|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016
19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:52:10 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 11/20/2016 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote: Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change. Cite? Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic. Then again he's a statistician not a politician. I know he's written a lot on climate change. And it seems his views have changed over the years: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-profile But that's not a citation proving "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change." It's hard to find any scientist that disagrees that climate change is happening. Even those funded by the fossil fuel industry have given up on that lie as completely untenable, pretending instead that it has nothing to do with pollution. This despite the huge incentives offered by that industry, which of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the pollution. It's mad, because I've SAVED money by changing to an energy supplier which produces all electricity, and as much gas as possible, from completely renewable sources. This is despite the fact that they are building new generating capacity as fast as they can, the cost of which has to be largely met from operating revenue. They only take on new customers when they have the capacity to supply them with 100% clean electricity, and the anaerobic digesters for methane production are catching up with demand. So not only can it be done, it's actually cheaper than using fossil fuels - by about 30% according to my utility bills. Out of curiosity, what are they using as a feed stock to generate the methane? Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:52:10 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 11/20/2016 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote: Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change. Cite? Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic. Then again he's a statistician not a politician. I know he's written a lot on climate change. And it seems his views have changed over the years: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-profile But that's not a citation proving "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change." It's hard to find any scientist that disagrees that climate change is happening. Even those funded by the fossil fuel industry have given up on that lie as completely untenable, pretending instead that it has nothing to do with pollution. This despite the huge incentives offered by that industry, which of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the pollution. It's mad, because I've SAVED money by changing to an energy supplier which produces all electricity, and as much gas as possible, from completely renewable sources. This is despite the fact that they are building new generating capacity as fast as they can, the cost of which has to be largely met from operating revenue. They only take on new customers when they have the capacity to supply them with 100% clean electricity, and the anaerobic digesters for methane production are catching up with demand. So not only can it be done, it's actually cheaper than using fossil fuels - by about 30% according to my utility bills. Out of curiosity, what are they using as a feed stock to generate the methane? Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
Phil Lee writes:
considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: --------------%--------------- Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant. Maybe should you should ask him what they do with the solids that are carefully settled out BEFORE the liquid portion is processed prior to discharge into waterways. Most plants sell it as fertiliser to farmers. It is valuable and very high quality "dirt"! Years ago my parents bought a truckload of that sludge to put on a lawn they were starting. It seemed to work. It was rather finely divided and odorless, the only character being added by bits of pea-size gravel and hundreds of snow white cigarette filters. They eventually disappeared into the lawn. -- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
Radey Shouman considered Wed, 23 Nov 2016
17:05:43 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: --------------%--------------- Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant. Maybe should you should ask him what they do with the solids that are carefully settled out BEFORE the liquid portion is processed prior to discharge into waterways. Most plants sell it as fertiliser to farmers. It is valuable and very high quality "dirt"! Years ago my parents bought a truckload of that sludge to put on a lawn they were starting. It seemed to work. It was rather finely divided and odorless, the only character being added by bits of pea-size gravel and hundreds of snow white cigarette filters. They eventually disappeared into the lawn. I think most plants now filter out that coarser portion, leaving only a fine compost like material. I grew up learning all about that kind of thing, as my father was a rivers engineer for various branches of government almost all his working life, and, among many other things, had to approve plans for sewage treatment plants, monitor their operation, and give recommendations regarding the issuing of their licences to discharge treated effluent into the water-courses he was responsible for. Towards the end of his career, his area of responsibility in that respect was the whole of Greater London. He was, in fact, the last in the continuous series of civil engineers with overall responsibility for that area which started with Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the first Chief engineer of the (then) Metropolitan Board of Works, which became the London County Council and eventually the Greater London Council (expanding somewhat each time). The GLC was controversially abolished in 1986 by Maggie Milk Snatcher, as Londoners had consistently chosen to be governed by the party she opposed, and it's powers and responsibilities split between so many organisations that no coherent organisation was left to ensure that there was any joined up plan for governing the nation's capital. Drainage, and the matters associated with it, went to the Thames Water Authority, later privatised as Thames Water. It's powers are inhibited by being ONLY responsible for drainage and water supply, so it can't do anything about (for example) a bridge which isn't wide enough for the flow - as the bridge belongs to the railway or highway authority! Nor does it hold any planning powers, as the GLC did - so it can't object to proposed developments which increase runoff or overwhelm the sewerage system. So much for joined-up government! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:52:10 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 11/20/2016 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote: Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change. Cite? Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic. Then again he's a statistician not a politician. I know he's written a lot on climate change. And it seems his views have changed over the years: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-profile But that's not a citation proving "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change." It's hard to find any scientist that disagrees that climate change is happening. Even those funded by the fossil fuel industry have given up on that lie as completely untenable, pretending instead that it has nothing to do with pollution. This despite the huge incentives offered by that industry, which of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the pollution. It's mad, because I've SAVED money by changing to an energy supplier which produces all electricity, and as much gas as possible, from completely renewable sources. This is despite the fact that they are building new generating capacity as fast as they can, the cost of which has to be largely met from operating revenue. They only take on new customers when they have the capacity to supply them with 100% clean electricity, and the anaerobic digesters for methane production are catching up with demand. So not only can it be done, it's actually cheaper than using fossil fuels - by about 30% according to my utility bills. Out of curiosity, what are they using as a feed stock to generate the methane? Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! I talked to my brother about the dirt that remains after the sewage system is done with it. He says that it appears to be compost but that the nitrogen levels in it are so high that nothing will grow in it. They haul it out to a dump site and let it reduce to normal dirt. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:50:24 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Radey Shouman considered Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:05:43 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: --------------%--------------- Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant. Maybe should you should ask him what they do with the solids that are carefully settled out BEFORE the liquid portion is processed prior to discharge into waterways. Most plants sell it as fertiliser to farmers. It is valuable and very high quality "dirt"! Years ago my parents bought a truckload of that sludge to put on a lawn they were starting. It seemed to work. It was rather finely divided and odorless, the only character being added by bits of pea-size gravel and hundreds of snow white cigarette filters. They eventually disappeared into the lawn. I think most plants now filter out that coarser portion, leaving only a fine compost like material. I grew up learning all about that kind of thing, as my father was a rivers engineer for various branches of government almost all his working life, and, among many other things, had to approve plans for sewage treatment plants, monitor their operation, and give recommendations regarding the issuing of their licences to discharge treated effluent into the water-courses he was responsible for. Towards the end of his career, his area of responsibility in that respect was the whole of Greater London. He was, in fact, the last in the continuous series of civil engineers with overall responsibility for that area which started with Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the first Chief engineer of the (then) Metropolitan Board of Works, which became the London County Council and eventually the Greater London Council (expanding somewhat each time). The GLC was controversially abolished in 1986 by Maggie Milk Snatcher, as Londoners had consistently chosen to be governed by the party she opposed, and it's powers and responsibilities split between so many organisations that no coherent organisation was left to ensure that there was any joined up plan for governing the nation's capital. Drainage, and the matters associated with it, went to the Thames Water Authority, later privatised as Thames Water. It's powers are inhibited by being ONLY responsible for drainage and water supply, so it can't do anything about (for example) a bridge which isn't wide enough for the flow - as the bridge belongs to the railway or highway authority! Nor does it hold any planning powers, as the GLC did - so it can't object to proposed developments which increase runoff or overwhelm the sewerage system. So much for joined-up government! There is no filtering. It comes in and starts filling a particular open faced tank that has a break-down bacteria thriving in it. The water that comes to the top is called "brown water". It is drinkable but since no one wants to drink it they use it for irrigation and such. The solids are reduced totally to the compost-like material that is so nitrogen rich it burns any plants that attempt to grow in it. This dirt is hauled to a dump site where it decomposes the nitrogen out over time. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:22:27 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write: On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:50:24 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: Radey Shouman considered Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:05:43 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: considered Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:55:16 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: --------------%--------------- Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! Treated sewage is nothing more than dirt. The water off of the top is actually drinkable but no one would want to. So after treatment with the bacteria there is little to no "fertilizer" benefits left. My younger brother works in a treatment plant. Maybe should you should ask him what they do with the solids that are carefully settled out BEFORE the liquid portion is processed prior to discharge into waterways. Most plants sell it as fertiliser to farmers. It is valuable and very high quality "dirt"! Years ago my parents bought a truckload of that sludge to put on a lawn they were starting. It seemed to work. It was rather finely divided and odorless, the only character being added by bits of pea-size gravel and hundreds of snow white cigarette filters. They eventually disappeared into the lawn. I think most plants now filter out that coarser portion, leaving only a fine compost like