• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Carbon negative

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #1
So we have super duper Carbon neutral, but something posted on here recently made me think. Without wanting to look like an idiot (again), I am pretty sure a Carbon neutral house would not be difficult to build in many locations.

So before i do go and make myself look like a plank, anyone in the UK live in a area with alot of clay in the soil? ideally reddish/brown clay and the grey **** we had in Devon?
If so would you mind sending me a PM, i got a question to ask you and a quick favor to ask.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#2
I'm guessing your hinting at the concept of soil remediation as a way of doing active ecologically gainful carbon capture process?
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #3
I'm guessing your hinting at the concept of soil remediation as a way of doing active ecologically gainful carbon capture process?
No Far from it.

I am looking at Carbon negative.

In the UK a modern house has to be built so its kind of hermetically sealed in many ways, they do a pressure test. You have to add solar PV etc (waste of time, better using solar for heat), and a range of other things, the net result is something that is supposed to have cost a net equal use of Carbon. Actually Carbon neutral while a good concept is a misnomer, like most things you can bed it to give the numbers you need. But alot of the rules and principles are actually worthwhile, what I am talking about is a house that produces more energy than it uses without increasing a foot print, now this sounds over unity....

It isnt, yes you cant get more out than you put in, but there are things you can do like tap into unused sources. While inefficient a heat pump is one example, what is actually better is a passive heat exchange system that recovers what heat it can and uses it to pre heat clean,cold fresh air coming in. Its better because the heat loss of stale air is a total net loss, but using a non passive system blurs this, it isnt as worthwhile, you recover more heat but the cost in carbon and energy gives you a lower net figure of recovery.

For example just plucking figures from the air........lets say a passive system recovers 70% of heat and costs nothing in energy or carbon to recover, thats a net gain of 70% of energy. Now add a non passive heat recovery system than recovers 90%. This system requires energy and lets say it takes 60% of the energy recovered to run. Thats a net loss in energy and carbon terms. Because you gain 30% energy instead of 70%.

Take this a step further, PV generates energy but take cost and carbon to produce the PV panels and the pay in tariffs (UK system) and you actually run them at a net loss. The person with the PV panel gains but overall the energy budget is a net loss.

What I am saying is, if you have a passive house that is insulated and sealed and uses passive recovery systems, I think there is a way to generate energy over and above the Crbon and energy budget. it isnt over unity because what I have in mind does use something but it uses a system i am pretty has never been used, normally being me i would just blurt it all out. But in this case i want to tread carefully because if i am right then I want to share an idea, if i am wrong i will ell you what i had in mind and explain (if needed) why i was muppet in thinking it would work.

One thing to keep in mind, the system i have in mind has a finite life span, after that you get nothing without replacing it. The question becomes is the life span greater than current methods, if it is then you can indeed have a Carbon Negative dwelling. But I think the place to start is clay soil, sand wont work and loam wont work, no idea if bed rock would work or if getting to bed rock uses enough carbon to negate the system anyway.

So I am after a tiny sample of orange or reddish clay and not the grey stuff. Why Orange or red? Obvious ;)
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#4
I am looking at Carbon negative.
I don't follow the term 'carbon negative' as it's politically defined nor the supposed methods to define and or achieve it being we don't have such dumb arbitrary ecological rules here as a way to place more restrictions on people while taking more of their money away form them at the same time.

Where I am from it well known that standard farming practices are sinking more carbon than they produce using the exact same natural bio sequestration processes that nature has by locking it up in the creation of richer thicker topsoil and even subsoil production.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #5
I have a shed, its about as Carbon Neutral as your going to get a small shed, but my shed make electric all day every day and without the sun or wind. It burns no fuel to do this, it uses no digest er to do this, the fact is my shed is sat on something different to most houses and it makes electric, not huge amounts yet but scaled up Carbon Negative would mean a house that produces more electric than it uses.

It would do this without the sun or wind or normal input from other sources, there is other info dotted around from me that probably gives a decent clue, but my shed is infact a battery, it uses the soil as the electrolyte, which is why i need clay samples as i am on peat! Peat degrades my Anodes and Cathodes and Clay wouldnt.

