A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 21st 16, 10:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default 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  
Old November 22nd 16, 10:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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.
  #3  
Old November 23rd 16, 10:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

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:

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.


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"!
  #4  
Old November 23rd 16, 11:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default 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  
Old November 25th 16, 02:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default 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  
Old November 26th 16, 08:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old November 26th 16, 08:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default 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  
Old November 27th 16, 02:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default 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  
Old November 27th 16, 02:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Phil Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:21 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.