No surprises... Environment Agency Fracking Pie

[the village idiot]

The problem TVI is that there is plenty of fossil fuels, its just that burning them will cause even more damage to the overheating environment than we have so far. We have probably passed the tipping point already (as you know) but we have to start leaving the stuff in the ground.

 

You do wonder how many weather records we have to break (eg hottest years since records began in past decade) before people are convinced that we are damaging the planet??? Sadly the science is pretty clear with almost total consensus from those not directly paid by the fossil fuel lobby but when we don't like the consequences of leaving that oil in the ground, some will clutch at straws.

 

Couldn't agree more!

 

Being a man of charcoal I am hopeful that biochar may help to redress the balance, if only a little. Charcoal (essentially pure carbon) buried in the soil does not break down for thousands of years, and it improves water and nutrient retention to boot!

Marvelous stuff:thumbup:

[Woodworks]

Where do I start??????

 

Wind turbins, there is more carbon produced in the manufacture and installation than they will ever save, same goes for hybrid cars.

 

RHI, solar panels,etc, etc…..

 

Do you honestly think that's true or are you just playing devils advocate?

 

Some reading for you. The key bit is in 4.1

 

"This study shows that

whilst the embodied energy figures have increased significantly

over those presented in the past, this is still the case, with the

embodied energy representing less than 5% of the total

generated energy for both turbines, assuming a minimum

20-year service life"http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FRobert_Crawford3%2Fpublication%2F223338285_Life_cycle_energy_and_greenhouse_emissions_analysis_of_wind_turbines_and_the_effect_of_size_on_energy_yield%2Flinks%2F548d1cc00cf214269f20e6bc.pdf&ei=v-YFVbTwPPKQ7AbZlIC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGXYekmKPS8X1ZB83MfRO4gKnklDQ&sig2=UpAmzfTmH7tqUKKJFd_LKw&bvm=bv.88198703,d.ZGU

 

And for something more fluffy [ame]

[/ame] Edited March 15, 2015 by Woodworks

[gmeneaud]

Indeed it is possible but I wouldn't like to bet the continuation of our species on it!

 

Quite apart from what is causing the unprecedented rapidity of global warming, does no-one else think that we have a moral duty to at least try and step a bit more lightly? We share our celestial orb with several million other species. Through our misguided impressions of our own importance and voracious appetite for fuel we are very efficiently exterminating them at the rate of dozens of species per day!

during the past two million years of the quaternary period i understand there have been several quite dramatic temperature variations,such as the one approximately thirteen thousand years ago when the temperature rose by ten degrees celsius in one hundred years.

[woodyguy]

Greenhouse gas measurements go back 800 000 years through the Greenland ice cores

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/ghg-concentrations-download1-2014.png

 

But even if you don't think that man's squandering of the fossil fuel bounty is damaging the climate, how do you think our grand children will look back on us when thousands of species have been driven to extinction and we've used up most of the riches stores over millions of years?

As to those who ignore the evidence. Lets rephrase the question? What would have to happen before you were convinced that man made change to the planet's climate is both real and currently happening? Denial is easy but what would make you change your mind?

[difflock]

discuss the current unstoppable population growth, or more rather its control?

Energy consumption is a mere symptom of population numbers.

[openspaceman]

Being a man of charcoal I am hopeful that biochar may help to redress the balance, if only a little. Charcoal (essentially pure carbon) buried in the soil does not break down for thousands of years, and it improves water and nutrient retention to boot!

Marvelous stuff:thumbup:

 

I normally won't indulge myself in this sort of thread but this one caught my eye as I have a bit of an interest in the Environment Agency and their pension scheme.

 

Yes the government will have appointed people from commerce to head this first steps agency as they try to devolve it from government. Plainly such people will have a background and bias toward industry rather than policing the environment. I don't see we, the public, can do much other than see the governance remains within the law.

 

Now biochar is something we can involve ourselves in because whether we believe climate change is anthropogenic or not we can agree that doubling the atmospheric CO2 content in 200 years with an amount equal to 45% of this atmospheric increase in CO2 dissolved in the surface waters of the ocean, which is having a demonstrable effect on marine life, is unlikely to be a "good thing".

 

Because the additional CO2 from fossil fuel use has not been dealt with in the normal flux of the carbon cycle, for whatever reason, our intervention in turning a small portion of the annual carbon fixed by photosynthesis into a recalcitrant form can make a difference to redress the balance.