Its only 8 X 10 shed, but it kicks out via an inverter 240V 110W all day long, I have used approx 1/5th of what it could output out because i couldnt afford the material to put more anodes and Cathodes in. Its been running 16 months and only just started working 2-3 weeks ago after i gave up. Actually I added lime to my veg garden and 2 weeks after heavy rain it started working......

I have contacted every GOV energy and environmental agency, every small business start up scheme and every source i can think of (except one), and not a single person gives a feck or thinks its worth looking at. Hence why i decided I would explain it here and now because its a dead project. No one wants it, no one wants to put money in to scale up to a small wooden lodge.

Local MP has seen it and dosnt think it has an application! In the mean time the UK needs cheap low cost Carbon Neutral houses that are environmentally friendly. A university has seen the shed but not the underneath bit, they said its interesting and if i give them all the details they will take a look at it (feck right off, been there done that before). So now there you go its open source except the actual technology that is used to make the Anodes and Cathodes, you do need rain now and then apparently. But having dug a Anode up its pristine after 16 months.

The degrading is acid based on a none working Anode, the working Anodes are perfect in condition.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#6
This sounds like a Earth Battery type of system but with far higher than the typically associated milliwatt outputs. :cool:

So what do I need for parts and soil types in order to do some proof of concept testing on my side of the planet?:confused:
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #7
This sounds like a Earth Battery type of system but with far higher than the typically associated milliwatt outputs. :cool:

So what do I need for parts and soil types in order to do some proof of concept testing on my side of the planet?:confused:
TCMTECH

You need a login to a site, hang in there its getting done!! All the info is on the site, or will be soon. Keep in mind this isnt any good on its own, its designed to take modern EU building regs into consideration, here you now have to have a pressure test, it looks for air leaks etc. The idea being the house is as efficient as it can be.

Well I could afford a house, so i opted for a shed! I want to upgrade to a wooden lodge. It works much like a cross between a Edison Battery and iron Air battery, except it needs a few things like a mainly neutral to alkaline soil. For some reason clay seems to work best.

Your welcome to all the research notes and schematic etc etc etc, its how i ended up at your Edison post. Before i saw your post i had been using cobalt and Nickel mixed, mixed as oxides and hydroxides. The house/shed whatever must be on insulation of some type, i used builders plastic. I switched over to self plating because it is not a solution, but the power output if you dont waste heat and follow modern building regs is more than enough to run a house for living in. It aint gonna run your workshop though.

But it wasnt designed for that, actually if you want that then when i get the logins working again look in the R2 section. Some papers in there that run a bioreactor from 12lb organic matter a day and give enough gas to run a generator 12 hours. 12lb a day was my limit for 210ltr barrels.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#8
but the power output if you dont waste heat and follow modern building regs is more than enough to run a house for living in. It aint gonna run your workshop though.
I'm the DIY Grid Tie Inverter guy, I don't need continuous KW's of power to be effective. ;) Anything over a few tens of watts 24/7 is just fine for reducing my electric bill some.

Also where I am from alkaline soil is quite abundant. We have countless pothole sloughs and seep springs where its so high in concentration nothing will grow around them.

A hour of run around with a shop vac and a portable generator could net me loads of the powder.

I just need to know what to do with it.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #9
Everything is written up ready to go on the site, I used magnesium from wheels. Then plated that but left half of it unplated, I cant tell you exactly what is going on at the moment, i dont have red clay!! Someone else who does has said some things that make me think there is a kind of Fenton type reaction going on (look it up), But it seems to reverse. How much power can you get from it?

I dont know, yet. Apparently so far we know the iron rich clay from the Chiltern hills works best, this is rich in Iron and sits on chalk with flint bedrock, so its fairly Alkali. The exact opposite of where i am. My electrodes were fine, but i suspect i cant get near the output they were getting with clay. The idea of the Edison Battery was simply to store it, I have rebar plated up for one set of electrodes but magnesium works better.

Actually I could make some clay....PITA but doable, Will need to move the shed anyway. I have 16 electrodes and that is more than enough for what i was doing, density wise your main restriction is heat and water, if the water in the clay starts to warm then I would assume the density of electrodes was too high, the idea is to tip into Carbon Neutral not just grab electric from the earth. It runs a small inverter fine, with the small exception of my tiny Chinese inverter is not that great anyway.

