More on the role of iron concentrations in the ocean.
This would be more along the line of combating climate change by increasing CO2 to O2 conversion rather than by decreasing emissions. But in addition to needing more understanding the ecological effects of algae blooms in the equatorial oceans, there is also a question regarding what happens to the carbon absorbed in this way in the long run? Does it just get released back into the atmosphere when the algae decomposes or does it sink to the bottom of the ocean? ORā¦ can we economically scoop it up for making biofuel? I notice that criticisms of biofuels as a solution to climate change is all focused on land use and displacing other crops.
Land-based biofuels are going to become problematic because of their increasing fresh water use, less glacial runoff and diminishing aquifers, I should think.
Right. So my point was that such problems donāt apply to using (for biofuel) algae blooms induced by pumping up the iron concentrations in equatorial waters instead. That just leaves investigating the possible ecological impacts and whether they can be mitigated in some way. Hopefully such fuel wouldnāt have much of a carbon footprint since the carbon is coming out of the atmosphere anyway.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
104
And their insane land use. The only way is nuclear.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
105
Indeed beaglelady. Apart from the appalling impact of the fossil fuel companies financing apocalyptic environmentalism to destroy the nuclear industry and halt the developing world for another unnecessary century of course.
I would think most of the carbon in the algae would decompose and get released back into the atmosphere, or dissolved in the ocean. A better option would be photosynthesizers that create carbonate shells which have a better chance of getting locked away on the ocean bottom.
Algae are already being considered for biofuels, but it would probably be difficult to scale up. IMHO, nuclear is the best short term solution (+1 to @Klax) .
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
107
Hah! Itās the only solution that can possibly fulfil the gospel and get us through the next ice age maximum or ten.
The problem is that our expedient stopgap solutions tend to become habitual ways of life. And people fear the problems which come with nuclear power for good reason. Not only will there always be accidents for one reason or another but the waste products are the worst, and then there is the proliferation of materials for weapons of mass destruction. I am not completely opposed to the use of nuclear power, but while I think keeping our hand in that technology is a good thing, I am less enthusiastic about increasing our use of it by an order of magnitude.
Besidesā¦ It is still an example of burning up and throwing away a valuable limited resource. This is why people look more favorably on RENEWABLE sources of energy.
ANDā¦ fission power is a technology which we already have. If we really need it for something like a future ice age, then we can use it. I hardly think there is anything terribly urgent about it.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
109
Failure to use nuclear energy is far more lethal now let alone going forward, in every way.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
110
There is no and never will be any such technology.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
111
So when do we run out of thorium? And why is the World Bank not financing the 40GW Grand Inga Dam? Africans donāt need fridges?
Interestingly (perhaps ), I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the Viet Nam era before I finished school on the GI Bill, and Iām an āanti-nukeā. Not adamantly, nor an activist, but I am still more than hesitant in promoting it. So I am kind of where you are. Nuclear waste with half-lives in the tens of thousands of years, human carelessness and natural disasters all militate against it. One thing in favor of it is the new compact modular and scalable designs using conventional technology.
Speaking from personal experience, though, the human operator factor against it is large. My initial training and qualifications and written and oral exams were very rigorous in āRickoverās Nuclear Navyā, but subsequent requalifications were a hand-wave. There were some things that were more intrinsically engaging and demanding, like reactor startups and shutdowns, maneuvering during entering and leaving port, connecting and disconnecting from shore power and a variety of drills and war games. Transoceanic crossings, on the other hand, were deadly boring. Guess which steady state operations at a land-based utility would most resemble. Of course, the advantages of half a century of new technology and automation needs to be factored in, too.
So I am way more in favor of conservation and a conservative lifestyle along with renewable energy than I am of headlong promotion of nuclear power.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
114
Then, Dale, you condemn billions to the post-apocalypse age, to putting a plastic bottle in hole in the roof to let in daylight. Low density energy is a disaster for the world, far worse than global warming ameliorated by nuclear possibly could be. You condemn even the developed world to impoverishing electricity prices. We didnāt get here with bat exterminators.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
115
The urgency is in half the planet not having a fridge for another century. And you turning yours in to a planter.
We currently donāt have a viable baseline source of renewable energy other than hydro, which has issues all its own. Solar and wind are intermittent and canāt supply a constant amount of energy.
You forgot to include all the people dying from the stress related health problems from knowing there is nuclear reactor nearby. Seems to me that the numbers for the other energy sources have been pumped up in this way.
), I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the Viet Nam era before I finished school on the GI Bill, and Iām an āanti-nukeā. Not adamantly, nor an activist, but I am still more than hesitant in promoting it. So I am kind of where you are. Nuclear waste with half-lives in the tens of thousands of years, human carelessness and natural disasters all militate against it. One thing in favor of it is the new compact modular and scalable designs using conventional technology.