 

A young Dutch girl concluded from a desktop study at Bangor that were we to carbonise plant wastes which are currently composted or burnt we could offset 10% of UK's carbon emissions to atmosphere.

 

When I was more involved, before having to take up employment because I am a poor business man, it was EA rules on applying wastes to agricultural land that prevented large scale application of biochar from wastes because the jury was still out on whether it was beneficial and there were concerns about run off entering the surface water system.

[the village idiot]

I normally won't indulge myself in this sort of thread but this one caught my eye as I have a bit of an interest in the Environment Agency and their pension scheme.

 

Yes the government will have appointed people from commerce to head this first steps agency as they try to devolve it from government. Plainly such people will have a background and bias toward industry rather than policing the environment. I don't see we, the public, can do much other than see the governance remains within the law.

 

Now biochar is something we can involve ourselves in because whether we believe climate change is anthropogenic or not we can agree that doubling the atmospheric CO2 content in 200 years with an amount equal to 45% of this atmospheric increase in CO2 dissolved in the surface waters of the ocean, which is having a demonstrable effect on marine life, is unlikely to be a "good thing".

 

Because the additional CO2 from fossil fuel use has not been dealt with in the normal flux of the carbon cycle, for whatever reason, our intervention in turning a small portion of the annual carbon fixed by photosynthesis into a recalcitrant form can make a difference to redress the balance.

 

A young Dutch girl concluded from a desktop study at Bangor that were we to carbonise plant wastes which are currently composted or burnt we could offset 10% of UK's carbon emissions to atmosphere.

 

When I was more involved, before having to take up employment because I am a poor business man, it was EA rules on applying wastes to agricultural land that prevented large scale application of biochar from wastes because the jury was still out on whether it was beneficial and there were concerns about run off entering the surface water system.

 

Biochar certainly has the potential to be a big win-win. The boffins are working away on it to determine whether it will indeed deliver the desired results.

I would have thought that there was plenty of potential from utilising waste forestry arisings to produce the char. The use of virgin wood would presumably get around any concerns of contaminated run off entering the water system. Might even act as a driver for an increase in neglected woodland management.

Bulk biochar is currently worth around 70p/kg, compared to £1.00 to £1.80 for bbq charcoal but I can see the monetary value of biochar rising significantly if it were to become a mainstream commodity.

There would also be scope for harnessing the heat produced in the production for energy generation.

[openspaceman]

BThe use of virgin wood would presumably get around any concerns of contaminated run off entering the water system. Might even act as a driver for an increase in neglected woodland management.

 

Using virgin wood would get it out of the waste regulations but wouldn't address the other issues of applying it to land commercially which is why I proposed selling it as a PAS 100 amendment.

 

 

There would also be scope for harnessing the heat produced in the production for energy generation.

 

This was the whole basis of our various projects, about 50% of the energy in the feedstock remains in the biochar but we managed to run a gas turbine briefly on the offgas. Even if this motive power wasn't commercially viable ( it probably was in the right circumstances but we were not businesslike enough in our dealings) it still produced good clean heat. At the domestic level one could heat a house and add the char to a kitchen garden.

[the village idiot]

What a great idea! Do you know of any domestic scale units in production?

 

Also, what are the 'other issues' in applying virgin wood biochar to agricultural soils?

[Goaty]

To throw in another grenade to this lively thread.

Bio char whilst I realise it's burnt in a controlled way to produce it, surely this happens in a small way when forests are decimated and burnt to clear land. These deforested area soon go poor in soil quality.

 

This EA problem is just a symptom of selfish mankind. Not in my back yard. Me me syndrome. Look how long it has taken to do the half hearted recycling we currently achieve! All the green schemes are flawed, they are driven by greed. People talk about payback, units. Not living off the grid or self sufficiency.

 

If we burnt everything that was waste and recovered the energy at power stations then buried the slag in landfill. It would go in sterile to the ground. Obviously invest heavily in exhaust emissions filteration.

 

I was in Trinidad a few years ago. It's always sunny and windy there, day length is constant all year round. They produce oil and gas very cheaply. Not a turbine or solar panel to be seen. They could use these and sell more fossil fuels. But no the bottom line is costs now not long term

I've followed green energy since it was odd and uncool 25+ years ago. The current attitude why many builders, plumbers, roofers etcetera are involved is primary selfish greed, with a token smile of I'm helping the planet.

It's a government propelled diaster