Can I turn my theory into reality? Fossil fuel free, 100% off grid, but modcons

[nicknorman]

Just now, IanD said:

 

Yes, the race has survived. But the latest analysis shows that they kill over 4 million people a year across the globe.

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/air-pollution-silent-killer-called-pm25-329428

 

And the best estimate for the UK is 29000 a year, compared to 22000 for alcohol and 80000 for smoking:

 

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air-pollution-kill-40000-people-each-year-uk/

 

So is it OK to allow this to continue because we didn't use to know about it, but now we do?

The biggest threat to the planet is its plague of humans. There are far too many. If you take every possible step to prolong life, is that helpful to the feasibility of the planet?

 

Slightly tongue in cheek, but not entirely because what I say is of course true.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

The biggest threat to the planet is its plague of humans. There are far too many. If you take every possible step to prolong life, is that helpful to the feasibility of the planet?

 

Slightly tongue in cheek, but not entirely because what I say is of course true.

 

So we should get rid of all medicines and vaccines and all safety precautions that save lives so the global population reduces?

 

That's all fine until you're the one dying of sepsis from a scratch from a rose because there are no antibiotics. Then I bet you'd change your tune pretty damn quick...

 

Funny how people want the population to decrease but only by killing *other* people off -- preferably those in developing countries -- not themselves and their family. Wonder why?

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So we should get rid of all medicines and vaccines and all safety precautions that save lives so the global population reduces?

 

Funny how people want the population to decrease but only by killing *other* people off -- preferably those in developing countries -- not themselves and their family. Wonder why?

One problem is that Mr Darwin has been thwarted. Natural selection no longer works with humans, because technology keeps those people who otherwise would have failed to reach breeding age, alive beyond breeding age to perpetuate their dodgy genes. It’s not really sustainable long term. We are doomed!

 

As to the second para, it’s not funny, it’s human nature.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, dmr said:

 

If we want to save the planet then there will be a cost, even for tight boaters. Switching to HVO now slightly increases the chances that we won't be forced to go 100% electric.

HVO is not quite as green as its claimed but it looks much greener than the dino stuff.

 

My big concern is that it is never likely to be available in the same quantities as fossil diesel and if all HGV's and construction plant go in that direction (assuming electric won't work for them) then us boaters will be bottom of the list.

 

I've a horrible feeling HVO for boaters is about to get massively derailed, by the aviation industry. 

 

I keep hearing mentioned on the wireless this new aviation fuel which is renewable/low carbon/sustainable/whatever term the journalist du jour has latched onto. The highest profile example was Boris who flew back from COP26 in his private jet and got panned for it, only for a spokesman to point out in his defence that the fuel used for the flight(s) didn't count towards Co2 emissions as it was "sustainable" aviation fuel.

 

I suspect this new mystery fuel might well be aviation grade HVO, in which case I predict the travel industry is gonna hoover up every available millilitre of HVO that ever gets made.

 

Also, I've noticed widely varying claims regarding the amount of CO2 released by burning the stuff, varying from 'none' to 'one third of the CO2 released by normal diesel'. There seems to be no consensus. The website https://hvofueluk.co.uk/ for example, claims to cut CO2 by up to 90%.

[nicknorman]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I've a horrible feeling HVO for boaters is about to get massively derailed, by the aviation industry. 

 

I keep hearing mentioned on the wireless this new aviation fuel which is renewable/low carbon/sustainable/whatever term the journalist du jour has latched onto. The highest profile example was Boris who flew back from COP26 in his private jet and got panned for it, only for a spokesman to point out in his defence that the fuel used for the flight(s) didn't count towards Co2 emissions as it was "sustainable" aviation fuel.

 

I suspect this new mystery fuel might well be aviation grade HVO, in which case I predict the travel industry is gonna hoover up every available millilitre of HVO that ever gets made.

 

Also, I've noticed widely varying claims regarding the amount of CO2 released by burning the stuff, varying from 'none' to 'one third of the CO2 released by normal diesel'. There seems to be no consensus. The website https://hvofueluk.co.uk/ for example, claims to cut CO2 by up to 90%.

It may come from renewable sources, but no doubt its manufacture has a carbon footprint, and that’s before you consider the swathes of the Amazon rainforest cut down to grow the stuff.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It may come from renewable sources, but no doubt its manufacture has a carbon footprint, and that’s before you consider the swathes of the Amazon rainforest cut down to grow the stuff.

 

Really? 

 

I thought it was made out of old fish and chip shop fat.....

 

Edit to add: 

Ok I can imagine the boat stuff being chip shop fat, and the aviation stuff requiring virgin rain forest complete with audit trail.....

