How Different US States Generate Electricity

Latest Articles

How Different US States Generate Electricity
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 18 2:33 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Sorry about the chemistry HL, but I was trying to clarify it in my own head as much as anything.

No problem at all. I am quite happy to either give or receive lessons.

Quote:

Jam Lady you are right about the other nutrients. Yes, taking in more carbon dioxide does help growth, but the other things are needed too. Son had to clear up after an experiment at a tree station near us where they did tests on raised carbon dioxide levels, and the growth was increased dramatically, but that was with all the other nutrients provided.

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.

Slim

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 6614
Location: New England (In the US of A)

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 18 9:13 pm Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

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)

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 18 12:43 am Post subject:
To be honest I was shocked how much coal is still being burnt in the US. Powder River in Wyoming is something else,80ft of a coal seams which run for miles fault free.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 18 9:33 am Post subject:
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.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46249
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 18 1:47 pm Post subject:

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!

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46249
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 19 3:17 pm Post subject:

Shane wrote:

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.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 19 7:21 am Post subject:
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.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 19 7:40 am Post subject:
There`s a new estate built up the North East a few years back heated by geothermal,if I remember correctly drilled to around the 3,000 ft mark.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 19 7:34 am Post subject:
If there is a hot spot it definitely makes sense, but Yellowstone is just a bit too hot.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46249
Location: yes

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 19 6:34 pm Post subject:
nah there is plenty of stable but rather warm rock, some dry some wet. into the magma or in the caldera fractured rocks is a bad idea but into a few hundred C works very well.

Slim

Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 6614
Location: New England (In the US of A)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 19 9:48 pm Post subject:
Plenty of steamy hot water bubbling out of the ground along the Rocky Mtns (Really wish hot springs existed in my half of the country, but also glad for the rarity of seismic activity)

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 19 7:35 am Post subject:
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.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 16002

Posted: Sat Mar 02, 19 7:54 am Post subject:

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.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts