A Novel Way to Save the Planet

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 6/28/2019 at 4:01 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

On a macro scale and only during those years. You can nitpick if you like, but natural resources are not INCREASING to keep pace with population.

What a joke. 

Resource availability are ALL a direct correlation to the cost of energy and human ingenuity/Work. 

For instance.... if all of humanity stopped wasting their lives watching TV and blathering on the internet for just a couple years and instead put that time into building greenhouses, tunnels to bring salt water across the Sahara dessert, the Entirety of the Sahara could be covered and turned into the largest garden in the world feeding ALL of humanity with room to spare. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So you think that the present population is in balance with nature? Good, we can forget all about this human induced climate change nonsense...since we are in balance with nature!

The reason that I do not write my Representative to say that I support climate initiatives is simple....I do not support them. They are based on insufficient or cherry picked data, they are forced on people without asking for their input, there is no mechanism except taxing to pay for it and there is no proposed mechanism to gauge their effectiveness.

If I were to write my Congressman I would ask him not to waste my money on frivolous endeavors.   

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

29 minutes ago, Wastral said:

What a joke. 

Resource availability are ALL a direct correlation to the cost of energy and human ingenuity/Work. 

For instance.... if all of humanity stopped wasting their lives watching TV and blathering on the internet for just a couple years and instead put that time into building greenhouses, tunnels to bring salt water across the Sahara dessert, the Entirety of the Sahara could be covered and turned into the largest garden in the world feeding ALL of humanity with room to spare. 

I don't think that you can grow a garden with salt water...could be wrong, but I doubt it.

PS: Why would you tunnel under the Sahara? Hard to tunnel in a desert, better to pipe it.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I don't think that you can grow a garden with salt water...could be wrong, but I doubt it.

PS: Why would you tunnel under the Sahara? Hard to tunnel in a desert, better to pipe it.

Greenhouse + parabolic solar collector + salt water = what again? 

Thanks for playing. 

Why tunnel... same reason you build a canal.  Lowest cost of transportation to move Gigatons of minerals, AG etc. 

Hard to tunnel in a desert... 🙄🤣😂😎😜🤡 ... 👍

A desert dear childless, over populated, the sky is falling friend; is all rock just like everywhere else on earth.  The sand blowing around on top is just a VERY GOOD excellent source of minerals that has already been mined for you.  Peru's sand dunes(tallest on earth) for example are ~10% iron ore by volume and another 5% manganese, and ...  To extract all you have to do is run the sand through a giant magnet.  Back before China opened up its own mines, for their steel founderies, this operation was almost built.  Pilot projects were already done.

PS: Libya has the largest Iron ore deposit in the world(larger than all other combined known working deposits in the world currently).  Effectively half the country; several thousand feet deep has ~50-->60% iron, but has the problem of aluminum in it.  .... Last I checked, we NEED ALUMINUM, but since there are gigatons of aluminum bauxite ore around the world at 60% purity....

The answer is NO, we are NOT running out of resources.  Just the few rare, ultra pure deposits where someone can move in, mine only ONE mineral, and throw away the rest like a bunch of idiots!@@#$%%#%#!~!!  Because we have not added better CHEMISTRY to our mineral extraction processes.  That and we desperately need an industrial use for Calcium carbonate other than making our own marble...

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Obviously you are not, and never have been, an engineer.

That said, your original post only mentioned constructin tunnels to bring salt water to the Sahara. You later added the requirements for parabolic solar collectors and greenhouses (?). We can't read your mind! Furthermore, from your childish comments, I am sure that I would not want to.

"Thanks for playing"? Grow up!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Obviously you are not, and never have been, an engineer.

That said, your original post only mentioned constructin tunnels to bring salt water to the Sahara. You later added the requirements for parabolic solar collectors and greenhouses (?). We can't read your mind! Furthermore, from your childish comments, I am sure that I would not want to.

"Thanks for playing"? Grow up!

IF: you claim to be an engineer, yet need a problem box with a bow on it,

THEN: you are not an engineer.  You are a well paid technician.

If you need basics on greenhouse tech because you are ignorant, yet want all the solutions to statements, not my problem.  Just the problem of those too small minded to figure something out for themselves.  And someone who doesn't know the mantle is made of rock.... even under desserts... thanks for the laugh man!

Thanks for playing, showing your hand.... its empty.

PS: Why have you not taken your own advice regarding overpopulation personally as your only solution if you truly follow what you preach?  I find it very informative that folks like you always expect others to die off so you can live how you want to live and not how you preach.  The word starts with H-Y-P-O-C-R.....

