Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[chala]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Seeing as the first 4 turbines were not installed till 1969 I'm not surprised really..

May be commissioned in 1969. When I visited the installation in 1967 the Japanese turbines where installed.
By the way the Brit had only a supervisory role made difficult by unsuitable (falling apart) pommy vehicles, the Americans had to lend them their vehicles, just old memories, I was with the Americans.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chala

May be commissioned in 1969. When I visited the installation in 1967 the Japanese turbines where installed.
By the way the Brit had only a supervisory role made difficult by unsuitable (falling apart) pommy vehicles, the Americans had to lend them their vehicles, just old memories, I was with the Americans.

In that case we may well have hosted you at the Lantern Club, PTC, Jehlum...

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wood stoves and fireplaces? The EPA is raising the bar.

Juho, what standards do Finnish fireplaces and wood stoves have to meet?

The EPA may better serve it's public by banning forest fires in the western and the southern states. They could start by mandating new forest management practices to reduce fire probabilities and minimize intensities...California is a big offender here.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chala

May be commissioned in 1969. When I visited the installation in 1967 the Japanese turbines where installed.
By the way the Brit had only a supervisory role made difficult by unsuitable (falling apart) pommy vehicles, the Americans had to lend them their vehicles, just old memories, I was with the Americans.

PS.. you've quite a few years on me then..

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The EPA may better serve it's public by banning forest fires in the western and the southern states. They could start by mandating new forest management practices to reduce fire probabilities and minimize intensities...California is a big offender here.

When I was a child, forest fires and range fires were an annual occurrence in California, most often caused by lightening. The fires burned hot and fast through the under growth, scrub, tar-weed and manzanita and were over quickly with minimal damage to healthy mature trees save bark around the bases which killed off the beetles that otherwise destroyed the trees. Than "Smoky the Bear" came along, largely in response to the effects of the forest fire in Disney's "Bambi" movie in the 50's, and the well intended but ignorant gobmnt made a point of stopping the fires and has done so since. As a consequence, tremendous accumulations of fuel develop and forest vails and hills become choked with undergrowth and one no longer sees the wild flowers that need the heat of a fire to crack their seedpods open--like popcorn--that used to cover the hills (like the scene of the poppies in the Wizard of Oz). So, when a fire does start, it is fantastically destructive and takes out not only the dead undergrowth but the mature trees as well. In the hills, "ground fires" develop, actually burning through the soil (when the gray surface is turned over, ground fires explode into flame), destroying the root systems that hold the soil in place. So, when the rains start, there are tremendous landslides and washouts. Then, with all that, the ignorant prevent the harvesting/logging of the dead, damaged trees which rot and begin the cycle of destruction over again. I could go on but, to paraphrase Reagan, the gobmnt ain't the solution to the problem, it is the problem.

[chala]

Wiki, Wiki!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dSMgmcLm4

Originally Posted by boatman61

In that case

A short stay.

[chala]

Originally Posted by boatman61

PS.. you've quite a few years on me then..

Tore tore. That is all what I can remember.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by chala

Wiki, Wiki!

A short stay.

Ahahahaa.. these old documentaries always crack me up..
I'd have been around 18 or 19 back then.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

When I was a child, forest fires and range fires were an annual occurrence in California, most often caused by lightening. The fires burned hot and fast through the under growth, scrub, tar-weed and manzanita and were over quickly with minimal damage to healthy mature trees save bark around the bases which killed off the beetles that otherwise destroyed the trees. Than "Smoky the Bear" came along, largely in response to the effects of the forest fire in Disney's "Bambi" movie in the 50's, and the well intended but ignorant gobmnt made a point of stopping the fires and has done so since. As a consequence, tremendous accumulations of fuel develop and forest vails and hills become choked with undergrowth and one no longer sees the wild flowers that need the heat of a fire to crack their seedpods open--like popcorn--that used to cover the hills (like the scene of the poppies in the Wizard of Oz). So, when a fire does start, it is fantastically destructive and takes out not only the dead undergrowth but the mature trees as well. In the hills, "ground fires" develop, actually burning through the soil (when the gray surface is turned over, ground fires explode into flame), destroying the root systems that hold the soil in place. So, when the rains start, there are tremendous landslides and washouts. Then, with all that, the ignorant prevent the harvesting/logging of the dead, damaged trees which rot and begin the cycle of destruction over again. I could go on but, to paraphrase Reagan, the gobmnt ain't the solution to the problem, it is the problem.

Smoky the Bear was simply a campaign to raise consciousness about fires caused by human carelessness (matches, cigarette butts, poorly-sited or untended campfires etc). It had nothing to do with naturally-caused fires, or how/when to fight forest fires. Leave the bear alone

What you're really calling out is logging and forest management practices. Because most "wild" areas, especially near human habitation are now "managed" to some extent; if it's forest it's been logged a few times, crisscrossed with roads and trails, possibly replanted, and if it's in sight of town, chances are it's been sculpted to interface with the urban landscape and look nice.

