Technology, Science and the Environment.

[yorkie1999]

On 04/08/2018 at 08:47, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45060553

 

Privately funded manned spaceflight. It's on the way.

 Very good, but what do you think about the amount of pollutants, 5000kg of fuel per second, one of those rockets shoves into the atmosphere. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

 Very good, but what do you think about the amount of pollutants, 5000kg of fuel per second, one of those rockets shoves into the atmosphere. 

Good question, and glad that you asked!

 

Up until now we don't have any proper studies on the effect of rocket fuel being emitted and thus far the effect is assumed to be minimal, however, a study is being undertaken pretty much as we speak:

 

https://www.space.com/38884-rocket-exhaust-space-junk-pollution.html

 

Liquid fuels don't really tend to be a problem as combusting hydrogen and oxygen together as most rocket fuel does just makes water, however solid fuel boosters are more problematic as they also release soot and alumnia particles into the upper atmosphere. At the very least, this needs to be looked at, especially if more flights happen as human advancement into space continues - and it is. There is also a combined issue with space junk and deorbiting satellites that burn up in the atmosphere - the particles that make them up are still there.

 

However, the emissions by rockets are as nothing compared to, for instance, the airline industry - assuming that a rocket does consume 5000kg/s fuel, that's 2550000kg for a typical launch-to-low Earth orbital mission. Your average airline flight burns about 18000kg of fuel during its flight (which tends to contain more pollutants) so if you're looking for like-for-like, a rocket launch emits the same as 141 airline flights.

 

How many airline flights are there around the world every day? 102,465, as of 2014 (it's probably more now) - around 720 times that of a single rocket launch, every single day.

 

So yes, rocket pollutant emissions are an issue, but not nearly as much as those from other sources.

 

[yorkie1999]

59 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good question, and glad that you asked!

 

Up until now we don't have any proper studies on the effect of rocket fuel being emitted and thus far the effect is assumed to be minimal, however, a study is being undertaken pretty much as we speak:

 

https://www.space.com/38884-rocket-exhaust-space-junk-pollution.html

 

Liquid fuels don't really tend to be a problem as combusting hydrogen and oxygen together as most rocket fuel does just makes water, however solid fuel boosters are more problematic as they also release soot and alumnia particles into the upper atmosphere. At the very least, this needs to be looked at, especially if more flights happen as human advancement into space continues - and it is. There is also a combined issue with space junk and deorbiting satellites that burn up in the atmosphere - the particles that make them up are still there.

 

However, the emissions by rockets are as nothing compared to, for instance, the airline industry - assuming that a rocket does consume 5000kg/s fuel, that's 2550000kg for a typical launch-to-low Earth orbital mission. Your average airline flight burns about 18000kg of fuel during its flight (which tends to contain more pollutants) so if you're looking for like-for-like, a rocket launch emits the same as 141 airline flights.

 

How many airline flights are there around the world every day? 102,465, as of 2014 (it's probably more now) - around 720 times that of a single rocket launch, every single day.

 

So yes, rocket pollutant emissions are an issue, but not nearly as much as those from other sources.

 

Cruise ships 80000 gallons a day

cargo ships 96000 gallons a day

 

do the owners of these worry about the emissions, do they have their tax increased in order to pay for their carbon footprint. Do they fvck.  

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cruise ships 80000 gallons a day

cargo ships 96000 gallons a day

 

do the owners of these worry about the emissions, do they have their tax increased in order to pay for their carbon footprint. Do they fvck.  

Ship-based emissions is absolutely another area that needs to get looked at ASAP. Think how much merchandise/food etc gets transported by ship because it's in bulk or cheaper.

[yorkie1999]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ship-based emissions is absolutely another area that needs to get looked at ASAP. Think how much merchandise/food etc gets transported by ship because it's in bulk or cheaper.