[remake it + 288]

8 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So you think that the present population is in balance with nature? Good, we can forget all about this human induced climate change nonsense...since we are in balance with nature!

When you reply to people you should at least try to understand what they meant rather than creating new narratives 🙄.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

When you post something you should be clear and concise so that others do not have to try and determine what you actually meant.

[remake it + 288]

I included what you wrote Mr Buckland, which was yet another deflection, and this time by way of a straw man argument.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:36 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I don't think that you can grow a garden with salt water...could be wrong, but I doubt it.

PS: Why would you tunnel under the Sahara? Hard to tunnel in a desert, better to pipe it.

There are some new methodologies to desalinate sea water using low power solutions which are being applied in arid regions (UAE, Oman, OZ) which are useful for growing local fruit and veg that would not grow in the external environment

This for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse

The Dutch have been doing quite a bit of work developing salt tolerant vegetables.

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-dutch-saltwater-potatoes-world-hungry.html

[NickW + 2,714]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:54 AM, Wastral said:

Greenhouse + parabolic solar collector + salt water = what again? 

Thanks for playing. 

Why tunnel... same reason you build a canal.  Lowest cost of transportation to move Gigatons of minerals, AG etc. 

Hard to tunnel in a desert... 🙄🤣😂😎😜🤡 ... 👍

A desert dear childless, over populated, the sky is falling friend; is all rock just like everywhere else on earth.  The sand blowing around on top is just a VERY GOOD excellent source of minerals that has already been mined for you.  Peru's sand dunes(tallest on earth) for example are ~10% iron ore by volume and another 5% manganese, and ...  To extract all you have to do is run the sand through a giant magnet.  Back before China opened up its own mines, for their steel founderies, this operation was almost built.  Pilot projects were already done.

PS: Libya has the largest Iron ore deposit in the world(larger than all other combined known working deposits in the world currently).  Effectively half the country; several thousand feet deep has ~50-->60% iron, but has the problem of aluminum in it.  .... Last I checked, we NEED ALUMINUM, but since there are gigatons of aluminum bauxite ore around the world at 60% purity....

The answer is NO, we are NOT running out of resources.  Just the few rare, ultra pure deposits where someone can move in, mine only ONE mineral, and throw away the rest like a bunch of idiots!@@#$%%#%#!~!!  Because we have not added better CHEMISTRY to our mineral extraction processes.  That and we desperately need an industrial use for Calcium carbonate other than making our own marble...

Forget Aluminium and Iron, the 3rd and 4th most common elements in the Earths crust. The resource limitation that frightens Biologists is Phosphorus. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Forget Aluminium and Iron, the 3rd and 4th most common elements in the Earths crust. The resource limitation that frightens Biologists is Phosphorus. 

And if Phosporus is ever a problem all you do is pull it out of sewage which is already being processed...  Of course the real deal is moving food production into greenhouses. (Solves runoff as well)  1/7th of Australia's tomatoes yearly needs are grown in a salt water based greenhouse growing on a measly 50 acres.  This will only accelerate in the future.  China already has ~1 Million acres(depending on what you count as a greenhouse) as this is the only way they are ~feeding themselves in vegetables etc with their small AG land. 

[David Jones + 84]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 10:39 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

In a nutshell, in 319 years, the global population has increased by a factor of 12.83.

Population growth is not the key issue and it will probably level off by next century even in countries such as India and large parts of the African continent. China is already slowing down in these terms.

The main issue is our  personal footprints which have increased substantially and by no means need to be this high. If you take the time to have a look at the global situation in the developed and high income countries, you'll clearly see that even there the footprint is not the same. Most of the footprint is related to unnecessary exuberance and not survival, not even remotely. For instance, based on available data it's very easy to enjoy a nutritious diet for less than 500kg of CO2 per year while I'm quite sure the average CO2 emitted in developed world from food consumption is at least 2500kg and in the USA it's almost certainly considerably higher. That's one reason there's an obesity problem there which is direct evidence for wasteful consumption of food that is considerably higher than the necessary and healthy quantities.

Most of the damage is also done by the wealthier segments of the global population. Even today, the USA footprint (about 400Gt) in terms of cumulative emissions is 2x higher than that of China (about 200Gt) and almost 8x higher than that of India (50-60Gt). If you consider the populations of those countries, the footprint is even more remarkably skewed towards the developed/high income world with about 800Gt cumulative emissions from a population of less than 1 billion. China and India combined have a population that is more than 2x greater with combined cumulative emissions les than 300Gt.

