Current Topics
Big Lies and Tax Cuts
by rporter314
Al Franken 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
10:52 PM
more help for the middle class
by Jeffery J. Haas
10:47 PM
Gun Control
by rporter314
09:51 PM
sex assaults
by jgw
07:40 PM
the democratic plan to win
by jgw
11/20/17 07:10 PM
Trump held his first VA listening session without veterans advocates
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/20/17 12:48 AM
Round Table for November, 2017
by pdx rick
11/20/17 12:06 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/19/17 10:32 PM
Donald Trump Jr.'s Elephant Tail
by NW Ponderer
11/19/17 08:22 PM
Reign of Idiots
by rporter314
11/19/17 12:50 PM
Is keystone xl dead?
by pondering_it_all
11/19/17 06:05 AM
Let’s just cancel the Oscars
by Jeffery J. Haas
11/18/17 10:23 PM
Why Netflix’s ‘Godless’ is the Western you’ve been waiting for
by Golem
11/17/17 08:57 PM
NASA weather clip
by rporter314
11/17/17 12:26 AM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
57 Forums
16103 Topics
277446 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#303695 - 11/04/17 01:57 AM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7094
Loc: North San Diego County
Sure, I've got tons of cheap solar panels. They have a supposed life of 25 years. Maybe we'll have cheap fusion when that 25 years is up. Maybe I'll be used up before they are.

Top
#303706 - 11/04/17 12:33 PM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: pondering_it_all]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8631
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I would love to see vast herds of buffalo roaming parts of the Mid-West again, but too slow and it has limited potential. It doesn't affect all the coal and oil we burned, but rather just makes agriculture carbon-neutral. Then there's always the question of where you get the energy to do all that organic farming

First of all, I am not making any arguments against better ways to make electricity and other forms of energy. I am advocating specifically to not bypass the myriad of means already at our disposal to use less energy, to NEED less energy, and to change our culture to be better at integrating systems of better ways to live, which will do more in the aggregate to solve system human-caused problems than focusing on any one sexy technofix for maintaining our current squanderous lifestyles.

Back to pulling carbon out of the air, I wasn't referring to vast herds of buffalo. Here's a pinch from a rather long and geeky paper:
Quote:
ISAR’s research indicates that farmers growing these crops under carbon trading protocols could grow biomass representing up to 50 tons of net sequestered CO2 per acre (A) of cropland. These crops would produce revenues of approximately $50- $150/acres, thereby insuring grower’s adoption and enabling a smooth transition from conventional to IP agricultural practices. IP has the capability to absorb current total anthropogenic CO2 emissions (30,398 million tons CO2/year) through adoption of year- round IP production on 17% of the world’s arable cropland or through the growth and incorporation of ~4 tons/acre dry biomass on cropland worldwide.
The IP approach does not require high-tech equipment or have high costs for implementation. IP can be practiced in any country by farmers of any ability creating economic opportunities and bene ts worldwide, including third world countries. With the implementation of IP, valuable resources of energy, capital and captured CO2 would not be pumped into a “hole-in-the-ground” or to extreme ocean depths, but will be captured and incorporated into soils to improve the quantity, quality and health of farmland worldwide, while increasing crop yield and food quality.

This methodology does not require waiting for some technology to mature, it just needs people to acknowledge and adopt it.

Using this system would require significantly less use of tractors and they could be powered by electric motors using energy generated from a range of sources, possibly even including SMRs.


Edited by logtroll (11/04/17 12:35 PM)
Edit Reason: add link
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#303714 - 11/04/17 08:41 PM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7094
Loc: North San Diego County
I think IP is a fine idea but putting more carbon in the soil only has a one time benefit. Once you get the carbon in the farmland I don't think you can put a lot more in there. Natural processes in the soil make organic material decay and release CO2 back into the atmosphere. So you can offset all the anthropogenic CO2 for a few years and then you have great soil on every arable hectare and get no such additional carbon sequestration.

Farmland is a compartment, from the ecological viewpoint. You can put carbon in it but it can only hold so much and it comes out rather easily and inevitably. The time scale is pretty short: Just a few years.

The ocean is a much larger compartment and the time scale is eons, because CO2 gets turned into limestone and is in there for geological time. Putting it in faster than limestone formation makes the ocean more acid so it has it's limits if you want any sea life.

Burying carbon has no such limitations or quick recycling. You are just duplicating very long time-scale natural processes like oil and coal production.

Top
#303716 - 11/04/17 09:07 PM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: pondering_it_all]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8631
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Once you get the carbon in the farmland I don't think you can put a lot more in there. Natural processes in the soil make organic material decay and release CO2 back into the atmosphere. So you can offset all the anthropogenic CO2 for a few years and then you have great soil on every arable hectare and get no such additional carbon sequestration.

That's true for labile carbon but not for recalcitrant carbon. There probably is a limit to how much recalcitrant carbon can go back into the soil, but the amount is humongous and, according to the calculations of many, enough to "save" us from what we have done so far. But we do have to stop living like total morons and change our ways, critical as one strategic vector.

As said before, IP is something that can be done now, at positive economic levels, with multiple positive co-benefits besides atmospheric carbon reduction.

I encounter this all the time - resistance to immediately implementing conserving strategies that are 'shovel ready', usually on the argument that we will need more energy eventually, or that they aren't 'big' enough. I don't get it.
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#303720 - 11/05/17 06:09 AM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7094
Loc: North San Diego County
You misunderstand me. I agree, we should do IP. But we need to do everything just to have enough energy. That includes natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, fission reactors: Basically all energy source we have with the possible exception of coal. (Not that it is too CO2 generating and dirty, but because it releases so much radiation into the atmosphere.)

If we don't do it all, billions of people starve to death. (We also need to get drastic about population control.) All of this is necessary to keep us going without massive die-offs until fusion is ready.

Top
#303827 - 11/09/17 09:42 PM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1740
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
We gotta have faith in our military. Trump has put them in charge and they have told him, apparently, that everything is winnable so, perhaps, they can get us into a war that will kill off our overpopulation?

Top
#303837 - 11/10/17 09:16 AM Re: SMR (Small modular reactor) [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7094
Loc: North San Diego County
We can win, if you call it that. Out of the entire human race probably only a few hundred people would survive and those would be Americans in deep shelters with years supply of food and water. But I bet there are very few women in those underground facilities! (Mormons have the food but I don't think they have the radiation-proof shelters. Or several years worth of water!)

It's an echo of Dr. Strangelove, but maybe the best chance of survival is to gather up all the young women you can and get them into the shelters. In about 10 years, they could move back to the surface in select areas with little radiation. Then they have to have a strict breeding program so each couple can have only one child, and women are encouraged (required?) to have multiple children by different fathers.

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Who's Online
0 registered (), 35 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2