It will never get looked at and it would be no more costly  to produce cheap merchandise in places like Poland. The whole point is selling oil to someone who uses a lot of the stuff, the yanks and the Saudis produce it, the Chinese use it, and they don’t give two shits about emisions. Same with recycling. Probably 80% of the western world recyles there waste, I know I’ve been separating my waste for the last 15 years so the powers that be can come along, collect it and do what they do with it. So how come it’s all these asian beaches that are full of plastic bottles? It’s either us, in which case it’s the councils fault because they collect and dispose of the stuff, or the Indians and Chinese who dump everthing in their rivers which then gets washed out to sea, and I’m supposed to feel guilty about some turtles being washed up on an Indonesian beach with their bellies full of plastic coke bottles whilst the real perpetrators lie on a beach receiving huge handouts from the West.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

It will never get looked at and it would be no more costly  to produce cheap merchandise in places like Poland. The whole point is selling oil to someone who uses a lot of the stuff, the yanks and the Saudis produce it, the Chinese use it, and they don’t give two shits about emisions. Same with recycling. Probably 80% of the western world recyles there waste, I know I’ve been separating my waste for the last 15 years so the powers that be can come along, collect it and do what they do with it. So how come it’s all these asian beaches that are full of plastic bottles? It’s either us, in which case it’s the councils fault because they collect and dispose of the stuff, or the Indians and Chinese who dump everthing in their rivers which then gets washed out to sea, and I’m supposed to feel guilty about some turtles being washed up on an Indonesian beach with their bellies full of plastic coke bottles whilst the real perpetrators lie on a beach receiving huge handouts from the West.

As much as I agree, the consequences are going to be felt by everyone, even if the actions aren't carried out by everyone...so while folks don't have to feel a lot of guilt about ecosystem destruction because it's not them doing it, it's still going to get to them in the end.

 

If that doesn't sound fair, you're right, it isn't - but nature often isn't.

[yorkie1999]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as I agree, the consequences are going to be felt by everyone, even if the actions aren't carried out by everyone...so while folks don't have to feel a lot of guilt about ecosystem destruction because it's not them doing it, it's still going to get to them in the end.

 

If that doesn't sound fair, you're right, it isn't - but nature often isn't.

Yes but it doesn’t matter how much we do to save the planet, the Chinese and Indians are still going to fvck it up. We could have a fossil fuel free country and it still wouldn’t make any difference, and the politicians willl never do anything about it because they have no power or control whatsoever over third world nations who are more powerful than ourselves.

[davieG]

Well we're not so great at recycling as many thought

Quote

 

Most of the plastic food containers that householders wash out after use and put in the recycling bin cannot actually be recycled, it has emerged.

The mixture of plastics used in many yoghurt pots, ready meal trays and other containers limits the ability of councils to recycle them.

The Local Government Association says that only a third can be recycled. The rest get sent to landfill.

Up to 80% of packaging could be made more recyclable, the industry said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45058971

 

 

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes but it doesn’t matter how much we do to save the planet, the Chinese and Indians are still going to fvck it up. We could have a fossil fuel free country and it still wouldn’t make any difference, and the politicians willl never do anything about it because they have no power or control whatsoever over third world nations who are more powerful than ourselves.

Again I agree - but the way I see it we've got two options: either decide that we can't beat them so we'll join them and engage them in a race to the bottom while fvcking up any kind of future at all, or try to set a cleaner example and hope that they follow at some point.

 

(The Chinese are beginning to go into solar and cleaner power in a big way now too; seems that overpolluted cities have meant they've finally got the message.)

 

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Well we're not so great at recycling as many thought

 

 

This seems like a problem with the manufacturers. Perhaps a closer look there?

[Buce]

11 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes but it doesn’t matter how much we do to save the planet, the Chinese and Indians are still going to fvck it up. We could have a fossil fuel free country and it still wouldn’t make any difference, and the politicians willl never do anything about it because they have no power or control whatsoever over third world nations who are more powerful than ourselves.

 

That's like saying you don't bother recycling because your neighbour doesn't.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That's like saying you don't bother recycling because your neighbour doesn't.

