Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 . . . 54 · Next

AuthorMessage
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1797788 - Posted: 21 Jun 2016, 22:11:25 UTC

Trucks use waste heat

Engineering360 News Desk video, clip starts at ~2:10
Using waste heat from exhaust to generate electricity.
ID: 1797788 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1797808 - Posted: 21 Jun 2016, 23:33:18 UTC - in response to Message 1797788.  
Last modified: 21 Jun 2016, 23:42:40 UTC

Trucks use waste heat

Engineering360 News Desk video, clip starts at ~2:10
Using waste heat from exhaust to generate electricity.

Thanks for getting us back on-topic.

There is lots of scope yet for getting more efficiency out of the old combustion engine yet. Note: Exhaust heat recovery system


Hence why electric transport is so attractive (much higher efficiency). Provided that is the electricity generation is clean...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1797808 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1797845 - Posted: 22 Jun 2016, 2:02:28 UTC - in response to Message 1797808.  



Hence why electric transport is so attractive (much higher efficiency). Provided that is the electricity generation is clean...


All on our only one planet,
Martin


I agree Martin. But... electricity generation has its issues with being 'clean', no matter what 'source' is used to generate it.

You wanna see what wind power does?

http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5

ID: 1797845 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1798383 - Posted: 24 Jun 2016, 8:43:44 UTC - in response to Message 1797845.  



Hence why electric transport is so attractive (much higher efficiency). Provided that is the electricity generation is clean...


All on our only one planet,
Martin


I agree Martin. But... electricity generation has its issues with being 'clean', no matter what 'source' is used to generate it.

You wanna see what wind power does?

http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5



Oh my..
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1798383 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1799698 - Posted: 30 Jun 2016, 17:11:30 UTC

Meat is horrible

It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today — and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.
ID: 1799698 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1799765 - Posted: 30 Jun 2016, 22:40:26 UTC - in response to Message 1799698.  

Meat is horrible

It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today — and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.
ID: 1799765 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1799771 - Posted: 30 Jun 2016, 22:52:03 UTC

Maybe not climate changing, I'm not an expert, but 'Healing' detected in Antarctic ozone hole
Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal.

The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 - an area roughly the size of India.

The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals.

The study also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.
ID: 1799771 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6728
Credit: 21,443,075
RAC: 3
Australia
Message 1799827 - Posted: 1 Jul 2016, 2:15:15 UTC - in response to Message 1799771.  

Winternight I would not get your hopes up that the Ozone is repairing it's self just yet .

There is also a hole in the north pole and that is not reducing yet .

I have read that there will be no improvement for approx. 40-50 years after 2000 when CFC's where banned.

Here is a link that gives better info on what's happening with Ozone levels

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
ID: 1799827 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1799916 - Posted: 1 Jul 2016, 14:24:42 UTC - in response to Message 1799765.  
Last modified: 1 Jul 2016, 14:25:08 UTC

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.


Nope. You've got that one the wrong way round.

Reducing the inefficiency of farming the (top of the farming food chain) cattle will allow LESS farmland to be needed than at present.


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1799916 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1799935 - Posted: 1 Jul 2016, 15:47:51 UTC - in response to Message 1799916.  

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.


Nope. You've got that one the wrong way round.

Reducing the inefficiency of farming the (top of the farming food chain) cattle will allow LESS farmland to be needed than at present.

Wrong. Meat can be fed by land that has too high a slope for a tractor to operate upon. Slash and Burn, it comes to the make it so hand wavers.
ID: 1799935 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1800041 - Posted: 2 Jul 2016, 0:47:50 UTC - in response to Message 1799935.  
Last modified: 2 Jul 2016, 0:49:40 UTC

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.


Nope. You've got that one the wrong way round.

Reducing the inefficiency of farming the (top of the farming food chain) cattle will allow LESS farmland to be needed than at present.

Wrong. Meat can be fed by land that has too high a slope for a tractor to operate upon. Slash and Burn, it comes to the make it so hand wavers.

Nope.

We don't see cattle on the hills and highlands over here. They usually get the best most fertile flat fields nearest the farm buildings. Or they are incarcerated inside the buildings and fed antibiotics so that yet more animals can be intensively crammed in.


What you do often see over here on the hills and highlands are sheep. Or various contrived crops with lots of drainage for grouse and pheasant shooting. Both of which are a cause of flash floods downstream...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1800041 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1800047 - Posted: 2 Jul 2016, 1:07:28 UTC - in response to Message 1800041.  

We don't see cattle on the hills and highlands over here.

Of course not.
There are no mountains in Great Britain.
However in Austria and Switzerland cows are grazing in the mountains.
And reindeers are also grazing in the mountains in northern Europe.
ID: 1800047 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1800088 - Posted: 2 Jul 2016, 8:32:04 UTC

'Sleeper issue' of leaking coal seam gas fields may blow hole in emissions goals
Gas has long been touted as cleaner than coal and marketed as a "transition" fuel until the mass take-up of renewable energy becomes viable.

But a growing chorus of voices from Australia and overseas is warning that any perceived benefits could easily be lost with just small leakages.

Professor Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne says it takes just 1-2 per cent of gas leakage for any advantage to be lost.
ID: 1800088 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1800096 - Posted: 2 Jul 2016, 11:57:49 UTC
Last modified: 2 Jul 2016, 12:05:37 UTC

Not sure if this is a first for the UK but at the moment, we have zero coal fired power station output. That is, all our coal fired power stations are offline.

Instead, as I'm posting now, we have about 17% wind power and about 20% solar (over 1/3rd power generation). Combined cycle gas turbines and nuclear contribute the rest. (There's also about 5% from bio, hydro, and imported nuclear.)


