Messages

I've never been politically/environmentally active in this sense, but I have every intention of raising awareness in the future. I'm pretty new on the scene, so I'm still learning quite a lot as I go. I like to know everything there is to know before I go preaching a gospel to climate change naysayers. For example, I still don't fully understand Micro CHP or biomass boilers, but I'm getting there ;)

[quote author=JamesH link=topic=200.msg503#msg503 date=1449084602]
Hydro, both tidal and dams. Wind is good, and we have a lot already, but we need to add stability in the grid, and this is best done in the form of renewables.
[/quote]
I voted for hydro - dams. Stability is the keyword in your post. As we store electricity we gradually lose it, so it's far better to store the means for making electricity, not the juice itself. Storing water behind a dam is perfect electricity storage if you know it's an area with plentiful rainfall.

[quote author=Jemappelle link=topic=216.msg554#msg554 date=1449194204]
Assuming a perfect hypothetical scenario where ever country in the world was on board and fully commited to achieving a 100% renewable world as fast as possible, how soon could we see it? I think 2040 is the earliest threshold. But of course that won't happen in reality.
[/quote]
I#m going to be a lot more optimistic and say 2025. If we were all fully committed, the technology already exists and it would just be a case of making the investment. Just look at the Norway and Uruguay examples given elsewhere on the forum, it [i]is[/i] possible today.

[quote author=LucidEnergy link=topic=217.msg557#msg557 date=1449240781]
I don't, because how ever small the risk per station is, we've seen far too many accidents. They were saying "oh chernobyl will never happen again in this day and age" then in 2011 Fukushima had a meltdown on par with chernobyl. So I have no faith in safety anymore, especially with the current terrorism threat,
[/quote]
Terrorism would be a small concern for me, but general safety isn't. Chernobyl was a long time ago, and in a country notorious for its less than glorious health and safety laws. As for Fukushima, well I do think it's a bit daft building a fission reactor on a tectonically unstable region - and on a coast prone to tsunamis no less. We don't have the same issue here, so I think that point's moot. On the whole I think nuclear power is a good thing. Roll on fusion though, that'll be far better if we ever crack it.

[quote author=Jemappelle link=topic=215.msg553#msg553 date=1449194012]
The technology exists, and we gain fuel as a by-product. So should we invest more in co2 capture and removal from the atomsphere?
[/quote]
Could you explain how we gain fuel from it? We can't burn CO2 can we?

[quote author=LucidEnergy link=topic=210.msg547#msg547 date=1449193050]
The silicon wafers are extremely light, so potentially very light, it's the plastic and other stuff that normally adds weights, but when built into a laptop it weighs almost nothing, and sometimes may even make an item weigh less.
[/quote]
How would it make it weigh less? If it's simply less dense, then wouldn't that mean we're making the laptop more fragile?

[quote author=JamesH link=topic=199.msg546#msg546 date=1449160400]
They seem a lot more practical than Green roofs, and as you can't really have solar walls, it would be better to have green on the walls, panels on the roof.
[/quote]
Love this thinking. Green on the walls, solar on the roof. Perhaps we can do this as a solution to the green/solar roof debate?  ;)
On subject, I do like the green walls, but the effect on the architecture would concern me. Roots creating cracks may be an issue, especially when compounded with freeze-thaw.

I think it all comes down to land. If you have acres of land, and plan to use a lot of water gardening, then I absolutely think this is a good course of action. If you have a large private estate, I'm not actually sure planning permission would be necessary, and if it is I don't think it would be too difficult to achieve.

[quote author=JamesH link=topic=207.msg542#msg542 date=1449159705]
I don't really care as long as they are not a blot on specific points of beauty. I voted neutral. interesting to see no one put 'no' yet, but we shall have to see how this pans out.
[/quote]
Perhaps this website is a little biased ;)

[quote author=Jemappelle link=topic=206.msg536#msg536 date=1449158843]
Burning methane is good, because co2 is less harmful, and you're getting energy from it. Also MicroCHP systems are more efficient and generate more energy for the amount of fuel burned.
[/quote]
But where does the methane come from? If we're essentially farming methane to use in this process - methane that normally would be trapped and dormant somewhere - then we're releasing excess greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 aren't we?

Which do you prefer and why? Poll above :)

When compared to the price of constructing/installing/planting it? Does it increase the value of the property more than the cost of the green roof, or are you more likely to spend more on the roof than what you'd get back by selling the property at a higher price?

Poll above, let's see what we think :)

If the system explicitly burns methane and releases CO2 as part of its core process, why do people say it's green? Aren't those the very two gases we're looking to avoid releasing into the atmosphere?

With rules and regulations like this, the issue never stems from the act of collecting rainwater, or even selling it. The concerns of the authorities are more to do with groundwater contamination if you're not doing it right. I believe this would be the only reason any authority would ever have an issue with you taking on a project like this. Safety is their focus.