material. I grew up learning all about that kind of thing, as my father was a rivers engineer for various branches of government almost all his working life, and, among many other things, had to approve plans for sewage treatment plants, monitor their operation, and give recommendations regarding the issuing of their licences to discharge treated effluent into the water-courses he was responsible for. Towards the end of his career, his area of responsibility in that respect was the whole of Greater London. He was, in fact, the last in the continuous series of civil engineers with overall responsibility for that area which started with Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the first Chief engineer of the (then) Metropolitan Board of Works, which became the London County Council and eventually the Greater London Council (expanding somewhat each time). The GLC was controversially abolished in 1986 by Maggie Milk Snatcher, as Londoners had consistently chosen to be governed by the party she opposed, and it's powers and responsibilities split between so many organisations that no coherent organisation was left to ensure that there was any joined up plan for governing the nation's capital. Drainage, and the matters associated with it, went to the Thames Water Authority, later privatised as Thames Water. It's powers are inhibited by being ONLY responsible for drainage and water supply, so it can't do anything about (for example) a bridge which isn't wide enough for the flow - as the bridge belongs to the railway or highway authority! Nor does it hold any planning powers, as the GLC did - so it can't object to proposed developments which increase runoff or overwhelm the sewerage system. So much for joined-up government! There is no filtering. It comes in and starts filling a particular open faced tank that has a break-down bacteria thriving in it. The water that comes to the top is called "brown water". It is drinkable but since no one wants to drink it they use it for irrigation and such. The solids are reduced totally to the compost-like material that is so nitrogen rich it burns any plants that attempt to grow in it. This dirt is hauled to a dump site where it decomposes the nitrogen out over time. That either wouldn't meet UK standards for such plants or you have misunderstood it. BTW, nearly all nitrogen rich fertilisers damage plants that are grown directly in them - you are supposed to mix them with the soil, or dilute them if applied as a liquid! Dumping them is both stupid and wasteful. High nitrate fertilisers are so valuable that fortunes have been made and even wars fought over sources of them! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:14:49 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write: On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 1:40:34 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote: John B Slocomb considered Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:21:04 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:39:22 +0000, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 20 Nov 2016 15:52:10 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 11/20/2016 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 11/20/2016 2:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/20/2016 12:58 PM, wrote: Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change. Cite? Bjorn Lomborg writes regularly on the topic. Then again he's a statistician not a politician. I know he's written a lot on climate change. And it seems his views have changed over the years: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...change-profile But that's not a citation proving "Only a tiny percentage of climatologists believe in man-made global warming. Perhaps HALF of them believe in climate change." It's hard to find any scientist that disagrees that climate change is happening. Even those funded by the fossil fuel industry have given up on that lie as completely untenable, pretending instead that it has nothing to do with pollution. This despite the huge incentives offered by that industry, which of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the pollution. It's mad, because I've SAVED money by changing to an energy supplier which produces all electricity, and as much gas as possible, from completely renewable sources. This is despite the fact that they are building new generating capacity as fast as they can, the cost of which has to be largely met from operating revenue. They only take on new customers when they have the capacity to supply them with 100% clean electricity, and the anaerobic digesters for methane production are catching up with demand. So not only can it be done, it's actually cheaper than using fossil fuels - by about 30% according to my utility bills. Out of curiosity, what are they using as a feed stock to generate the methane? Anything that can be composted, mostly collected through household waste recycling schemes, but with some agricultural plant residue. I don't think they are doing much on the manure or sewage side yet, which is another untapped resource. The residue is still just as good as a fertiliser as it would have been if it had been aerobically composted, so the methane is effectively free, once you've built the plant - the waste needs to be disposed of anyway. It was tried in some remote areas of Indonesia some years ago using mainly, I believe, sewage but from what I remember was a failure as they were not able to generate sufficient gas to generate enough electricity for these remote villages. However, that may well have been civilization in action - your neighbor gets a light bulb... you want two :-) If you are using sewage as your feedstock, you also need an efficient collection system which people actually use. Side benefit, the plant doesn't smell if it is enclosed! I talked to my brother about the dirt that remains after the sewage system is done with it. He says that it appears to be compost but that the nitrogen levels in it are so high that nothing will grow in it. They haul it out to a dump site and let it reduce to normal dirt. Presumably they do the same with all commercially imported and manufactured nitrate fertilisers then? Plants can't grow directly in those either, after all. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change | DougC | Techniques | 36 | October 28th 16 11:39 PM |
As predicted the climate change sceptics were quite wrong.yet again.LOL! | Doug[_3_] | UK | 78 | December 19th 09 12:21 PM |
We are the third leg of the stool to prevent Climate Change | Bill Sornson[_5_] | General | 1 | October 10th 09 06:07 PM |
We are the third leg of the stool to prevent Climate Change | Bill Sornson[_5_] | Techniques | 6 | September 27th 09 08:11 PM |