Now we 'just' need to expand on that and increase the capacity of our pump-storage hydroelectric schemes.

Another interesting snippet is that battery storage is being used in some places on the grid to boost peak supply capacity instead of laying new power lines.


Is the great inertia of the Titanic of old ways and old dirty money slowly turning?...

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1800096 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20147
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1800097 - Posted: 2 Jul 2016, 12:02:53 UTC - in response to Message 1800088.  
Last modified: 2 Jul 2016, 12:03:51 UTC

'Sleeper issue' of leaking coal seam gas fields may blow hole in emissions goals
Gas has long been touted as cleaner than coal and marketed as a "transition" fuel until the mass take-up of renewable energy becomes viable.

But a growing chorus of voices from Australia and overseas is warning that any perceived benefits could easily be lost with just small leakages.

Professor Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne says it takes just 1-2 per cent of gas leakage for any advantage to be lost.

That is an even greater problem for the inevitable fracking leaks and abandonment. Especially so when companies conveniently go bust and leave their workings to leak.

We also have outgassing from landfill rubbish dump sites.


There are almost all of our activities that we need to clean up. All must be accounted for. However, fossil fuel use and agricultural land (mis)use are the two biggest and easiest impacts to take immediate positive action to correct.


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1800097 · Report as offensive
KLiK
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1304
Credit: 22,994,597
RAC: 60
Croatia
Message 1800591 - Posted: 4 Jul 2016, 6:11:50 UTC - in response to Message 1799698.  
Last modified: 4 Jul 2016, 6:13:52 UTC

Meat is horrible

It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today — and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.

can't say I didn't expect that! ;)

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.

farmland don't reduce the amount of oxygen...as it's also plants!

they do come with some other negative aspects, like NOx emissions...
;)


non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1800591 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1800594 - Posted: 4 Jul 2016, 6:28:30 UTC - in response to Message 1800591.  
Last modified: 4 Jul 2016, 6:29:07 UTC

farmland don't reduce the amount of oxygen...as it's also plants!
they do come with some other negative aspects, like NOx emissions...
;)

You forgot Methane, CH4, that is about 20 times more aggresive then CO2 to the greenhouse effect.
Will I stop eating red meat?
No way!
There are so many other ways to stop the global warming coming form sources where I dont participate in!
ID: 1800594 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1800755 - Posted: 4 Jul 2016, 19:35:34 UTC - in response to Message 1800591.  

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.

farmland don't reduce the amount of oxygen...as it's also plants!

they do come with some other negative aspects, like NOx emissions...
;)

NOx is a GHG. Also rain forest is about 100+ feet tall of dense plant matter, farm land is about 5 feet tall of not dense plant matter. Better check the amount of CO2 fixed by each. Now remember farm land will require artificial fertilizer, irrigation, weed killers, and tractors for tilling, planting and harvesting. What is that CO2? Then factor in that all the farm products will have to be shipped, usually by CO2 belching oil fired engines, many hundreds of miles from the rain forest to the city. Also check if human CO2 and CH4 emissions from eating plant matter are on par with the cut from having meat eat it.

On that last one I was under the impression that both humans and meat could not directly digest plant matter and had to use the same bacteria to digest it for them and that the bacteria produced the CH4 and CO2.

Wave you hands and say make it so before you study the problem, that is engineering by the masses!
ID: 1800755 · Report as offensive
KLiK
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1304
Credit: 22,994,597
RAC: 60
Croatia
Message 1800891 - Posted: 5 Jul 2016, 6:17:56 UTC - in response to Message 1800594.  

farmland don't reduce the amount of oxygen...as it's also plants!
they do come with some other negative aspects, like NOx emissions...
;)

You forgot Methane, CH4, that is about 20 times more aggresive then CO2 to the greenhouse effect.
Will I stop eating red meat?
No way!
There are so many other ways to stop the global warming coming form sources where I dont participate in!

farmland, like planting plants...not raising animals on them!

& I don't care so much of the meat...I do eat it 2-3 times a week & that enough...feeling healthy, looking 10y younger, active sportsman!

so eat a red meat, nobody is banning it...it will just cost 2-3 times more!
;)


non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1800891 · Report as offensive
KLiK
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1304
Credit: 22,994,597
RAC: 60
Croatia
Message 1800893 - Posted: 5 Jul 2016, 6:22:21 UTC - in response to Message 1800755.  

Just slash and burn more rain forest to make farmland to produce the food to replace meat.

farmland don't reduce the amount of oxygen...as it's also plants!

they do come with some other negative aspects, like NOx emissions...
;)

NOx is a GHG. Also rain forest is about 100+ feet tall of dense plant matter, farm land is about 5 feet tall of not dense plant matter. Better check the amount of CO2 fixed by each. Now remember farm land will require artificial fertilizer, irrigation, weed killers, and tractors for tilling, planting and harvesting. What is that CO2? Then factor in that all the farm products will have to be shipped, usually by CO2 belching oil fired engines, many hundreds of miles from the rain forest to the city. Also check if human CO2 and CH4 emissions from eating plant matter are on par with the cut from having meat eat it.

On that last one I was under the impression that both humans and meat could not directly digest plant matter and had to use the same bacteria to digest it for them and that the bacteria produced the CH4 and CO2.

Wave you hands and say make it so before you study the problem, that is engineering by the masses!

every CH you intake, dissolves into CH4...will you stop eating your:
- ketchup
- BBQ sause
- salad sause
- candy
- ice-cream
- juices & other artificial drinks
- cakes
etc.

meat is too cheap now...enjoy it, while it is! soon, we have to pay for our mistakes..."meat production for every day meal" is one of that!
;)


non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1800893 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 . . . 54 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.