I wonder if my neighbors say that? 

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I wonder if my neighbors say that? 

 

That’s probably one of the nicer things...  

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

That's like saying you don't bother recycling because your neighbour doesn't.

No its not, its like saying it doesn't matter how many times i clean the manhole out in my garden, my neighbour's still going to carry on chucking nappies down his. And there's only going to be one outcome to that. Block his pipe up.

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Again I agree - but the way I see it we've got two options: either decide that we can't beat them so we'll join them and engage them in a race to the bottom while fvcking up any kind of future at all, or try to set a cleaner example and hope that they follow at some point.

 

(The Chinese are beginning to go into solar and cleaner power in a big way now too; seems that overpolluted cities have meant they've finally got the message.)

 

This seems like a problem with the manufacturers. Perhaps a closer look there?

Or the west stop buying goods from china until they sort it out.

[The Bear]

Ultimately it's up to governments to place regulations and stringent checks on manufacturers with regards to plastics and other recyclable materials. It'll probably take too long as usual though. 

[Buce]

Domino-effect of climate events could push Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state

Leading scientists warn that passing such a point would make efforts to reduce emissions increasingly futile

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state

[The Bear]

There have been warnings for years that we could have already reached a tipping point with climate feedback loops. 

 

No-one in power is interested until it happens, and then it's too late. 

Edited 7 August 2018 by The Bear

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, Buce said:

Domino-effect of climate events could push Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state

Leading scientists warn that passing such a point would make efforts to reduce emissions increasingly futile

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state

 

7 hours ago, The Bear said:

There have been warnings for years that we could have already reached a tipping point with climate feedback loops. 

 

No-one in power is interested until it happens, and then it's too late. 

 

Further to the above:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45084144

 

Note the last paragraph very carefully:

 

"At a time of the widespread rise of right-wing populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as 'cosmopolitan elites' and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable 'intermediate state' must surely be close to zero."

 

So now you know who to blame if it does go tits-up.

 

However, a small crumb of comfort is that the worst-case scenario being spoken of here - a rise of around 4-5 degrees C overall before stability - while drastic, is about the same average the Earth experienced around 20 million years ago (before the current glacial/interglacial period began) and actually much, much less than further back (for instance, around 50 million years ago the average temperature was 14 degrees C above what it is now, and in the Jurassic period global CO2 concentrations were some five times as high as they are now. And yet, as far as we can tell, life flourished in all of these periods.

 

What that means is that other life is likely to survive such an increase and we're not going to be twinned with Venus just yet. As for us humans, well, we may well be able to survive as a species but whether we can prevent civilisational collapse and widespread conflict as resources become more scarce in a changing world...well, that'll be down to whether our ingenuity or our base instinct triumphs.

[The Bear]

No, the planet isn't going to burn up or anything, but it poses very serious complications for humans in terms of water, food and population densities. If you're getting temperatures of 50C+ for most of the year then anywhere near the equator will be uninhabitable for centuries. 

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, The Bear said:

No, the planet isn't going to burn up or anything, but it poses very serious complications for humans in terms of water, food and population densities. If you're getting temperatures of 50C+ for most of the year then anywhere near the equator will be uninhabitable for centuries. 

 

For me the key danger is when a key area becomes uninhabitable or a key resource begins to dwindle; at that point all you need is the classical territorial instinct of humanity to kick in wrt who gets to live where and who gets what resources and the shooting does the rest of natures job for it.

 

And for a little more positive viewing of the future:

 

https://www.existentialhope.com/

[Strokes]

50 minutes ago, The Bear said:

No, the planet isn't going to burn up or anything, but it poses very serious complications for humans in terms of water, food and population densities. If you're getting temperatures of 50C+ for most of the year then anywhere near the equator will be uninhabitable for centuries. 

If London gets swallowed by the sea it will all be worth it. 

[Max Wall]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

If London gets swallowed by the sea it will all be worth it. 

London is in the process of being swallowed by a big C already.