I might have continued with it, but i got the wind turbine generators and the bio methane. The generators are rated at 6KW each and you can power two of those for a few hours from bio methane. the restriction there being I cant get hold of decent IBC containers around here. The ones I have are in use, but not many places to get them around here.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#10
I cant tell you exactly what is going on at the moment, i dont have red clay!!
I'm just looking at how to produce any reasonable amount of electrical power as cheap as I can using common materials. Government regs mean nothing to me here. ;)

I just need to make some volts and amps for cheap (<10 cents a KWH) to be worth my time.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #11
Carbon neutral is so not your thing...trust me on this. Go bio digester and alter a generator to use the gas to run a generator, this is about modern building techniques and rules a ****, if you can skip those and dont care about your carbon footprint, then seriously there are easier ways to make electric!

This kind of thing is aimed at the new mega city being built in Saudi. Word is they are going green.....
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#12
Carbon neutral is so not your thing...trust me on this. Go bio digester and alter a generator to use the gas to run a generator, this is about modern building techniques and rules a ****, if you can skip those and dont care about your carbon footprint, then seriously there are easier ways to make electric!
I see. No magic high output earth battery tech then. :(

I'll stick with burning my free used oil for heat and if I get the bug to start going for cheap electricity refine of my used oil burning diesel co-gen setups to do that or take another run at building a wind generator that can last for more than 3 - 4 months before its blades come apart.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #13
Your on about a different type of earth battery, not even sure these days battery is the correct term. You can produce energy from earth using various technology, on the whole these need very specific soils or other conditions. Then you get the kind of thing I am on about, these are designed to do a specific job. Yes they self charge and if left alone will reach 80X% of full charge (so many variables the figure is likely 40-90% depending on a huge number of factors).

But the main use of this type of battery is for storage of energy and not production. They are optimized to store a charge produced by other means, so personally i would say they are more like really old "accumulators". These are so far before my time i could be miles out, but from the radio repair guys, i am informed people used to take something similar to a battery, and get it charged up for the 'wireless'. i am not taking the mickey, i am repeating what i am told. I dont know much about them and there isnt really alot of decent info on them.

But from what I was told these are more like what we are talking about. Its a way of storing energy produced from solar/wind or whatever and using at a later time, the big difference is really in the life expectancy of the system. If you optimize what i am talking about to make its own energy from the earth, you shorten its life considerably. Mostly due to chemical change of the ground and some damage to electrodes.
While they do by default self charge at a slowish rate, they are optimized so they take decent amounts of energy for later use, this is more like a cycle so the electrodes and soil last much longer.

While discharging you get a set of chemical reactions, then when charging much of this is reversed. So in a way it depends if you want a LIPO type system or a standard alkali battery system with a more limited life. If you have an acre of land set to grass, and two - three sheep on it, a house of 3-4 people and access to organic material. Then it makes more sense to use a modern (read new) Bio methane system, i am not on about these hopeless bag things being sold, but a 4-6 chamber system.

Normal Bio methane efficiency is only around ~30% tops. New systems are up around 90%, they also crucially run at lower temperatures, and use waste heat from the generator unit to help sustain the biological activity. these systems can run modified Gas generators in the 15KW range, the main problem is tweaking them so you can feed them enough to produce the volume of gas needed. this is why it matters that you make the entire system efficient. If your house is insulated and near modern specs, then you can probably run your entire house off of them.

But you need to keep so many variables in mind, stuff like do you have a 9KW shower? if so do you shower twice a day for 40 mins or once a day for 20 mins. It all makes a difference as to how much material you need to feed the system, if we were closer to modern specs here, then we could more than cover our needs. As it is our house has an appalling rating for efficiency, but we still save £3,000 a year on electric by producing alot of our own, we dont get feed in tariffs either, i honestly think they are counter productive, if your system dosnt stack up without a tariff then to me its a waste of time.

But its likely we are some time away from common uptake, OR maybe not. The recent announcement by Saudi about driving away from oil and building a new mega city, could well be a world game changer. I know a bit more than has been in the press, to me Saudi could change how things are done. The scale of what they are doing alone is big enough to prove the concept and have it taken up world wide.
Not often I have much good to say about them, but if they stay on plan then they could end up being world leaders on new technology.

Another 25 years and the oil they have starts to get difficult to get at, so they want to export electricity or energy in some other form, the common misconception is Saudi will cease to have most the world by the short ones. Personally I think they are going to be in the same position as they are now. I can see them still being one the largest energy producers. Oil gets wasted and I think they understand this, fossil fuels in my opinion are utterly wasted on things you dont actually need to use oil for.

