Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Look in the Oregon out-door growers threads if you want to see my average work. Do you need help with the search tool?Cool, link your grow.
Look in the Oregon out-door growers threads if you want to see my average work. Do you need help with the search tool?Cool, link your grow.
Machines powered by fossil fuels and fertilisers derived from them also made a big difference.
When the oil runs out we better have some solid alternatives ready.
I'm working on it.
Don't laugh, ttys posts have a npk rating of 0.7-0.3-0.4 same as steer manure.
The hubris. A Kong sized ego. Puny intellectual with maniacal confidence.Don't laugh, ttys posts have a npk rating of 0.7-0.3-0.4 same as steer manure.
Can't contribute or offer support, just shit on those who are working towards solutions.The hubris. A Kong sized ego. Puny intellectual with maniacal confidence.
Though I will say that a few years ago I earnestly began posting in a thread where indoor pot growers were all loving on each other claiming they were going to save humanity by the growing technology they were developing. Though there was division whether the future was in organic or hydroponic growing.
Eventually one admitted that wheat wasn't a very good indoor crop but claimed I was holding up progress because I was skeptical that everybody on the planet would eventually be able to feed themselves from indoor growing. When I continued to question the science and economics behind their claims I was accused of interfering with mankind's colonization of the outer reaches of the solar system. As if NASA needed them.
So, I'm not surprised. tty isn't the only one who is grandiose about the importance of their hobby for the future of mankind.
HEY, @The Government , you should share more about your in depth knowlege of indoor growing so that you can save mankind's future in space colonization too. Suggest you do that on the grower's forums. Or this thread. This thread is pretty good for that too.
Have you even taken college level courses in botany or ag science? Or biochem or any life science?Can't contribute or offer support, just shit on those who are working towards solutions.
That says everything worth knowing about you.
No silly boy, I'm the government. I may search your co2 starved plants at some point but for now I have a fuck ton of research funding "as it relates to anthropomorphic warming" research to approve with my rubber stamp. Keeps me busy.Look in the Oregon out-door growers threads if you want to see my average work. Do you need help with the search tool?
Haha good one.Not exactly a glowing endorsement.
(See what I did there?)
What is the optimal co2 saturation for earths atmosphere then? Surely your cooks consensus has a clear number that isn't close to starving plants to death.does any scientist with a specialty in this type of thing agree with you?
or is this just propaganda you are spewing which has no basis in reality or backing by experts?
Assuming my gender. I bought several from companies that make metal detectors in the hospitality industry after the Vegas shooting, did you get some of that genius?If he had half a brain, he'd at least own stock in Halliburton.
I've got a Franklin that says he doesn't.
Congratulation, you have reached the critical thinking level of a flat earther.What is the optimal co2 saturation for earths atmosphere then? Surely your cooks consensus has a clear number that isn't close to starving plants to death.
Non-answer #1. Congrats on being first.Congratulation, you have reached the critical thinking level of a flat earther.
First, lets be clear. I know I'm talking to yet another manifestation of some clueless deplorable person who was banned yet keeps crawling back to this site as a sock. I don't know why you shits do that. To me, you've degraded yourself by begging for more attention from people who find no use for your syphilitic services and would at most put a quarter in your jar if they met your sorry ass on the street.No silly boy, I'm the government. I may search your co2 starved plants at some point but for now I have a fuck ton of research funding "as it relates to anthropomorphic warming" research to approve with my rubber stamp. Keeps me busy.
Wherever you're getting your info from is bad at math. It certainly would not require turning Arizona into one big solar farm.
http://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_236.shtmlFigure 30.3. The little square strikes again. The 600 km by 600 km square in North America, completely
filled with concentrating solar power, would provide enough power to give 500 million
people the average American’s consumption of 250 kWh/d.
This map also shows the square of size 600 km by 600 km in Africa, which we met earlier.
I’ve assumed a power density of 15 W/m2, as before.
The area of one yellow square is a little bigger than the area of Arizona, and 16 times the
area of New Jersey. Within each big square is a smaller 145 km by 145 km square showing
the area required in the desert – one New Jersey – to supply 30 million people with 250 kWh
per day per person.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_homeIn 2017, total U.S. primary energy consumption was equal to about 97.7 quadrillion (97,728,000,000,000,000) Btu.
arizona =295,254 km²
roof top solar is less efficient per m2 than solar thermalAlso, retrofitted rooftop solar is not less efficient; it's just more expensive to install, thus making for a longer ROI. This is an important distinction, because homes designed with solar from a clean sheet do not have that retrofit cost issue and therefore are much more cost effective.
