fuel processing and Britain has a huge reserve of it just sitting in vats, doing nothing. Thorium has a huge half-life, gives off less harmful radiation and is generally safer to handle.
I have myself handled Thorium-infused gas mantles when I was a kid and I'm still alive.
 
Well, pardon the Aussie, but that's us fucked then.

In the grand scheme of things, what will happen with the increase in GHG's though...Human beings will be discommoded (lovely word!), but the planet will have, in parts, another Humid Period.

The Antarctic Glacial Period will end, Weather patterns will change over continents, and climate will be altered.

Once again, megafauna (Polar Bears etc) will have an extinction phase. Oceans will warm up with the consequences being that old coral reefs will be barren of Polyp, and new ones will be created elsewhere and new ocean currents will be established.

This has happened before now (in the last 10 million years, the Sahara has gone through over 300 Humid Periods), and it will happen again to us - if we as a species survive.

All of this is because of unfettered progress, determined by Capitalism. We can do things much better, and cheaper but the bottom line is profit taking.

I'm tired of all this - I'm tired of the constant hammering that it's all OUR fault, when one hell of a lot of us are doing the right thing by our planet, without it being a cause célèbre. It has come to the point where farming is being blamed for the increase...and water going through turbines and over spillways...Seriously?

Our Governments know what needs to be done, and yet do fuck all to implement legislation to pull these kapitans of commerce back in line...simple things like being responsible for their product's life time, and allowing an ability to simply repair an item (in situations declared illegal) instead of the need to buy a new item composed of plastics - which is guaranteed to break down within two years.

In some climatic conditions, battery operated vehicles are inoperable, so use an ICE, but elsewhere, encourage public transport, and smaller vehicles with an engine that operates on renewable energy.

Sorry folks - this is all getting ridiculous when our present living conditions are determined by the last line in a Ledger...

I'll get of my soapbox now.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Maybe it's time to start using Thorium reactors? It's currently treated as a waste by-product of nuclear fuel processing and Britain has a huge reserve of it just sitting in vats, doing nothing. Thorium has a huge half-life, gives off less harmful radiation and is generally safer to handle.
I have myself handled Thorium-infused gas mantles when I was a kid and I'm still alive.
Click to expand...

Maybe, although according to the International Atomic Energy Agency it would be very expensive to do the necessary research, development and testing of a thorium-powered nuclear installation 'due to a lack of significant experience with thorium and uranium's historical pre-eminence in nuclear power'.

https://www.iaea.org
 
Robin said:
Maybe, although according to the International Atomic Energy Agency it would be very expensive to do the necessary research, development and testing of a thorium-powered nuclear installation 'due to a lack of significant experience with thorium and uranium's historical pre-eminence in nuclear power'.

https://www.iaea.org
Click to expand...
There are a few plants in operation round the world. Buying in some consultation would help to make the development process easier.
Britain is still putting people through university to get degrees in nuclear physics, but those graduates mostly end up working in some other profession. What a waste of potential.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Britain is still putting people through university to get degrees in nuclear physics, but those graduates mostly end up working in some other profession. What a waste of potential.
Click to expand...
Ironically, a measurable case of dissipation of energy.
 
Is the move to electric cars running out of power? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-69022771

‘Optimists hope more people will buy EVs when cut-price second-hand vehicles come onto the market in Europe and America. But that clear road is not guaranteed.’

I wouldn’t bank on it. What’s the point in buying a cheaper second hand car when you’ll have to replace the battery before long at a massive price?
 
We ordered a 12-bottle case of hot sauce from Amazon. The shipping box proudly proclaimed the boxes were now made with less material. When I opened it, I saw that it didn't contain the actual case the bottles are shipped to the supermarket in, which itself would have been a great shipping box.

Pairs of bottles were rolled up in too much bubble wrap, taped together, encased in a shrink wrap that stuck to the bubble wrap, and then all put in a flimsy topless box, which was then shrink wrapped and labeled so no one in the warehouse would break it into separate units.
 
ChasFink said:
We ordered a 12-bottle case of hot sauce from Amazon. The shipping box proudly proclaimed the boxes were now made with less material. When I opened it, I saw that it didn't contain the actual case the bottles are shipped to the supermarket in, which itself would have been a great shipping box.

Pairs of bottles were rolled up in too much bubble wrap, taped together, encased in a shrink wrap that stuck to the bubble wrap, and then all put in a flimsy topless box, which was then shrink wrapped and labeled so no one in the warehouse would break it into separate units.
Click to expand...
You do wonder what goes through their heads when they do this.
Less 'material'... but more plastic!
 
Mythopoeika said:
You do wonder what goes through their heads when they do this.
Less 'material'... but more plastic!
Click to expand...
I once received this tiny item (that was covered in tons of bubble wrap) inside a large box;

box2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top