Spoetry - Submit your own Spoems

simouny (Wednesday 3rd of September 2008 10:49:13 AM)

Lastly, the system is totally self-sufficient in terms of digestives used because all raw materials can be obtained and stored in the plant for long periods of time. Nevertheless, these are just speculations and thus far, unproven. Perhaps our only answer will be seen on the years they say 100% power is from these powerplants, say year 2200?

simouny (Wednesday 3rd of September 2008 10:45:44 AM)

some speculation is that methane produced in bio-digester is carbon emit free. Other gases however are stored in different tanks to be used in their own way. How about the fertilizer? These can be used freely on farms with minimal impact in soil-microbes ration because as i have read in agri journal fertilizers from bio-digester are cleaner and less toxic than synthetic ones (high nitrogen content). Sludge is also accounted for because there is non produced in biogas plants.

simouny (Wednesday 3rd of September 2008 10:42:54 AM)

I think there are a lot of flaws in the multi plant system but not so much that they cannot try and solve it. Even with the loss of energy in transit to other parts of the country the system has to operate to produce even at the least amount of energy. The question is with solar and power on a non permanent stay, can biogas serve it's total energy production for the whole nation on it's own and what effects can very large scale plant system have on the environemnt.

pritishd (Monday 30th of June 2008 06:55:31 PM)

Nice. Wish NZ did the same?

hachicontrol (Sunday 5th of October 2008 01:38:47 PM)

75% renewables via hydroelectric ain't that bad. I am curious what they're going to do with excess power produced by wind turbines though. Wouldn't want a surge going through the local substation...

crock703 (Thursday 17th of April 2008 12:31:50 AM)

and someone to convice use to stop breeding like rabbits - with a convincing argument, and not at the barrel of a gun (or the imaginary threat of someone else's.)

djangobelgo (Sunday 20th of April 2008 12:31:13 AM)

Crock, are u willing to be the first one to stop 'breeding'? :-) Population is a problem, but mind you, in 2075 we probably max out at 9 billion. I think with a good management of resources, we can get there.

crock703 (Sunday 20th of April 2008 12:33:17 PM)

i dunno. I've heard that in Beijing, Shanghai, etc young upwardly mobile devoted young married couples are just choosing to not have children. I lived there briefly and there are just so many people, everywhere, all the times, it feels like it doens't make sense to add to it. 9B.. yuck. If we planned I bet we could, but what would it be like. I think disease will slow it, bird flu, something. High density & high movement.. seems inevitable. Intentional pop control efforts could happen too. :(

friendlyuser1 (Tuesday 9th of September 2008 04:34:56 PM)

wars! there will be alot of wars in the future, famine, natural disasters, unrest. noway will the population touch 9 billion, younger ppl will die more than elders as you can already see.

crock703 (Thursday 17th of April 2008 12:29:28 AM)

Crops sequestration can't compete full on with forests though can it? - just guessing. That said, I've also read that tropical rainforests aren't the "lungs" we usually think they - produce an incredible amount of C02 in decaying undergrowth. I imagine its really hard to project well with a far-off large scale model like this- what'll full-scale 'farming' would do to water systems, surface temps, wind patterns. & Pop? Just playing devil's advocate. Can u suggest some good reading sources?