Edited November 5, 2021 by MtB

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

The problem with exceptions -- like ones in the tax system -- is that they often proliferate to the point where the system barely works, as more and more "special cases" are found, demanded and granted.

 

If the reason for banning wood burning is PM2.5 particulates, it;s difficult to see why there should be exceptions -- just because your house is rural, does this mean you should be allowed to introduce PM2.5 into the lungs of your own children, or those of neighbours if you have any?

Which I understand but living halfway up a hill and the end of a spurline in the depths of winter it is impossible to depend on electricity, I'm sorry but there comes a point where exceptions need to be made.

 

[nicknorman]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Really? 

 

I thought it was made out of old fish and chip shop fat.....

 

Edit to add: 

Ok I can imagine the boat stuff being chip shop fat, and the aviation stuff requiring virgin rain forest complete with audit trail.....

It can be. But I don’t think people eat enough fish and chips to run the country’s narrowboat fleet, never mind it’s fleet of cars, lorries and planes. If the demand for HVO takes off, there will be a lot of commercial pressure to grow stuff that is the raw fodder, such as the dreaded palm oil. That is when primary jungle gets slashed and burnt.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

It can be. But I don’t think people eat enough fish and chips to run the country’s narrowboat fleet, never mind it’s fleet of cars, lorries and planes. If the demand for HVO takes off, there will be a lot of commercial pressure to grow stuff that is the raw fodder, such as the dreaded palm oil. That is when primary jungle gets slashed and burnt.

 

Yes. This reminds me of solar. There is about 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land near me covered in solar panels. Such a pity that keeping warm competes with getting fed. 

[Slim]

On 04/11/2021 at 20:22, IanD said:

So as I said the problem is not that there is anything inherently wrong with heat pumps, it's just that your setup isn't suitable without major reworking...

My nephew's house is heated by an air heat pump and his radiators never run hot, by design.  

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Slim said:

My nephew's house is heated by an air heat pump and his radiators never run hot, by design.  

 

There seems to be little point spending £000's to have cold radiators 'by design'.

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. This reminds me of solar. There is about 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land near me covered in solar panels. Such a pity that keeping warm competes with getting 

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by peterboat
Forum software cockup!

[howardang]

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

It can be. But I don’t think people eat enough fish and chips to run the country’s narrowboat fleet, never mind it’s fleet of cars, lorries and planes. If the demand for HVO takes off, there will be a lot of commercial pressure to grow stuff that is the raw fodder, such as the dreaded palm oil. That is when primary jungle gets slashed and burnt.

That would be a good campaign to join..."Eat more fish and chips and save the planet! Where do I sign up?"

 

Howard

[system 4-50]

In Dune everybody wears special gear to save water.  Perhaps we need special gear to save heat, michelin-man suits, so that we don't need to heat houses at all.  The resulting mould on the walls could be tailored to be edible.  Then we all stay in our villages so we don't use travel fuel.  One cold shower  per month should keep the population down.   No-meat diets will save on methane.  What does that leave?

[john.k]

The demand is long taken off.....half of Indonesia s diesel fuel usage is palm oil.....there is palm oil farming everywhere you look in Asia /Pacific region.......think there is even some palm oil in N Qld.........Funny thing was the greens were all in favour of palm oil twenty years ago.....now its an anathema to them .....or maybe like gerda they need crisis after crisis to divert the medias fickle attention to them .

Edited November 6, 2021 by john.k

[Alistair1357]

On 04/11/2021 at 10:02, MtB said:

 

Well coal is renewable. Just grow a load of trees and stuff and wait a few millennia, and bingo it's back again! 

Er, no, it's not. Coal was formed before evolution developed bacteria to break down dead matter. Once that happened, no more coal.

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, Alistair1357 said:

Er, no, it's not. Coal was formed before evolution developed bacteria to break down dead matter. Once that happened, no more coal.

Really?

That's not how I understand it, have you any source for this

 

In fact the more I think on this the more ridiculous the comment is, so I suspect a wind up

Edited November 6, 2021 by tree monkey

[john.k]

No need for any more coal....we got enough here in Qld to last for 400 years at current usage.

[Alistair1357]

21 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Really?

That's not how I understand it, have you any source for this

 

In fact the more I think on this the more ridiculous the comment is, so I suspect a wind up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

 

Amazing thing the WWW.

[Briss]

1 hour ago, Alistair1357 said:

Er, no, it's not. Coal was formed before evolution developed bacteria to break down dead matter. Once that happened, no more coal.

Er, no... coal was formed when trees fell into swamps and so there was no oxygen present.