Boris Johnson.

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45132427

 

Organic solar cells set 'remarkable' energy record
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
9 August 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Chinese researchers have taken what they say is a major step forward for the development of a new generation of solar cells.

Manufacturers have long used silicon to make solar panels because the material was the most efficient at converting sunlight into electricity.

But organic photovoltaics, made from carbon and plastic, promise a cheaper way of generating electricity.

This new study shows that organics can now be just as efficient as silicon.

The unpleasant reason men navigate best
Aiming high key to online dating success
What are organic solar cells?
The term organic relates to the fact that carbon-based materials are at the heart of these devices, rather than silicon. The square or rectangular solid solar panels that most of us are familiar with, require fixed installation points usually on roofs or in flat fields.

Organic photovoltaics (OPV) can be made of compounds that are dissolved in ink so they can be printed on thin rolls of plastic, they can bend or curve around structures or even be incorporated into clothing.

What's stopped them becoming widely used?
In a word - efficiency.

Image copyrightSPL
Image caption
An example of how a flexible, organic solar cell might look
This is a measure of how much of the sunlight that shines on a panel can be turned into usable electricity.

Commercial solar photovoltaics usually covert 15-22% of sunlight, with a world record of 26.6% reached in Japan in 2016.

Organics have long lingered at around half this rate, but this year has seen some major leaps forward.

In April researchers were able to reach 15% in tests. Now this new study pushes that beyond 17% with the authors saying that up to 25% is possible.

This is important because according to estimates, with a 15% efficiency and a 20 year lifetime, organic solar cells could produce electricity at a cost of less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In 2017, the average cost of electricity in the US was 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

So what have these researchers done differently?
One of the things that has made OPV less efficient in the past is the fact that the organic materials have loosely bound molecules which can trap electrons and slow down the generation of electricity. So researchers have tried to get around this by putting different layers of material together in a what's termed a tandem cell approach.

"Tandem cell means you have two devices built together in the same structure," said one of the authors, Dr Yongsheng Chen, from Nankai University in Tianjin, China.

"We have two layers of active materials, each layer can absorb different wavelengths of light. That means you can use sunlight in the wider wavelengths or more efficiently and this can generate more current."

How far are these from commercial production?
Not that far away according to the researchers. Dr Yongsheng Chen compares the OPV to organic light-emitting diodes, or OLED. This technology has been introduced in the past few years and is widely used for high-end TVs.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Up close with a silicon-based solar panel
"These are already commercial, and they use a similar material to OPV," Dr Yongsheng Chen told BBC News.

"The physical principle is the same, just a different direction, one is from solar to electricity, the other from electricity to light, the device and structure are similar."

"I am very positive for OPV, and it may not need five years," he added.

What type of application might we expect?
Flexible, printed solar cells offer a wide range of possibilities. They can work indoors and they can be made semi-transparent, so they could be incorporated into windows and generate power during daylight.

They offer huge potential for buildings as they are lightweight so might be ideal for deploying on the roofs of houses in developing countries where structures might not suit heavy silicon. They could be used on the roofs of cars, and in clothes, even in glasses to charge your phone while you are out and about.

What's been the reaction of others in the field?
Other experts in this field were generally positive.

"This looks a remarkable result to me," said Dr Artem Bakulin, from Imperial College London.

"The development of such new materials with previously unthinkable properties allowed them to achieve the reported record efficiency and, in general, makes OPV technology much more promising."

Dr Feng Gao from Linköping University in Sweden also believes the new paper is significant.

"This work is a very important contribution to organic solar cells and will certainly inspire new developments in the field," he said by email.

"The tandem organic solar cells with record efficiencies in this work indicate great potential of organic solar cells for practical applications."

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, davieG said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45132427

 

Organic solar cells set 'remarkable' energy record
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
9 August 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Chinese researchers have taken what they say is a major step forward for the development of a new generation of solar cells.

Manufacturers have long used silicon to make solar panels because the material was the most efficient at converting sunlight into electricity.