So after altering the makeup of forests, and people wanting to live among'em... most forests have to be managed now. As we've already seen with wildfires in California, there's a lot of people and their stuff out there now; I doubt they'd share your enthusiasm for natural fires. What's required is selective reduction, 'cleaning' and sometimes controlled burning... again tough when there's people nearby.

Is it still as bad in California? I would hope they were doing better with this now.

btw, I don't know anyone, greenie or otherwise, who's been opposed to well-planned, sustainable logging. If you've ever seen a clearcut on the side of a huge mountain, especially after it starts to erode and slip, or the cutting of rare, irreplacable, centuries-old trees (that are still healthy)... I suspect you'd be opposed to those too.

(my Dad was a professional forester)

[Scotty Kiwi]

[QUOTE=chala;2273183]

.. it is why now, pumping stations are getting build to replenish dams from lower reservoir.

Can you see the problem in that statement?

It takes more power to pump the water up than is able to be generated on its way down again. If not, then every power plant would be doing it.

[kmacdonald]

[QUOTE=Scotty Kiwi;2274269]

Originally Posted by chala

.. it is why now, pumping stations are getting build to replenish dams from lower reservoir.

Can you see the problem in that statement?

It takes more power to pump the water up than is able to be generated on its way down again. If not, then every power plant would be doing it.

That's true but they do it. It's not to save fuel but to increase capacity during high load periods. Pump water up during low load periods and make hydroelectric power during high load periods. It increases the amount of fossil fuels burned.

[Scotty Kiwi]

Hmmm. Explained in that way, that makes some sense. Thanks.

[TomLewis]

[QUOTE=kmacdonald;2274281]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

That's true but they do it. It's not to save fuel but to increase capacity during high load periods. Pump water up during low load periods and make hydroelectric power during high load periods. It increases the amount of fossil fuels burned.

Gee, I thought it was to keep a consistent flow down river so as not to release so much that raises river levels.Your explanation makes more sense.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Smoky the Bear was simply a campaign to raise consciousness about fires caused by human carelessness (matches, cigarette butts, poorly-sited or untended campfires etc). It had nothing to do with naturally-caused fires, or how/when to fight forest fires. Leave the bear alone

What you're really calling out is logging and forest management practices. Because most "wild" areas, especially near human habitation are now "managed" to some extent; if it's forest it's been logged a few times, crisscrossed with roads and trails, possibly replanted, and if it's in sight of town, chances are it's been sculpted to interface with the urban landscape and look nice.

So after altering the makeup of forests, and people wanting to live among'em... most forests have to be managed now. As we've already seen with wildfires in California, there's a lot of people and their stuff out there now; I doubt they'd share your enthusiasm for natural fires. What's required is selective reduction, 'cleaning' and sometimes controlled burning... again tough when there's people nearby.

Is it still as bad in California? I would hope they were doing better with this now.

btw, I don't know anyone, greenie or otherwise, who's been opposed to well-planned, sustainable logging. If you've ever seen a clearcut on the side of a huge mountain, especially after it starts to erode and slip, or the cutting of rare, irreplacable, centuries-old trees (that are still healthy)... I suspect you'd be opposed to those too.

(my Dad was a professional forester)

The fire/growth cycle is natural, necessary and pervasive where man keeps his fingers out of the forest. Mostly the result of costly real estate going up in flames drove forest managers to fight ALL fires with a vengeance. A corollary to this is the Bozo who erects a mega-beach-mansion on a sandspit, then howls about global warming destroying his home; however I digress:

Modern forestry (as in the last 20 years) had actively prescribed burns to reduce forest floor fuel loads. The timber companies figured out that this process also promotes bigger and better trees, and they climbed onboard (no pun intended). Much like a farmer replants next year's crop, loggers will plant a clear cut almost concurrently with the last of the timber going out. Again, landslides hurt their bottom line.

Like the fool who builds on the beach, I have zero sympathy for the fool that builds his house in heavy fuel, steep terrain, and overly dry areas. They do it for the "view", but at the expense of the insurance and tax-payers that have to foot the cost of their folly. Yet again I digress to get back on topic...... The EPA regulating wood stoves in the name of global warming makes just about as much sense as collecting cow farts (proven to be well more productive of "greenhouse gasses").... Oh wait they want to do that too, they just haven't figured out a way to get the cows onboard.

Now before I get in trouble for being a moderator AND having an opinion, I'll step back behind the curtain and laugh at the fools

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

That's true but they do it. It's not to save fuel but to increase capacity during high load periods. Pump water up during low load periods and make hydroelectric power during high load periods. It increases the amount of fossil fuels burned.

This is also (potentially) a way to store energy from sources like solar and wind generation, which don't always produce power when you want'em.