Nothing personifies this better than the increase in CO2 equivalent emissions relative to the increase in population. While population may have grown by about 13x, CO2 emissions have grown by about 40x. The same is almost certainly true about the general environmental footprint. Clearly, population is not the main issue.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I disagree, it is not only our personal footprints, it is the number of personal footprints being made!

Nobody is going to revert back to a 'survival footprint'....agreed?

Yes, the population growth in developed nations is slackening at a certain rate....while the population growth is increasing, at a substantially higher rate, in the under-developed world.

The requirement for food, medicine, energy, clean water....and the volume of waste, sewage, and all types of pollution will continue to increase at roughly the same rate as the global population.

As an aside, you single out the US as the largest contributor of emissions. I as you to name another country which has reduced their emissions as much as the US? Definitely not India or China.

Finally, you say that although population has grown by 13% but CO2 emissions have increased by  40%. This may be accurate (I do not know where you got this number, but let's assume you are correct), you need to realize that during this time the world experienced the Industrial Revolution, which would explain the increase of emissions. Unless you are proposing that the world returns to an agrarian lifestyle, the price of progress will be emissions. I suggest that if we had experience the Industrial Revolution while the population had remained constant that you would see a significant decrease in emissions. Which suggests that population IS the main issue.

[David Jones + 84]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Nobody is going to revert back to a 'survival footprint'....agreed?

You are pushing what I said to the extreme. All one needs to do to reduce emissions by 5x from food is to eat healthily. That's not survival, that's common sense if one wants a higher quality of life.

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As an aside, you single out the US as the largest contributor of emissions. I as you to name another country which has reduced their emissions as much as the US? Definitely not India or China.

This is a common misconception in many developed countries but in particular within the high current or cumulative emitters such as the USA, Canada and Australia. Emissions reduced in the past 10 years are more or less irrelevant if there's no intention to actively continue this trend and currently on the national level, the USA has no such intentions. The country is on a path concurrent with over 4c of warming. If you look at the details, you will also find that India are on a path that could be within the 1.5c range. They are doing their fare share:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

Also, in terms of emission reductions based on the actual initial global awareness point around 1990, the USA has not reduced emissions at all. It's not like the country was not aware of the issue back then since one of the most famous official discussions on the issue originated in the USA, provided by NASA.

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Finally, you say that although population has grown by 13% but CO2 emissions have increased by  40%. This may be accurate (I do not know where you got this number, but let's assume you are correct), you need to realize that during this time the world experienced the Industrial Revolution, which would explain the increase of emissions. Unless you are proposing that the world returns to an agrarian lifestyle, the price of progress will be emissions. I suggest that if we had experience the Industrial Revolution while the population had remained constant that you would see a significant decrease in emissions. Which suggests that population IS the main issue.

What I said was about 13x (based on your post above) for population increase and about 40x for annual emissions of CO2 equivalent. So 13 times and 40 times.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-by-source

You can also clearly see above that most of the cumulative emissions have occurred not during the Industrial Revolution but during the 20th/21st centuries. Thus the emissions problem and the general ecological footprint are in large part a result of rampant consumerism in combination with cold war competition and various other military escapades like the 2 world wars.

Edited August 6, 2019 by David Jones

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Sooooo....

The population (1billion) was in balance with nature in 1800, and in a mere 219 years, with a population of roughly 7.8 billion - it is still in balance?

Did the surface area of the planet magically increase by a factor of 7.8?

You are so right when you say that population acts as a multiplier - my point exactly! If you honestly believe that it is by no means necessary that populations pollute....keep smokin' what you're smokin'!

[NickW + 2,714]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 11:03 PM, Wastral said:

And if Phosporus is ever a problem all you do is pull it out of sewage which is already being processed...  Of course the real deal is moving food production into greenhouses. (Solves runoff as well)  1/7th of Australia's tomatoes yearly needs are grown in a salt water based greenhouse growing on a measly 50 acres.  This will only accelerate in the future.  China already has ~1 Million acres(depending on what you count as a greenhouse) as this is the only way they are ~feeding themselves in vegetables etc with their small AG land. 

Horticulture is all very well and provides for a varied diet but it doesn't generally supply the Protein and Carbohydrate needs.  You would need to eat about 14Kg of tomatoes a day to get 2500Kcal.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

Horticulture is all very well and provides for a varied diet but it doesn't generally supply the Protein and Carbohydrate needs.  You would need to eat about 14Kg of tomatoes a day to get 2500Kcal.

