Silvaire wrote:
The one area of the lumber business that I recall being really messed up years ago was high quality Sitka spruce for aircraft (EuroGA relevant) which was over harvested during WWII and has apparently never recovered
Sitka has been planted along the coast in Norway the last 100 years at least. It tolerates wind and sea spray better than native species, so it can grow at places where the native spruce won’t, and it grows much faster than native species also. The problem is that it’s taking over from all other vegetation, and it’s spreading like crazy. People are trying to remove it altogether, but it’s not such an easy task apparently.
When those Norwegian Sitka spruce trees are tall enough we can switch back to volume production of aircraft with wood spars, that’ll be the best way to use them 
The trees I was talking about in relation to being harvested in WWII were in Sitka (Alaska), on the Pacific coast, or thereabouts.
Global warming would greatly increase the land available for tree growth in Alaska, Canada, and Russia.
Maoraigh wrote:
Global warming would greatly increase the land available for tree growth in Alaska, Canada, and Russia.
The trouble is the losses are greater in the lower latitudes than the gains in higher latitudes, due to geometry.
If you gained 1km of growing territory at 60 degrees N, but lose 1km of growing territory at 30 degrees N it’s a significant loss of growing terrain.
The area of a strip of 1km around the world at 30 degrees is about 11000km squared. The area of a strip 1km around the world at 60 degrees is about 6400km squared, which is only about 58% of the area compared to at 30 degrees. (Yes, there’s differences in the sea area, but in the northern hemisphere, looking at the raw area is a good first approximation)
Which countries in Europe are paying you the same for exporting PV electricity as they charge you for using it?
I’ve just been looking at some numbers here. The export rate can be really poor, ranging from 1p/kWh to 15p/kWh, whereas current “import” cost is approaching 30p/kWh.
This means that most of your investment return on PV electricity is from running your own appliances from PV but what will these be? Zero, is the answer unless the sun is shining at the time! Probably aircon is the obvious one where the periods are likely to coincide, but few private houses have aircon; it’s very difficult to retrofit into a private house. Obviously not lighting, and probably not most cooking. Hot water heating costs are tiny (which is why solar water heating is such a con; I know it because I used to make temperature controllers for that market), so that leaves aircon and weekend (when your car is not at work) car charging. Not space heating either because any suitably oriented house with decent size windows / patio doors will be getting tons of solar gain when the sun is shining.
This makes payback calculations really difficult, and probably explains why some people (who never worked it out) are claiming amazingly fast paybacks of a few years. That is simply impossible unless you either have a huge battery (enough to power the whole house for a few days) so the “export” goes into the battery instead of the grid, or there is a huge purchase subsidy on the PV.
A great summary of the nuclear waste discussion, and why it is a non-issue
It is a non-issue for us. Climate is a non-issue for us. Both the problems are for future people.
Earth organisms have survived climate change in the past.
Will the cost of the radioactive materials be greater than the cost of adapting to a different climate?
Do we know what the radioactive elements will become even in the short term of 100 years, far less 100,000 years?
There is no mention of a plan to combat climate cooling producing an ice age. The nuclear waste depositaries are near-surfsce compared to the depth of the troughs cut by the ice.
However the Chernobyl area gives a hopeful picture of life surviving in a radioactive environment.
Maoraigh wrote:
It is a non-issue for us. Climate is a non-issue for us. Both the problems are for future people.
Is that how you seriously feel about climate change (and radioactive waste)?
Earth organisms have survived climate change in the past.
Yes. You do know what’s different this time from most past climate changes and that in past some climate changes have led to mass extinctions?
Will the cost of the radioactive materials be greater than the cost of adapting to a different climate?
That, of course, is a very relevant question.
Do we know what the radioactive elements will become even in the short term of 100 years, far less 100,000 years?
Of course we do. Or do you mean something else that what you are literally asking?
Airborne_Again wrote:
Maoraigh wrote:It is a non-issue for us. Climate is a non-issue for us. Both the problems are for future people.
Is that how you seriously feel about climate change (and radioactive waste)?Earth organisms have survived climate change in the past.
Yes. You do know what’s different this time from most past climate changes and that in past some climate changes have led to mass extinctions?Will the cost of the radioactive materials be greater than the cost of adapting to a different climate?
That, of course, is a very relevant question.Do we know what the radioactive elements will become even in the short term of 100 years, far less 100,000 years?
Of course we do. Or do you mean something else that what you are literally asking?
Is this how I feel about climate change? Yes, I’m sick to the back teeth about the reporting and fear mongering surrounding climate change – as if paying more in taxes to the government will, in some form or other, prevent the climate from changing. It’s what the climate does. Constantly. CHANGE.
To claim by imposing additional taxes and ever more restrictions on us will actually have any impact on the rate of change is ludicrous. In any case, nothing says more about the fear of rising water levels caused by climate change than these same elite buying $20mio beachside properties…..
What’s different THIS time is that we have a group of elite supported by their useful idiots trying to impose restrictions and higher taxation upon the rest of us in order to control us. Will they stop flying their private jets? No. Will their useful idiots of helpers wake up and see they’re being had? No. Perhaps we should have more people like Alan Jones of Sky News Australia telling it like it is:
The fact that the Chinese are ignoring her shows how much credence they place on her utterances, instead they see this as a way of creating a new world order, of overcoming capitalism.
Once Gates, Schwab and co stop using their private jets, stop swanning off around the world on every whim, start eating insects instead of prime Kobe beef, then I’m sorry, I believe that this whole issue of climate change is just a scam.
If there is truly a need to combat climate change in any meaningful manner, it needs to be driven top down – means those who are the richest, who live in opulence and decadence, surrender their life styles “for the good of the planet” rather than telling us our annual holiday to Bognor Regis is cancelled under the guise of “managing climate change”. And woe betide if one of us decides to head abroad for our vacation – these same elite pop up, telling us our holiday jaunts to Marbella are killing the planet whilst they jet off on a nearly weekly basis to Barbados, Mustique and Fiji. Enough of the hypocrisy.
Maoraigh wrote:
Do we know what the radioactive elements will become even in the short term of 100 years, far less 100,000 years?
Yes we do. We know the daughter products and half-lives of each.
Also the “hottest” radioactive materials are also the shortest lived.
