World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

There are thousands of reasearchers and Greenpeace folk and reporters who get their sponsership/finance by pushing panic buttons. Don't fall for the headlines.

Fish will come and go in various populations and areas but on the global scale their populations rely on plankton supply and plankton supply relies on nutrient supply.

And when did you last have a (North Atlantic ) Cod Supper....? Orange Roughy?

I don't need to ingest G/peace propaganda to know what is happening with aquaculture here in Chile and what is happening is not good.

And the mackerel? If they keep hoovering them up the way they are now it won't be long before they have gone the same way as the cod.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Sorry, but the statement that population growth is exponential is ********.

The Romans already worried about how they were going to feed their empire...

Believe what you want and call it what you will...no need for profanity.

1200, 0.36B
1300, 0.36B
1400, 0.35B
1500, 0.43B
1600, 0.55B
1700, 0.6B
1800, 0.8B
1900, 1.9B
2000, 6.4B
2017, 7.5B.

Using a Roman reference seems a bit ridiculous.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I'm late to the game,(my IQ ability ) I just wanted to share this

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-enviro...-energy-debate

sorry if I've diverted from the original topic but i do believe it's related to some discussion in this thread.

Whenever I see anything showing carbon budget to explain energy I throw the BS flag. This graph shows everything you need to know about energy sources.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

to running out of space, either for us, or for all the crops and animals and whatnot we need.

Attachment 144780

I once believed just as you until I sailed through Indonesia and experienced what humans can do to the sea and land.

Have you ever flown over Indonesia and Thailand in a plane? If you want to see how humans can devastate land just look at the Palm Oil industry.

From above it looks like wonderful green jungle, but below it is desert dry ground that can't support life.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And when did you last have a (North Atlantic ) Cod Supper....? Orange Roughy?

I don't need to ingest G/peace propaganda to know what is happening with aquaculture here in Chile and what is happening is not good.

And the mackerel? If they keep hoovering them up the way they are now it won't be long before they have gone the same way as the cod.

There's plenty of biomass in the sea - we want to eat fish so your issue is resolved when we correctly manage the uptake of the fish we like most. No need to panic, just need to use the brains to manage the greed.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

No need to panic, just need to use the brains to manage the greed.

Because that has worked so well on all other accounts!

Always safe to assume humans will act with maximum greed RWT everything they do.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

I once believed just as you until I sailed through Indonesia and experienced what humans can do to the sea and land.

Have you ever flown over Indonesia and Thailand in a plane? If you want to see how humans can devastate land just look at the Palm Oil industry.

From above it looks like wonderful green jungle, but below it is desert dry ground that can't support life.

As a matter of fact, I have flown over Indonesia and Thailand. On the same trip, I flew for 9 or 10 hours over Siberia -- an endless sea of green as far as the eye can see, thousands and thousands of kilometers of complete virgin wilderness, without the slightest sign of mankind.

Don't get hung up on one subjective impression. Yes, humans often manage land stupidly, and that needs to end. But the world is big and resilient, and we are very small little ants in it.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As a matter of fact, I have flown over Indonesia and Thailand. On the same trip, I flew for 9 or 10 hours over Siberia -- an endless sea of green as far as the eye can see, thousands and thousands of kilometers of complete virgin wilderness, without the slightest sign of mankind.

Sure nobody lives in Siberia for good reason.

Siberia is continental subarctic, with the annual average temperature about −5 °C (23 °F) and an average for January of −25 °C (−13 °F) and an average for July of +17 °C (63 °F), although this varies considerably, with a July average about 10 °C (50 °F).

Siberia accounts for 77% of Russia's land area, but it is home to just 40 million people – 27% of the country's population. This is equivalent to an average population density of about 3 inhabitants per square kilometer (7.8/sq mi) (approximately equal to that of Australia), making Siberia one of the most sparsely populated regions on Earth. Soils are mainly turbels (a type of gelisol). The active layer tends to be less than one meter deep, except near rivers. Gelisols are an order in USDA soil taxonomy. They are soils of very cold climates which are defined as containing permafrost within two meters of the soil surface.

That is like flying over Australia and saying there is limitless land available for humans when in fact there isn't because it doesn't support life very well. At least not in a way that is hospitable to humans.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Whenever I see anything showing carbon budget to explain energy I throw the BS flag. This graph shows everything you need to know about energy sources.

Fascinating graph, but do please tell us what it is actually showing and its relevance.

As best I can tell, it says that nuclear power plants are now producing around 90% of their rated capacity while all other sources are producing at about 40% of their rated capacity.

It also shows that "non-hydro renewables", (presumably wind, solar, geo-thermal and biomass) are only 1/2 as efficient* as they were 30 years ago.

Anything else to tak away from that pretty picture?

*efficient in terms of producing their rated capacity.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Sure nobody lives in Siberia for good reason.

Siberia is continental subarctic, with the annual average temperature about −5 °C (23 °F) and an average for January of −25 °C (−13 °F) and an average for July of +17 °C (63 °F), although this varies considerably, with a July average about 10 °C (50 °F).

Siberia accounts for 77% of Russia's land area, but it is home to just 40 million people – 27% of the country's population. This is equivalent to an average population density of about 3 inhabitants per square kilometer (7.8/sq mi) (approximately equal to that of Australia), making Siberia one of the most sparsely populated regions on Earth. Soils are mainly turbels (a type of gelisol). The active layer tends to be less than one meter deep, except near rivers. Gelisols are an order in USDA soil taxonomy. They are soils of very cold climates which are defined as containing permafrost within two meters of the soil surface.

That is like flying over Australia and saying there is limitless land available for humans when in fact there isn't because it doesn't support life very well. At least not in a way that is hospitable to humans.

Ah, but just wait until Global Warming starts for real. That area will become a paradise on earth.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by StuM

Ah, but just wait until Global Warming starts for real. That area will become a paradise on earth.

Yeah, not holding my breath. But be my guest.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by StuM

Fascinating graph, but do please tell us what it is actually showing and its relevance.

As best I can tell, it says that nuclear power plants are now producing around 90% of their rated capacity while all other sources are producing at about 40% of their rated capacity.

It also shows that "non-hydro renewables", (presumably wind, solar, geo-thermal and biomass) are only 1/2 as efficient* as they were 30 years ago.

Anything else to tak away from that pretty picture?

*efficient in terms of producing their rated capacity.

Good article, but a bit dated. I've looked for newer data and can't find it.
https://economics21.org/html/renewab...watt-1428.html

[UAEguy]

The United States added nearly 2000 megawatts of new wind capacity in the first half of 2015. It would take just over a third of that capacity to generate a comparable amount of electricity using nuclear power. But government policy tips energy investment in favor of renewables: in 2013, nuclear power got just $1.7 billion in subsidies, compared to twice that for fossil fuels and eight times as much for renewables. The federal government is quite literally subsidizing unreliability.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Good article, but a bit dated. I've looked for newer data and can't find it.
https://economics21.org/html/renewab...watt-1428.html

Yep, we're both singing from the same songbook on this one.

[UAEguy]

However, the opportunity to make enormous sums of money on utility scale solar remains, as long as the $/W and utility kwh rate remain where they are now or at least in line with each other on the way down.