<< Scratches head.... What the Hell... >> Making fresh water from salt water using the sun.....  WHAT YOU do with it is up to you.  A greenhouse just lets you optimize acerage, minerals, water.  You have a problem with Avocado? Beans? Peas? Peanuts?

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Wastral said:

<< Scratches head.... What the Hell... >> Making fresh water from salt water using the sun.....  WHAT YOU do with it is up to you.  A greenhouse just lets you optimize acerage, minerals, water.  You have a problem with Avocado? Beans? Peas? Peanuts?

No and in principal I agree you that you could produce this from glass houses but the scale? People (on here) complain about wind turbines. How about covering half the country in polytunnels or greenhouses.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

No and in principal I agree you that you could produce this from glass houses but the scale? People (on here) complain about wind turbines. How about covering half the country in polytunnels or greenhouses.

Well, people do wish to eat I have been told.  Look no further than the UK.  Import ~40% of its food. 

[NickW + 2,714]

25 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Well, people do wish to eat I have been told.  Look no further than the UK.  Import ~40% of its food. 

I agree.

I often wonder if there was a lost opportunity when that **** Blair cancelled our nuclear programme. If we had carried on building another PWR every couple of years by now, aside from a massive increase in stable baseload to replace coal  there would be a massive availability of hot water to heat greenhouses year round. As Nucs are built away from populations easy to build up commercial greenhouses  able to utilise the waste heat instead of pumping it into the sea.

[nathan_john + 26]

On 8/6/2019 at 2:43 AM, David Jones said:

Also, in terms of emission reductions based on the actual initial global awareness point around 1990, the USA has not reduced emissions at all. It's not like the country was not aware of the issue back then since one of the most famous official discussions on the issue originated in the USA, provided by NASA.

 

 

On 8/6/2019 at 1:28 AM, David Jones said:

Nothing personifies this better than the increase in CO2 equivalent emissions relative to the increase in population. While population may have grown by about 13x, CO2 emissions have grown by about 40x. The same is almost certainly true about the general environmental footprint. Clearly, population is not the main issue.

Let's look from 2000 to 2017. 

US population increases 15%. US Carbon Emission decrease 12%. Trending down every year during the time period.

China population increases 10%. China carbon emissions increase 190%. 

India population increases 27%. India carbon emissions increase 140%.

 http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

 

You say the US hasn't done anything? What about reducing coal as an electricity source by 40%from 2000-present? Replaced it with nat gas (which burns twice as clean) and renewables which is why solar and wind power have increased 300% in the same time period.

 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Energy-resources/Outlook-for-Energy/Global-energy-fundamentals#nergyrendsverview

You also provided examples of China and India making moves towards cleaner energy. Great, but it looks like they're behind the US, not ahead of it.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

I agree.

I often wonder if there was a lost opportunity when that **** Blair cancelled our nuclear programme. If we had carried on building another PWR every couple of years by now, aside from a massive increase in stable baseload to replace coal  there would be a massive availability of hot water to heat greenhouses year round. As Nucs are built away from populations easy to build up commercial greenhouses  able to utilise the waste heat instead of pumping it into the sea.

Very very true for heat.  Also, what most complain regarding wind turbines is them being an eyesore due to their height which means their visual distance is literally ~20+++km in all direction if not more.  Gets very bad at sunset/sunrise creating a kaleidoscope. 

Greenhouses on the other hand, you cannot see even from the road if you put a screen of tall bushes or short trees between you and them.  Also, unlike a wind turbine, a greenhouse is in effect, permanent infrastructure like a canal, dam, tunnel which will still be in use 1000 years from now.   The acerage required is not as large as one thinks as it allows one to grow 3X number of crops a year and then it also allows you to grown upwards of 3X--5x more produce per crop depending on crop.  In effect, a greenhouse on a per acerage basis is roughly 10X superior to nature other than crops that have the perfect environment by nature.  OF course you still have thunderstorms, wind, pests, hail, frosts which destroy along with pesticides, fertilizer wastage, insecticides.   A greenhouse to kill off bugs etc, you harvest your crop, then seal up and let it hit 60C

PS: I spent 5 years of my younger life working in greenhouses and polytunnels. 

PPS: I read somewhere(15 years ago) that China has roughly 1 million acres of insulated half arch + 1 wall greenhouses to help feed its population.  The 1 wall obviously faces north and the insulation is rolled up on top of wall during day and then rolls down during night. 

Update: did a quick search and it appears China is expecting to hit 3.7Million acres by 2020: Here https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/chinese-greenhouses-for-winter-gardening-zm0z17amzmul