So not one expert then?What is the optimal co2 saturation for earths atmosphere then? Surely your cooks consensus has a clear number that isn't close to starving plants to death.
im not comparing the 2 im pointing out the reactor broke because it was hit by earthquake and tsunamiThat coastline has suffered those very same disasters many times in the past. None of them ever made the area uninhabitable.
Apples and oranges; bad argument.
no not forever that is a problem with the old reactor design..We aren't the misinformed ones.
Even with meltdown safe designs, there is still the unavoidable issue of both manufacturing and then decommissioning and disposing of/storing all that nuclear material, essentially FOREVER.
the problem is the shear scale of itI don't see why that's such a problem? Renewable, nonpolluting energy is now not only possible, it's cost effective! Where's the downside?!
The components making up that radiation most certainly do matter. Nuclear power waste products are far more dangerous than naturally occurring materials like carbon 14 in fruit.
depends on your definition of dangerous...
a small area around the fukishima reactor has dangerous amounts (the vast amount of the exclusion zone is not that radioactive)
where you are sat right now has absolutely no danger from that radiation
Natural Radioactivity in the human body
The human body contains trace amounts of radionuclides which are ingested daily through water and food intake. Here are the estimated concentrations of radionuclides calculated for a 70 kg adult based ICRP 30 data:
Natural Radioactivity in your body
Nuclide
Total Mass of Nuclide
Found in the Body
Total Activity of Nuclide
Found in the Body
Daily Intake of Nuclides
Uranium
90 µg
1.1 Bq
1.9 µg
Thorium
30 µg
0.11 Bq
3 µg
Potassium 40
17 mg
4.4 kBq
0.39 mg
Radium
31 pg
1.1 Bq
2.3 pg
Carbon 14
22 ng
3.7 kBq
1.8 ng
Tritium
0.06 pg
23 Bq
0.003 pg
Polonium
0.2 pg
37 Bq
~0.6 fg
Reference: Idaho State University, http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
An average adult body (weight 70 kg) contains approximately 140 g potassium (chemical symbol K). For every 10,000 atoms of stable potassium there are 1.2 radioactive atoms of 40K. Hence the human body has approximately 17 mg of 40K. With a half-life of 1.28 billion years, 4400 of these 40K atoms disintegrate every second by radioactive decay. On average around 11% (480) of these decays result in the emission of a gamma photon (energy 1.46 MeV) and approximately 50% (240) escape the body. These photons escape the body in all directions.
© Physics Dept. Trinity College Dublin, 2005
no suprisingly enough i havent seen it done once yetHave you begun to notice that every argument you've put forward has been systematically knocked down?
it is orders of magnitude less than what is needed for solar or windLook- I used to think as you do. I thought that big nuclear power plants would generate cheap and plentiful energy for our society without carbon dioxide... And then I noticed there was always a 'but'.
But- mining, processing and handling those nuclear materials creates huge amounts of CO², not to mention lots of radioactivity of the nastiest kinds.
But- construction is CO² intensive (all that concrete for example), extremely expensive and therefore the energy produced is not cost effective.
solar or wind need continual replacement tooBut- operation is risky and the benefits only last a limited time, usually 30-50 years before the unit must be shut down permanently.
we use the waste rather than throwing it all awayBut- decommissioning, removal and long term storage of nuclear materials is extremely expensive and unsafe- and it never, ever stops being a cost. Ever. It's like we're stealing from our great grandchildren, because IT IS stealing from our grandchildren.
It's very simple. Your plants outside, (you do grow cannabis plants don't you?) Are sitting around at atmospheric co2 levels around 400ppm that are at least 1/3 of what they really need to reach full potential and 1/2 way to them not growing at all.So not one expert then?
It’s just you in your trailer with your opinion that no credible expert shares?
If you put PV solar on every rooftop you could produce 30 to 50% of the requirements.no not forever that is a problem with the old reactor design..
new ones can burn the waste till its only radioactive for a few hundred years....
the problem is the shear scale of it
we are burning fossil fuels and pumping more co2 into the atmosphere for drops in the bucket for what is needed
if say we were already powered by nuclear and were not pumping co2 into the atmosphere then whilst i might complain a bit about the land use i wouldnt have the objections that i do now
no suprisingly enough i havent seen it done once yet
it is orders of magnitude less than what is needed for solar or wind
solar or wind need continual replacement too
we use the waste rather than throwing it all away
all the time we're still chucking out CO2 we're stealing from or great grandchildren in a much much more dramatic way as the effects of CO2 are global. the risk from any one nuclear power station is local