Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[Shockm]

People mention a some progress in technology for renewables. That's great. Here's the negatives. This is a movement that mainly is cared about, and being brought on by the west (Europe, Canada, and U.S.). Most of the world (South America, Africa, other developing countries) doesn't care and isn't interested in "stressing" their economies to improve their infrastructure (Europe has no oil, and the U.S. isn't allowed to produce it in Alaska or offshore in Texas and California), and the countries who are being depended on to produce "oil" are totalitarian countries (a few examples are Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc.) who are not allies of the west. The U.S. and Canada do some oil producing, but aren't considered as invested as we once were (we now receive a good amount of dirty oil from Venezuela to offset some of our need).

China and India have no oil, and are still building coal plants for energy, and Western Europe is building coal plants, once again because they have been stretched by the Russian War. Not only are China and India not interested in renewable for their people, China has most of the factories that produce renewable products, and a strangle hold on the minerals used to produce these products.

In short, the security of the West, and the World U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. are in danger because of those countries (Russia, China, etc.) who produce and own the "Means of Production" of Oil, renewables, and nuclear bombs are also our enemies (Biden would call them a competitor, but they really are an enemy).

This is something that should be a "Long Term" project, and worked towards, but not an end to our current economy. Think about the positive that could happen if the U.S. could provide some world security and stability by doing more with oil to Europe, etc. while the world still moves toward a renewable world.

[SubGod22]

An interesting way to reduce carbon emissions in construction, for those that are concerned with carbon emissions.

Sweden Is Trying to Build a Whole City Borough Out of Wood to 'Show What is Possible

A Stockholm development company has a dream contract in its hands—the construction of a whole new city borough entirely of lumber that aims to be a sustainable ballast to an unbalanced city.

Spanning 25 blocks, 30 sustainable mass timber buildings will add 7,000 new offices and 2,000 new homes, with construction slated to begin in 2025, and the first buildings to be completed in 2027.

Known as Stockholm Wood City, the borough is not just an exercise in Swedish woodworking or sustainability, it’s a much-needed re-structuring of the urban landscape since most people live south of the historic center, but most offices are north of the historic center.

The development company in charge is called Atrium Ljungberg, and it appreciates the concept of a “15-minute city” where everything is a 15-minute walk from one’s front door.

“We are proud to introduce Stockholm Wood City. This is not only an important step for us as a company, but a historic milestone for Swedish innovation capability,” Annica Ånäs, CEO of Atrium Ljungberg, said in a statement.

“From tenants, there is a strong demand for innovative, sustainable solutions—a demand that we meet with this initiative.”

Timber construction of large buildings came about in the 90s with the invention of cross-laminated timber, known shorthand as “mass timber.” Consisting of multiple boards of lumber fused together using sophisticated machinery, the mass timber could bear much greater loads and forces. Additional applications made this special lumber fire-resistant.

The article states that this company recently built the worlds tallest wooden skyscraper. I Googled it out of curiosity and it's 280 feet tall. Google also states that there was one recently built in Milwaukee that's 284 feet tall.

My first thought was fire hazard, but the article goes on to point out that the process the wood goes through for manufacturing makes it as strong as steel and as fire resistant as concrete.

I'm not a big fan of the feds in general, but here's a bit on the Milwaukee building and how the US Forest Service has embraced the usage of this timber for future construction.

The burn test proved that oversized, yet unprotected, glulam columns do not lose structural integrity since outer layer charring protects internal layers. In fact, the lab’s glulam columns performed so well, they qualified for a three-hour fire resistance rating. Testing like this supports future code changes. The success of FPL’s three-hour burn test has opened the doors to new US mass timber building horizons.

“Who would have imagined…the tallest timber building in the world is in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” said Brian Brashaw, who’s leading the Forest Service’s national mass timber market development efforts. “It’s real, it’s catalytic, and future mass timber projects like Ascent will support forest health and low carbon buildings across the country.”

Mass timber is a priority for the Forest Service, which is championing and investing in the United States’ emerging industry. Mass timber uses small and medium-sized trees to create beams, columns and building components. Removal of these trees from over-populated forests supports healthy forest management and reduces wildfire risk. It also creates new markets for wood products and promotes a more sustainable future.

