Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
How Different US States Generate Electricity
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Hairyloon



Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15264
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 18 2:33 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
Sorry about the chemistry HL, but I was trying to clarify it in my own head as much as anything.


No problem at all. I am quite happy to either give or receive lessons.

Quote:
Jam Lady you are right about the other nutrients. Yes, taking in more carbon dioxide does help growth, but the other things are needed too. Son had to clear up after an experiment at a tree station near us where they did tests on raised carbon dioxide levels, and the growth was increased dramatically, but that was with all the other nutrients provided.

It is only on a bright sunny day that carbon dioxide is likely to become the limiting factor, and then only if water and nutrients are adequate.

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5381
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 18 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Hairyloon wrote:

It is only on a bright sunny day that carbon dioxide is likely to become the limiting factor, and then only if water and nutrients are adequate.


Or in a protected growing setting where air flow is reduced (i.e., very large greenhouse) and importantly you can hold onto the CO2 enough to make a high enough concentration around the plants to make a difference.

Because the enzyme "Rubisco" can also latch onto O2 when photosynthesis is going gangbusters and the atmosphere inside and surrounding the leaf begins to have a higher ratio of O2 to CO2, greater CO2 supply is more helpful to C3 plants than to C4 plants which already do a good job of concentrating CO2 at the sites of carbon fixation associated with photosynthesis.

I'm not sure what CO2 and and crop production has to do with this discussion of energy sources however, as the carbon sequestration from increased photosynthesis from higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is almost negligible on a global atmospheric CO2 scale (I.E., greater photosynthetic capacity won't be taking away our CO2 problem)

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4260
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 18 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

To be honest I was shocked how much coal is still being burnt in the US.

Powder River in Wyoming is something else,80ft of a coal seams
which run for miles fault free.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10898

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 18 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

As Wyoming still uses mainly coal for power generation you can see why to some extent. I seem to recall that it is also reknowned for being windy, being on the great plains, so an increase in wind power, which is the second largest generator, would make a lot of sense.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35527
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 18 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

coal and uranium seem a bit redundant if you are sitting on top of the yellowstone magma chambers.

there is enough geothermal for more than local needs, they have plenty of gravity and water as well as it being rather bright and breezy.

tried and tested tech, with motivation the state could be fossil free* and energy exporting in a few years but with coal that available it would take anti coal tax or legislation to provide the motivation.

* well not dinosaur free

Shane



Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 3124
Location: Doha. Is hot.
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 19 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Good idea that, dpack - if they take enough energy out of Yellowstone they could also stop the planet being obliterated when it finally blows!

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35527
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 19 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Shane wrote:
Good idea that, dpack - if they take enough energy out of Yellowstone they could also stop the planet being obliterated when it finally blows!


im not too sure about that it would take a lot to solidify the magma and plug the thing solid but there are enough semi stable hot rock sites to make geo thermal a very attractive option in the short to geological term

messing with magma has a rather dodgy history although the icelanders are giving it a go now and again.
near the runny stuff is best, in it messes up ones day and drilling rig

wyoming is ideal for fossil and non fossil energy, tis unfortunate that price seems to favour fossil.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10898

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 19 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

The advantage with geothermal is that it goes on for years with no major outlay apart from the initial one. The one at Southampton has been going for at least 50 years quite quietly in a car park, and as far as I know has cost very little to maintain.

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4260
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 19 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

There`s a new estate built up the North East a few years back heated by geothermal,if I remember correctly drilled to around the 3,000 ft mark.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10898

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 19 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

If there is a hot spot it definitely makes sense, but Yellowstone is just a bit too hot.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35527
Location: yes
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 19 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

nah there is plenty of stable but rather warm rock, some dry some wet.

into the magma or in the caldera fractured rocks is a bad idea but into a few hundred C works very well.

Slim



Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 5381
Location: New England (In the US of A)
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 19 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Plenty of steamy hot water bubbling out of the ground along the Rocky Mtns

(Really wish hot springs existed in my half of the country, but also glad for the rarity of seismic activity)

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10898

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 19 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Similarly Slim. We did have an earth tremor here when I was a child, and it woke everyone up, but not enough to do any damage thank goodness.

gregotyn



Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 1989
Location: Llanfyllin area
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 19 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I haven't read all through this, but if no one has mentioned it, burning compressed sawdust blocks is not to be recommended if the blocks are from pallets as the sawdust is often compressed using an "extra"-adhesive! This can cause serious blocking as when the smoke goes up the chimney it cools and the adhesive sticks to the sides of the chimney and if you are more unlucky it can catch fire!
There are blocks made and sold for fires not using adhesives-compression alone-and these I am told can be used safely on domestic fires.
I always think it is better to use proper logs of oak and ash.

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10898

PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 19 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I can see that using properly compressed sawdust using compression alone to hold the blocks together is a good way to use waste from sawmills etc., but agree that you don't want to use glue. If you make them yourself, you can use flour and water paste, which should be fine, but no other type of adhesive. I agree with you Gregotyn; logs are far nicer. We compost our sawdust if we can't find a home for it for smoking food.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com