Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

pile-o-stone wrote: »

The trees don't all rot down completely, or we'd have no coal. I'm not against bio gas, I just don't think it's as clean as other renewables and that if possible, they should have priority.

Hi

Conditions have changed considerably on the planet over the past 300million years since the end of the Carboniferous period, which means that the regions which could lay down future FF coal are pretty limited ... find trees in a swamp and there's a chance, but elsewhere it's simply a case of natural decay ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Today we no longer have the requisite conditions for trees to 'make' coal.

True enough in the UK where we have drained a lot of wetlands and clered a lot of forests for farmland. Vast tracts of East Anglia were once march land. However, not all countries have yet followed the UK in making it almost completely unnatural environment, such as Indonesia. If we left fields fallow because we weren't growing crops to burn or crops to feeds cattle, then we would have a more natural landscape where marshes would return. I visited the Norfolk Broads last year and there is a tremendous amount of effort to keep the broads from silting up and turning back to marshes.

Other than being sequestered in marshland as peat, then eventually coal, the trees are eaten by insects, many of which live and die underground, helping to store carbon in the soil. There is also the fact that a living tree is able to sequester carbon in the soil by sending CO2 to its roots. Trees that are cut down for biomass will no longer sequester carbon. I'd imagine very few biomass companies wait until the tree has died of natural causes before they turn it into energy. Trees live a very long time too, so lots of potential for carbon sequestration. Also, carbon is released by dead trees over a very protracted period, unlike burning where it is released all at once and not as much is released in total from decay as is released from burning.

Anyway, it's starting to feel a little combative in the discussion so I think I'll leave it there and agree to disagree about this.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry, when I say we, I meant the planet, not the UK. The oxygen levels aren't high enough, and tree eating fungi now exists that didn't before, so coal can no longer be made.

"Coal is very old. The formation of coal spans the geologic ages and is still being formed today, just very slowly."

https://www.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Coal2.html

"While the coal-forming process is still happening today, we interrupt that process when we mine coal, particularly of lower rank. If we left lower rank brown coal for a few more million years it would turn into black coal.

"Coal takes longer to form than any other rock type," says Bailey.

Ironically, warming of the Earth's climate may increase the number of swampy coastal environments that are perfect for coal formation. But these coal seams won't be ready for a few million years."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just to be clear, as per all my posts, I am suggesting RE instead of nuclear, not gas instead of nuclear as you kept misunderstanding.

With respect, I don't keep misunderstanding, I know that's exactly what you were saying. My response was that if you concentrate on replacing nuclear with RE, then you're replacing one low carbon energy source with another, but you're not doing anything about a high carbon energy source like gas.

If we had a mix of UK energy with RE at 28%, Nuclear 20% and Natural Gas at 52% and you focus on replacing Nuclear with RE you will eventually have have RE at 48% and gas at 52% and have zero impact on CO2 levels.

As I said, your focus is on removing Nuclear from the energy mix, mine is reducing CO2 emissions from the energy mix, hence the difference of opinion over nuclear.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Regarding bio-gas, have a read of Ecotricity's plans,

I think their plans include everybody giving up meat and going Vegan. Not going to happen in my house.

I do believe though, that if all buildings were properly insulated, the amount of gas they can realistically produce from grass would be enough. Further, I'm a believer in naturally fed animals for meat, and, cattle, sheep, pigs and fowl do not generally eat grains. This means that if meat animals are fed their natural foods, prices would rise a lot and we'd all eat a bit less meat and consume more vegetables.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry, but you are still completely misunderstanding what I've said. I'm not suggesting we roll out RE to replace nuclear, existing nuclear is going anyway by about 2030 when it reaches its end of life.

I'm suggesting we roll out RE as per plans/targets etc, then I'm saying rollout more RE instead of the government's plans for new nuclear, since RE is faster and cheaper to deploy.

Ahhh! LOL, really sorry Mart, I don't know why it took so long to sink in, or more importantly why I didn't consider that the existing aging nuclear plants are going to be closed anyway, regardless of what we replace them with. In my defense I'm working long hours at work and so my brain isn't firing on all cylinders at the mo. :rotfl:

I'm totally with you now and chuffed that I can get back to my no nuclear stance that sits so much better with me. Such a doofus.

I'm still not keen on Biogas if it involves planting crops that we then burn, and I'm not keen on Biomass at all. Coal or no coal, a dead tree will release less CO2 into the environment when it rots down than it would being burned.

NigeWick wrote: »

Once I've got the Tesla Powerwall 2, Zappi charger & couple of 300W panels installed, my next want is a water recycling shower. The shower should pay for itself in about five years if I can source one.

I had never heard of water recycling showers, so I googled it and found this:

https://orbital-systems.com/

It looks really interesting, especially if you combine it with water savings taps, dishwasher and grey water/rainwater recycling. If you go with the shower manufacturers 90% water saving and the 50% water savings that are often reported with grey and rainwater recycling, I can see an annual water bill in the 10's of £s rather than hundreds.

I've been concentrating on generation (solar) over the last couple of years and I'm now moving towards increasing our air tightedness and insulation levels. I have done quite a bit already but it's caused a condensation problem that I want to cure before I continue insulating. I have a dehumidifier that is mitigating the problem, but the aim is to fit heat recovery ventilation. I'm currently in the process of fitting the ducting, which is a bit of a nightmare to retrofit to an existing building.