[Atxshoxfan]

They have some pretty good records, most notable is ice core samples. Also things like tree rings can be used as proxies. There is some debate about accuracy, but it definitely shows increases.

That has nothing to do with demonstrating anthropogenic global warming, but if you disagree with the message, you should do so where the activists are incorrect.

I was just curious. I don't believe we only have a few more years because of global warming, but I do question some of the claims.

[wufan]

I wonder how they measured CO2 back in the 1700s and 1800s? I doubt they even heard the term at those times.

They have some pretty good records, most notable is ice core samples. Also things like tree rings can be used as proxies. There is some debate about accuracy, but it definitely shows increases.

That has nothing to do with demonstrating anthropogenic global warming, but if you disagree with the message, you should do so where the activists are incorrect.

[Atxshoxfan]

I guess this is what you would call science, yes?

World Atmospheric CO₂, Its ¹⁴C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Digging into the details of this article is above my feeble mind but here are some of the conclusions:

Abstract: Our results show that the percentage of the total CO₂ due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Selected Conclusions Out of 10 Listed:

6. Claims of the dominance of the anthropogenic component, C_F(t), in the increase of the CO₂ concentration, C(t), first began in 1960 with: “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO₂ from burning fossil fuel” (^{Rubino 2013}). Despite the lack of knowledge of the two components of C(t), these claims have continued in the scientific literature.

9. An article on Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (NOAA) suggests that recent increases in CO₂ and temperatures are due primarily to cyclic changes of solar radiation associated with Earth’s orbit about the sun. The annual change, DC_NF(t), in the non-fossil component has positive increasing values in Table 2 (https://links.lww.com/HP/A210) after 1764. It will eventually become negative in the next glacial period when average temperatures decrease again as they have done over all of the previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

10. The assumption that the increase in CO₂ since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO₂ and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.

I wonder how they measured CO2 back in the 1700s and 1800s? I doubt they even heard the term at those times.

[1972Shocker]

I guess this is what you would call science, yes?

World Atmospheric CO₂, Its ¹⁴C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Digging into the details of this article is above my feeble mind but here are some of the conclusions:

Abstract: Our results show that the percentage of the total CO₂ due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Selected Conclusions Out of 10 Listed:

6. Claims of the dominance of the anthropogenic component, C_F(t), in the increase of the CO₂ concentration, C(t), first began in 1960 with: “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO₂ from burning fossil fuel” (^{Rubino 2013}). Despite the lack of knowledge of the two components of C(t), these claims have continued in the scientific literature.

9. An article on Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (NOAA) suggests that recent increases in CO₂ and temperatures are due primarily to cyclic changes of solar radiation associated with Earth’s orbit about the sun. The annual change, DC_NF(t), in the non-fossil component has positive increasing values in Table 2 (https://links.lww.com/HP/A210) after 1764. It will eventually become negative in the next glacial period when average temperatures decrease again as they have done over all of the previous glacial-interglacial cycles.

10. The assumption that the increase in CO₂ since 1800 is dominated by or equal to the increase in the anthropogenic component is not settled science. Unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO₂ and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming.

[Kung Wu]

Won't be long before they require gas meters on our butts and charge us for farting.

I could never afford that.

[Atxshoxfan]

Won't be long before they require gas meters on our butts and charge us for farting.

[WstateU]

[SubGod22]

Scientists Are Recycling Wastewater to Reclaim Valuable Phosphorous to Put Back in Soil

Scientists have taken pollutant phosphorus from wastewater and infused it into a soil superfood called biochar to really “close the loop” on several widespread agricultural practices.

The biochar itself is made from incinerated organic material inside an oxygen-deprived environment, turning it into charcoal that acts like an underground rainwater sponge that also delivers the necessary phosphorus and other nutrients for plant growth.

Animal life needs energy in the form of the four macronutrients: carbohydrates, fatty acids, amino acids, and ketone bodies.

Plant life operates a bit differently. One of the green kingdom’s macronutrients is phosphorus, and its presence in the soil greatly contributes to healthy crops. Phosphorus runoff into streams is a major problem for sea life because once this basic element reaches the ocean, it causes giant blooms of algae that block light from reaching the seabed.

On its way there, this same problem can occur with riverine plants, and so is also considered pollution in fresh water.