Its nothing to do with the global warming debate, its more to do with getting the most out of what you have and use. Many parts of rural India cook on gas produced from basic septic tanks, to me while the system used is inefficient, the fact is they cover cooking needs without having to touch fossil fuels. They have all the benefits of fossil fuel plus the added advantage of not having to deal with expensive systems to get rid of human waste. But the p[lanet is full of people who think this is stupid when we still got gas in the ground!! Lets use that AND pay to dispose of a product we could actually use!!
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#14
Another 25 years and the oil they have starts to get difficult to get at, so they want to export electricity or energy in some other form, the common misconception is Saudi will cease to have most the world by the short ones. Personally I think they are going to be in the same position as they are now. I can see them still being one the largest energy producers. Oil gets wasted and I think they understand this, fossil fuels in my opinion are utterly wasted on things you dont actually need to use oil for.
I'm curious as to what method they would have to use to export energy in some form other than hydrocarbon chemical based given their location and the vastly far off distances to all the other developed regions of the world that could use what they might make.

As is our HV electrical power transmission tech is reaching it limits of practicality (~8 GWH for a single line set system and only good for ~ 5% of the energy a ULCC single oil tanker ship can transport in a 24 hour period) for how much power can be transmitted any distance.

HV mega lines and any RE power generating facility big enough to feed one (~8 GWH on all solar/wind would be epically huge for any single facility or even a cluster of them) aren't going to get much larger given the realistic scaling numbers behind them plus the already dismally bad and getting worse public views of having a monstrous HV super grid power systems running all over the countryside.

Unless they develop some sort of multi terawatt super battery ships that can transport bulk electrical power like they due bulk hydrocarbon fuels they might be up against a export method wall real fast.

Personally I see the RE power change over going to using millions of tiny producers rather than a few giga source point systems. The economics of transport just don't favor huge remote single point power production anymore.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #15
They have alot of sun, they have alot of wind in Desert areas, this gives them alot of energy. What you do with that energy depends on how things develop, not sure how many people know what one of our companies are called? if you do fair enough but keep it to yourselves if you wouldnt mind. Because one of our companies is a registered LTD company, and by virtue of its name and original mission statement etc, we were contacted recently.

Before i answer your question, it might help to set some context. Living in Scotland we also have a little bit of oil, and i notice the same kind of thinking here that seems to be in many Oil places.

A number of technologies were mentioned, i got to say for a nation built on oil they are not addicted to it. I notice other nations with alot of oil seem to see Oil and only Oil, the Saudis come across differently. They are aware they can keep the oil price down by keeping the taps open, this effectively drops the price of a barrel to below $50. Correct me if i am wrong but generally $50 a barrel is about the cut off point that fracking becomes worth doing, so recently they made it clear that if they wished to they could effectively destroy alot of oil production around the world for maybe 15 years or so.

beyond that they start to drop the reserves of oil they want to keep, but OPEC on the hole could keep this up for 25-30 years. So that would destroy the UK oil industry, it would seriously make a dent in the American industry and I am pretty sure recently did so. Scotland has a fracking back up plan, they dont mention it much but its there.

Anyway the questions asked are interesting, they are looking at solar and wind farms on a massive scale, and the natural thinking in western countries is 'how they going to move the electric'? But the Saudi's dont think like that, there thinking is more along the lines of, ok we got a huge amount of potential energy and we got alot of money. What can we do with the energy to make a exportable fuel? They have signed some deals with a couple of Uk companies recently, really small ones but interesting.

One of them is in Cumbria and makes hydrogen cells. they have invested alot of money in looking into salt solar masses, and turning large areas of desert into productive land. At first glance this takes alot of energy, but look at places like Vegas that basically have to bring water into the desert. Saudi already has some world leading desalination plants, so from alot of things i have seen recently i dont think they intend exporting electricity as such, i think they are looking at how to capture energy and export it.

Look at some recent papers and patents on turning waste non Halogen plastics into a petrol like fuel. many are Saudi backed, same with large oil tankers converted to harvest the 7th continent of plastic that now exists in the oceans and grow bigger by the day. Wouldnt make me blink if in the near future you see oil tankers harvesting this and converting it in place and being stored on the ships.