 

From the Wiki page you just quoted (my bold):

 

The conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called coalification. At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests^[17] in low-lying wetland areas. In these wetlands, the process of coalification began when dead plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidation, usually by mud or acidic water, and was converted into peat.

 

It was "protected from", not "there wasn't any". Big difference.

[Alistair1357]

2 minutes ago, Briss said:

From the Wiki page you just quoted.

Although coal is known from most geologic periods, 90% of all coal beds were deposited in the Carboniferous and Permian periods, which represent just 2% of the Earth's geologic history.^[21] Paradoxically, this was during the Late Paleozoic icehouse, a time of global glaciation. However, the drop in global sea level accompanying the glaciation exposed continental shelfs that had previously been submerged, and to these were added wide river deltas produced by increased erosion due to the drop in base level. These widespread areas of wetlands provided ideal conditions for coal formation.^[22] The rapid formation of coal ended with the coal gap in the Permian–Triassic extinction event, where coal is rare.^[23]

Favorable geography alone does not explain the extensive Carboniferous coal beds.^[24] Other factors contributing to rapid coal deposition were high oxygen levels, above 30%, that promoted intense wildfires and formation of charcoal that was all but indigestible by decomposing organisms; high carbon dioxide levels that promoted plant growth; and the nature of Carboniferous forests, which included lycophyte trees whose determinate growth meant that carbon was not tied up in heartwood of living trees for long periods.^[25]

One theory suggested that about 360 million years ago, some plants evolved the ability to produce lignin, a complex polymer that made their cellulose stems much harder and more woody. The ability to produce lignin led to the evolution of the first trees. But bacteria and fungi did not immediately evolve the ability to decompose lignin, so the wood did not fully decay but became buried under sediment, eventually turning into coal. About 300 million years ago, mushrooms and other fungi developed this ability, ending the main coal-formation period of earth's history.^[26] However, a 2016 study largely refuted this idea, finding extensive evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and that shifts in lignin abundance had no impact on coal formation. They suggested that climatic and tectonic factors were a more plausible explanation.^[27]

[tree monkey]

17 minutes ago, Alistair1357 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

 

Amazing thing the WWW.

Coal is formed in the conditions that create peat, the decay process is stopped by the wet and acidic conditions, not from a lack of decay bacteria, decay bacteria and fungi etc is a fundamental requirement for a functioning ecosystem 

The possibility that fungi and bacteria didn't have the ability to handle lignin doesn't mean that the bacteria didn't exist, it had to exist otherwise the plant and animal matter that turned into peat wouldn't exist, without the decay process the world would be knee deep in dead stuff and poo

Edited November 6, 2021 by tree monkey

[Briss]

If I may pick a few bits out of the above post..... (oops - above post but one, TM beat me to it.)

 

Your premise is that....   "One theory suggested that about 360 million years ago, some plants evolved the ability to produce lignin, a complex polymer that made their cellulose stems much harder and more woody. The ability to produce lignin led to the evolution of the first trees. But bacteria and fungi did not immediately evolve the ability to decompose lignin,...."

 

But your own article then goes on to refute the above premise....  "However, a 2016 study largely refuted this idea, finding extensive evidence of lignin degradation during the Carboniferous, and that shifts in lignin abundance had no impact on coal formation."

 

Edit as explained.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Briss

[IanD]

9 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

In Dune everybody wears special gear to save water.  Perhaps we need special gear to save heat, michelin-man suits, so that we don't need to heat houses at all.  The resulting mould on the walls could be tailored to be edible.  Then we all stay in our villages so we don't use travel fuel.  One cold shower  per month should keep the population down.   No-meat diets will save on methane.  What does that leave?

Nobody is suggesting that we all give up all the trappings of what we consider modern civilisation, just cut back on some of the more wasteful ones. Fly less and where needed. Eat less meat, especially beef. Don't fly avocados around the world. Don't be so wasteful with plastics. Recycle stuff more. Don't buy so much throwaway stuff. Repair more. Improve heating efficiency. Drive EVs.

 

Not a hair shirt, but definitely no longer carrying on wearing one made in a sweatshop in India once and then throwing it away 😉

Edited November 6, 2021 by IanD

[Alistair1357]

Just now, tree monkey said:

Coal is formed in the conditions that create peat, the decay process is stopped by the wet and acidic conditions, not from a lack of decay bacteria, decay bacteria and fungi etc is a fundamental requirement for a functioning ecosystem 

The argument here isn't really how coal was formed, rather it is whether coal is still forming. As the Wiki page tells us - 90% of the coal formed in a specific prehistoric period when certain conditions were favourable. Those conditions since that period have been sporadic and intermittent since, the coal seams found around the world point to this.