It is only on a bright sunny day that carbon dioxide is likely to become the limiting factor, and then only if water and nutrients are adequate.
Or in a protected growing setting where air flow is reduced (i.e., very large greenhouse) and importantly you can hold onto the CO2 enough to make a high enough concentration around the plants to make a difference.
Because the enzyme "Rubisco" can also latch onto O2 when photosynthesis is going gangbusters and the atmosphere inside and surrounding the leaf begins to have a higher ratio of O2 to CO2, greater CO2 supply is more helpful to C3 plants than to C4 plants which already do a good job of concentrating CO2 at the sites of carbon fixation associated with photosynthesis.
I'm not sure what CO2 and and crop production has to do with this discussion of energy sources however, as the carbon sequestration from increased photosynthesis from higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is almost negligible on a global atmospheric CO2 scale (I.E., greater photosynthetic capacity won't be taking away our CO2 problem)
As Wyoming still uses mainly coal for power generation you can see why to some extent. I seem to recall that it is also reknowned for being windy, being on the great plains, so an increase in wind power, which is the second largest generator, would make a lot of sense.
coal and uranium seem a bit redundant if you are sitting on top of the yellowstone magma chambers.
there is enough geothermal for more than local needs, they have plenty of gravity and water as well as it being rather bright and breezy.
tried and tested tech, with motivation the state could be fossil free* and energy exporting in a few years but with coal that available it would take anti coal tax or legislation to provide the motivation.
* well not dinosaur free
Shane
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 3467 Location: Doha. Is hot.
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 19 11:13 am Post subject:
Good idea that, dpack - if they take enough energy out of Yellowstone they could also stop the planet being obliterated when it finally blows!
Good idea that, dpack - if they take enough energy out of Yellowstone they could also stop the planet being obliterated when it finally blows!
im not too sure about that it would take a lot to solidify the magma and plug the thing solid but there are enough semi stable hot rock sites to make geo thermal a very attractive option in the short to geological term
messing with magma has a rather dodgy history although the icelanders are giving it a go now and again.
near the runny stuff is best, in it messes up ones day and drilling rig
wyoming is ideal for fossil and non fossil energy, tis unfortunate that price seems to favour fossil.
The advantage with geothermal is that it goes on for years with no major outlay apart from the initial one. The one at Southampton has been going for at least 50 years quite quietly in a car park, and as far as I know has cost very little to maintain.
Similarly Slim. We did have an earth tremor here when I was a child, and it woke everyone up, but not enough to do any damage thank goodness.
gregotyn
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 2201 Location: Llanfyllin area
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 19 3:21 pm Post subject:
I haven't read all through this, but if no one has mentioned it, burning compressed sawdust blocks is not to be recommended if the blocks are from pallets as the sawdust is often compressed using an "extra"-adhesive! This can cause serious blocking as when the smoke goes up the chimney it cools and the adhesive sticks to the sides of the chimney and if you are more unlucky it can catch fire!
There are blocks made and sold for fires not using adhesives-compression alone-and these I am told can be used safely on domestic fires.
I always think it is better to use proper logs of oak and ash.
I can see that using properly compressed sawdust using compression alone to hold the blocks together is a good way to use waste from sawmills etc., but agree that you don't want to use glue. If you make them yourself, you can use flour and water paste, which should be fine, but no other type of adhesive. I agree with you Gregotyn; logs are far nicer. We compost our sawdust if we can't find a home for it for smoking food.
View Latest Posts