Pretty sure we've talked biochar previously, and this appears to be a way to enhance it as well as taking something out of the water system that causes problems for aquatic life. And it doesn't seem like it would be an overly complex way to clean things up while enhancing what we grow.

[Atxshoxfan]

It will be interesting to see where these ideas end up down the road.

NASA Unveils an X-Plane They Hope Will Save Earth



They believe that with new designs, tech, and materials, this experiment could lead to a 30% reduction in fuel usage in aviation. That in itself would be a win. Making planes quieter would also be a win for those in flight paths near airports, and wouldn't suck in general for everyone else.

I'm sure our congressmen will give billions of tax payer dollars into this, only to see their experiments fail. But at least Boeing shareholders will make some money for their retirement.

[SubGod22]

Here's another that I believe has been shared before, or at least a similar(ish) process.

Clean Fuel Made by Pulling CO2 From Air and Plastic Waste - Powered Only by the Sun and Photosynthesis

Cambridge University researchers have demonstrated how carbon dioxide can be captured from industrial processes – or even directly from the air – and transformed into clean, sustainable fuels using just the energy from the sun.

They developed a solar-powered reactor that uses captured CO2 and plastic waste (which acts as a catalyst) and converts it into sustainable fuels and other valuable chemical products.

Over several years of testing, CO2 was converted into syngas, a key building block for sustainable liquid fuels, and plastic bottles were converted into glycolic acid, which is widely used in the cosmetics industry.

Unlike earlier tests of their solar fuels technology, however, the team took CO2 from real-world sources—such as industrial exhaust or the air itself. They were able to capture and concentrate the CO2 and convert it into sustainable fuel.

The researchers appreciate the advances in carbon capture and storage, where CO2 is captured and then pumped and stored underground. But instead, they believe the smart move is ‘carbon capture and utilization’—making something useful from CO2 instead of burying it underground.

Something like photosynthesis—the inspiration behind the work done by Professor Erwin Reisner and his team in the Department of Chemistry and at the Cambridge Circular Plastics Centre where they develop net-zero carbon fuels.

To date, their solar-driven experiments used pure, concentrated CO2 in cylinders, but for the technology to be of practical use, it needs to actively capture CO2 from the air, which is a huge technical challenge because the air contains many types of molecules besides CO2. That’s where the plastic came in handy.

Another tech that is intriguing if it can be scaled appropriately.

[SubGod22]

It will be interesting to see where these ideas end up down the road.

NASA Unveils an X-Plane They Hope Will Save Earth

NASA and Boeing have unveiled the plane they hope will save the Earth.

The aim is for the experimental aircraft to help reach a net zero aviation emissions goal by 2050 in the U.S.

Working with NASA as part of a $725 million agreement, Boeing will build, test, and fly a full-scale demonstrator aircraft with extra-long, thin wings stabilized by diagonal struts, known as a Transonic Truss-Braced Wing concept.

It is hoped the new X-plane will inform a potential new generation of more sustainable single-aisle aircraft, which is the workhorse of passenger airlines around the world.

The space agency and Boeing said the aircraft produced through the agency’s Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project has been designated by the U.S. Air Force as the X-66A.

“At NASA, our eyes are not just focused on stars,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “The Sustainable Flight Demonstrator will help shape the future of aviation, a new era where aircraft are greener, cleaner, and quieter, and create new possibilities for the flying public and American industry alike.”

The X-66A is the first plane specifically focused on helping the U.S. achieve the goal of net-zero aviation greenhouse gas emissions.

They believe that with new designs, tech, and materials, this experiment could lead to a 30% reduction in fuel usage in aviation. That in itself would be a win. Making planes quieter would also be a win for those in flight paths near airports, and wouldn't suck in general for everyone else.

[JVShocker]

Power The Future @powerthefuture

On June 21st, 2018, eco-left darling Greta Thunberg tweeted that climate change would wipe out humanity in five years.
If you were to take this absurd prediction seriously, that would mean we all have only ten days left.

Not a political statement, but bears a striking resemblance in some pics to Veruca Salt from Willie Wonka

[pinstripers]

Power The Future @powerthefuture

On June 21st, 2018, eco-left darling Greta Thunberg tweeted that climate change would wipe out humanity in five years.
If you were to take this absurd prediction seriously, that would mean we all have only ten days left.