But organic photovoltaics, made from carbon and plastic, promise a cheaper way of generating electricity.

This new study shows that organics can now be just as efficient as silicon.

The unpleasant reason men navigate best
Aiming high key to online dating success
What are organic solar cells?
The term organic relates to the fact that carbon-based materials are at the heart of these devices, rather than silicon. The square or rectangular solid solar panels that most of us are familiar with, require fixed installation points usually on roofs or in flat fields.

Organic photovoltaics (OPV) can be made of compounds that are dissolved in ink so they can be printed on thin rolls of plastic, they can bend or curve around structures or even be incorporated into clothing.

What's stopped them becoming widely used?
In a word - efficiency.

Image copyrightSPL
Image caption
An example of how a flexible, organic solar cell might look
This is a measure of how much of the sunlight that shines on a panel can be turned into usable electricity.

Commercial solar photovoltaics usually covert 15-22% of sunlight, with a world record of 26.6% reached in Japan in 2016.

Organics have long lingered at around half this rate, but this year has seen some major leaps forward.

In April researchers were able to reach 15% in tests. Now this new study pushes that beyond 17% with the authors saying that up to 25% is possible.

This is important because according to estimates, with a 15% efficiency and a 20 year lifetime, organic solar cells could produce electricity at a cost of less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In 2017, the average cost of electricity in the US was 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

So what have these researchers done differently?
One of the things that has made OPV less efficient in the past is the fact that the organic materials have loosely bound molecules which can trap electrons and slow down the generation of electricity. So researchers have tried to get around this by putting different layers of material together in a what's termed a tandem cell approach.

"Tandem cell means you have two devices built together in the same structure," said one of the authors, Dr Yongsheng Chen, from Nankai University in Tianjin, China.

"We have two layers of active materials, each layer can absorb different wavelengths of light. That means you can use sunlight in the wider wavelengths or more efficiently and this can generate more current."

How far are these from commercial production?
Not that far away according to the researchers. Dr Yongsheng Chen compares the OPV to organic light-emitting diodes, or OLED. This technology has been introduced in the past few years and is widely used for high-end TVs.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Up close with a silicon-based solar panel
"These are already commercial, and they use a similar material to OPV," Dr Yongsheng Chen told BBC News.

"The physical principle is the same, just a different direction, one is from solar to electricity, the other from electricity to light, the device and structure are similar."

"I am very positive for OPV, and it may not need five years," he added.

What type of application might we expect?
Flexible, printed solar cells offer a wide range of possibilities. They can work indoors and they can be made semi-transparent, so they could be incorporated into windows and generate power during daylight.

They offer huge potential for buildings as they are lightweight so might be ideal for deploying on the roofs of houses in developing countries where structures might not suit heavy silicon. They could be used on the roofs of cars, and in clothes, even in glasses to charge your phone while you are out and about.

What's been the reaction of others in the field?
Other experts in this field were generally positive.

"This looks a remarkable result to me," said Dr Artem Bakulin, from Imperial College London.

"The development of such new materials with previously unthinkable properties allowed them to achieve the reported record efficiency and, in general, makes OPV technology much more promising."

Dr Feng Gao from Linköping University in Sweden also believes the new paper is significant.

"This work is a very important contribution to organic solar cells and will certainly inspire new developments in the field," he said by email.

"The tandem organic solar cells with record efficiencies in this work indicate great potential of organic solar cells for practical applications."

An example of why I don't buy into nihilism or Malthusian ideas just yet.

 

Humans at least have a shot at making a better and cleaner world for themselves rather than waiting around for the end.

[SpacedX]

The clear skies last night afforded a wonderful view of the annual Perseid meteor shower which peaks this weekend. Went into the park at around eleven pm and the near new moon which sets just before midnight intensified the spectacle. Saw a spectacular mag -4 fireball. If you are patient and allow your eyes to adjust during this hour you will be rewarded...next year that is. It is forecast to be overcast both tonight and Sunday.