Dont get me wrong I think overall are they lazy, but really shrewd. I think they intend to buy in the expertise and go from there, they certainly have the money. When it was first announced that they wanted to build a mega city, my initial reaction was why? They already got enough space, but then when they contact just about every UK alternative tech company and ask questions, you start to see a different picture. The only direct quote I would share is the same one that floored me.

Why would you want a mega city when you are over capacity already? "how else are you going to move 6 cities into future?". So i dunno TC, but dont take them as fools, they have had the world by the dangly bits for a long time, and i see no desire in them to let go any time soon. I think while we all look for more ways to extract the last drop, they are already well on the way to figuring out what comes next. When they have that then i would imagine they will also still have the last easily got at oil and the alternatives.

What i didnt know until really recently, are you aware they have the most efficient generating stations on earth? Its not just cheap oil that makes there electric cheap, they have also invested alot on not wasting every KW produced. They have also started to sponsor massive (i mean MASSIVE!) kelp farms in the oil regions with coast lines, they also have the lowest waste export and land fill of any country, but on the surface you would never think it. Look at the tables for Carbon foot prints and electric used per person per country. Surprising most of there use in the last 10 years has been on research, CERN uses vast amounts looking at little particles that were proved before the HC2 was even built!

Seriously you need to look deep into the figures and do the research, because at some point everyone is going to look back and wonder how come they are the only ones with electric and oil left.

Just as a side note, who is now world leader in space tech? India! They send more stuff into space and for alot less than any other country, they hold the world record for sat-alight payloads, and yet 20 years ago they could barely light LEDS....

We need to stop thinking of these countries as third world and start understanding what developing means, how do you think China came from nowhere to the position its in now.

If China called in all its markers, what would the world reserve currency be? Before answering look into debt structure of the $ and who holds what in terms of bonds.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#16
Seriously you need to look deep into the figures and do the research,
Who says I haven't. Debunking grossly exaggerated enviro BS is my hobby! :p

For example,

Look at some recent papers and patents on turning waste non Halogen plastics into a petrol like fuel. many are Saudi backed, same with large oil tankers converted to harvest the 7th continent of plastic that now exists in the oceans and grow bigger by the day.
Huge by area but by actual volume it's largely below the threshold of practicality to try and harvest let alone process into something useful that would remotely pay for any of the effort. 100 - 200 Kg per square Km at a depth of <20 meters is pretty thin pickings. < 100 PPB by volume. How much fuel do you thing a single plastics trawler ship would burn while covering an area of 1 square KM while pulling a 20 mesh screen 100M wide and 20 M in the water? Probably a whole lot more than 100 - 200 KG worth of plastic ! :(

Now I'm not against anyone trying to and and throwing every dime they have at it. Go right ahead! But dont think for second you're going to force me to give you any of my money to chase your idealistic eco dreams. Especially if the even the most basic optimistically real life numbers come up way short of reality reality on the return on investment on any real world cost value equated to it. :rolleyes:
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #17
You might want to catch up on those figures, its called the 7th continent because its 5 times the size of the uk and around 400 feet deep of plastic, on average 28 MILLION tons of non halogenic plastic gets into the oceans, its been found 7 miles down...

That might be ok with you, the fact micro plastic is in 90% of all plankton might be ok with you, depends how much you know about PDS chemicals and the effects of those in the food chain. But ultimately it really dosnt matter to you or your generation. Its a recent thing mainly, maybe 20-30 years old, most the real harm in the last 15 years. No disrespect intended but you got what 20-30 years left tops?

Unlikely the problems your generation have caused will kill you, but me.... With luck i got maybe 60-70 years left, i got a wrecked food chain, i have limited resources left, yet i get told by the people who mainly caused the problem that i am delusional.
plastic.jpg

Maybe your right, maybe we should leave there eah, after all isnt like its going to affect YOU. is it ;). Why do you assume waste is ok? Genuine question to help me understand your thinking...Why use more of something than you need?

Why waste any resource? What do you get out of it? How does it make your life better? Personally you carry on debunking 28million tons a year into the oceans, no one is going to change your mind and TBH no one is even trying to. My generation dont waste our time explaining it to your generation, we are busy working out how to deal with your mess. We didnt put it there in the last 40 years we wernt around. I grew up being punished for throwing litter about or not recycling. But then again i got a thing about waste.

