danielravennest

danielravennest t1_jadgn21 wrote

Biomass took CO2 out of the atmosphere while it was growing. Burning it returns the CO2. Whether it is sustainable, produces other pollutants, and the overhead emissions from harvesting and transportation is another matter.

Solar, wind, and nuclear are not CO2 free. Some emissions occur during their manufacture and maintenance. It is just a lot less than combustion.

11

danielravennest t1_jadfu28 wrote

UKP 1,125/kW all in for wind turbine

Land area per home for a solar farm is 645 square feet. On a rooftop the same installation needs about 300 square feet because you don't need space between rows like a solar farm. Rooftop installations don't use more land since the house is already there.

Enough solar farms for all 25 million UK residences would take up 578 square miles. You wouldn't build that much because there are other renewable sources. If you did, the UK's land area is 94,000 square miles, so about 0.6%

Agrisolar is dual-use of land for solar and agriculture. A common example is grazing sheep under the panels. That reduces the net land usage.

Land-based wind turbines consume about 1% of the wind farm's area, for access roads and the turbine base. They are compatible with other land uses, like farming. Offshore wind turbines consume no land area, of course.

8

danielravennest t1_j9unv51 wrote

> authoritarian methods will need to be imposed to ensure authentic communication methods.

No. That's actually one use for blockchains. Record an event. Derive a hash value from the recording. Post the hash value to a blockchain, which time-stamps it. If several people record the same event from different viewpoints independently and have the same timestamps, you can be pretty sure it was a real event.

"People" can be a municipal streetcam, and security cameras on either side of a street, assuming the buildings have different owners. If they all match, it was a real event.

2

danielravennest t1_j9frkaa wrote

Sorry to burst your habitat dome, but cool season grasses don't grow below 40F (4C). There are no trees or shrubs on Antarctica. The permafrost prevents root growth. The Curiosity rover which is near the equator, sees nighttime temperatures below -100F (-73C).

You can grow things under a temperature-controlled dome, but not out in the open on Mars today.

1

danielravennest t1_j9fp3ni wrote

An Earth-like atmosphere would need to mass 27 tons per square meter on Mars vs 10 tons on Earth, due to the lower Martian gravity. That would be 3900 trillion tons total. Current loss rate is 95,000 tons a year. If the loss rate increased a thousand times to about 100 million tons/year. that still gives a half life of 20 million years, which is long by human standards.

There are several ways to reduce the losses. One is to put a magnetic shield "upwind" of the solar wind, and deflect it off the planet. That's effectively what Earth's magnetic field does.

Another is to dome the planet. Surface pressure depends on the weight of what is above the surface. It doesn't matter what that weight is made of. 27 tons is a lot per square meter. It would be more than 10 meters of glass thickness. So you can build a greenhouse the size of a planet and keep the atmosphere from leaking out.

Just because the top of an atmosphere being exposed to space is natural doesn't mean it is required. You can have several km of air below the dome to get an outdoor feeling, and leave the taller mountains sticking out into space if you want.

0

danielravennest t1_j9c2k4v wrote

The warmest parts of the Martian surface are like the coldest places on Earth. Also the atmosphere is 95% CO2 and very little oxygen. Ordinary plants would not survive.

1

danielravennest t1_j9c1bpa wrote

The MAVEN spacecraft was sent to Mars to specifically measure the atmospheric loss rate. It is pretty low. The half-life of the Martian atmosphere is hundreds of millions of years. That's why it still has some atmosphere, and not vacuum.

1

danielravennest t1_j9bwdmq wrote

It is definitely from Hubble. It has two sets of detectors, UV to near Infrared, and near IR to mid IR. It has a total of 77 filters, including "no filter" option. Scientific cameras use filters to produce color images because you get 3 times as many pixels as common phone cameras, which have separate pixels for RGB colors.

So depending on filter choice for an image, it may not look like this if you saw it with your eyes directly. But it is still a real image produced by a camera and a telescope.

6

danielravennest t1_j97fst3 wrote

Within reason, the individual tree weight doesn't matter. A "closed canopy" is when you look up in a forest and can't see any sky, just leaves and branches. That means all the available sunlight is being used by leaves.

So for a given soil and climate, a closed canopy maximizes the CO2 capture in tons per acre/hectare. If you want to produce durable wood products and store the carbon, you generally don't want a lot of little skinny trees. You want the trunks to be big enough to get useful pieces out of it.

1

danielravennest t1_j97e8rr wrote

That's a completely wrong number. An 80 foot red oak grown in a forest is about 10 tons. That assumes it is 2 feet in diameter at the base.

Source: former tree farmer, and now woodworker "from the tree". That means I harvest a tree, get it cut into lumber, and dry it. I know how much those logs weigh.

The biggest log I ever dealt with was a 3 feet in diameter x 20 ft long oak, which was 5 tons. That was a yard oak, rather than a forest oak. Lack of competition allowed big side branches and therefore a fat trunk.

A freshly cut southern red oak is about 42 pounds per cubic foot oven dry weight, and an equal amount of water when freshly cut. "Dried" wood contains 6-14% moisture in addition to the dry weight. Wood is porous, and exchanges moisture with air that has any humidity in it. So in practice the weight in a finished product is about 46 pounds per cubic foot.

1

danielravennest t1_j97a51j wrote

On the other hand, one old house I lived in needed concrete floor support jacks in the crawl space because the floor joists were too weak on their own. They just didn't have standards and building inspectors back then.

On the other hand, when I renovated, I found the wall studs were actual 2x4s, not 1.5x3.5 like modern ones. But they were rough cut, right from the sawmill.

1

danielravennest t1_j96qcpp wrote

This is the wrong place to be looking for engineering and production level products. This is r/science, so what we get is lab results.

If you want Battery Tech or Solar Tech you want to be looking at industry-oriented websites.

30