Not a tree hugging thing, but a simple truth, where there is much there is money ;). While your around I know i got an income :D.

Rename the attached file to pdf, its 5 years out of date, things have got worse, but debunk it, its from nature Journal not some micky mouse journal. But i guess they could be making it up. % years on from that paper ad one thing they got wrong was how bad it would get, it got worse than predicted.

Mods can you delete the file in 1-2 days please for obvious reasons
 

Attachments

Last edited:

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#18
You might want to catch up on those figures, its called the 7th continent because its 5 times the size of the uk and around 400 feet deep of plastic, on average 28 MILLION tons of non halogenic plastic gets into the oceans, its been found 7 miles down...
Sure, revisited. Now it's in the PPT (Parts per TRILLION) equivalency using the 7 mile figure and not the 20 meter numbers I went by. :rolleyes:

Also to put that ratio in perspective, have you ever read chemical breakdown of what other naturally occurring toxic compounds are found in seawater that score magnitudes of order or higher?

Methinks you are falling for the emotional manipulations game they use and not the realistic cold hard numbers comparisons to reality that real impartial science is based.

I was your age once and I fell for the same BS enviro scaremongering games you are right now and just like you I did my damnedest to justify I was right. Problem was if you want to prove you are right you have to have solid credible facts to back yourself up to which when I went fact hunting so that I had hard solid ammo to work from everything I was told is real and bad fell utterly flat in its reaily and it realy pissed me off and bad enough to make me go after ratting out the lies for what they are ever since. :mad:

Contrary to what they want you to believe, the modern world is hugely cleaner than it was when I was your age in the 1990's and way better than what it was when my a parents were that age in the 1960's. :cool:

As for my views I am a huge proponent for cleaner more efficient usage of our natural resources but I don't get worked up over the nitpicky dumb crap when there are far greater dragons that need slaying everywhere else but in my backyard. Even less so when compared to what nature can, has done and will do again someday to screw it all up. Watch those videos I have in that thread in the OT section if you want to know just how bad things can get without without us.;)

As for where you live, your idiots in charge are going to regulate you to death literally, with BS politics and social programs to help the useless at your expense, well before this planet gets you. :(

BTW, your picture is what's called 'poverty porn' or 'environmentalism porn'. Is meant to elicit emotional responses, not rational fact and logic sense because it's meant to be a false representation of reality that looks like what they want you to think is really out there floating around in the oceans and not what really is which is largely not even perceptible to the naked eye. :banghead:

Even NOAA says don't fall for the picture like you posted.
https://response.restoration.noaa.g...at-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html

Drop a pinch of pepper in a public swimming pool and that's what your worst case scenario plastic patch would look like, if you could separate it from the 5 gallon bucket to 55+ gallon drum of debris nature already dumped in with it. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #19
No your changing my figures, Tons added to Ocean per year not ppt. Plankton with a 15% or more micro plastic gut ratio, you should know better than try and twist my figures, i concerned about plastic pollution yes, because as it breaks down it has a chemical foot print, when you start to see levels of these chemicals approaching beyound safe in most key food species you should be worried.

besides, look around you, look at the pictures of the oceans, think about the fact they couldnt spot plane debry from a jumbo because of all the **** already in the Ocean. If that dosnt bother you I am ok with that, it isnt like your alone. It takes many people who are not bothered to create the kind of situation we got.

Yeah i get emotional, but then again i think most people would get upset with having to clean up another generations mess, actually it isnt even that, its the fact you got the cheek to say nothing to see here move on. Dont tell me let me guess. The barrier isnt really dying off its just taking a rest?
Bigger issues such as?

BTW first non stop flight from Sydney to london! Twice as efficient as a normal 747! But why bother?

Look I was being honest with you, like it or not there is a really serious problem, and it really dosnt matter to me if you believe or not. I am aware you wont be solving the problem, hell you wont even give it a thought. But the good news is not everyone is like that.

Poverty porn.... ah like fake news and that. Silly me i thought it was a real picture, maybe you would like to see some from Time Magazine or some award winning photographers? Or how about NASSA? or is NASSA and NOAH rigging the pics? Tell me your hat size i will start making your tin foil hat for you.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #20

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top