Barcelona Installs Spain's First Solar Energy Pavement (theguardian.com) 181
Barcelona city council has installed Spain's first photovoltaic pavement as part of the city's drive to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Guardian reports: The 50 sq meters of non-slip solar panels, installed in a small park in the Glories area of the city, will generate 7,560kWh a year, enough to supply three households. The city has contributed 30,000 euros towards the cost, the remainder being met by the manufacturer. The viability of the scheme will be assessed after six months. "We'll have to assess the wear and tear because obviously it's not the same as putting panels on a roof, although they are highly resistant," says Eloi Badia, who is responsible for climate emergency and ecological transition at Barcelona city council.
"As for cost benefits, with a pilot scheme like this it's difficult to know yet how much cheaper it would be if it were scaled up. We're keen to install more on roofs and, if this scheme is successful, on the ground, to power lighting and other public facilities." However, he points out that Barcelona's high population density means it would be difficult to generate enough electricity within the city limits to become self-sufficient. "If we're going to reach a target of zero emissions, we're going to have to think about supplying electricity to blocks of flats, but we'll also have to think of using wind and solar parks outside the city," Badia says. "But installations on the ground like this open up new possibilities, and not just for Barcelona."
"As for cost benefits, with a pilot scheme like this it's difficult to know yet how much cheaper it would be if it were scaled up. We're keen to install more on roofs and, if this scheme is successful, on the ground, to power lighting and other public facilities." However, he points out that Barcelona's high population density means it would be difficult to generate enough electricity within the city limits to become self-sufficient. "If we're going to reach a target of zero emissions, we're going to have to think about supplying electricity to blocks of flats, but we'll also have to think of using wind and solar parks outside the city," Badia says. "But installations on the ground like this open up new possibilities, and not just for Barcelona."
Maintenance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it. It's a pilot to find out how hard it is and how much that costs.
In the end, 30,000 Euro of energy for three houses says that it needs to work for 10-20 years to be cost efficient, or the price needs to drop significantly (say by 2/3). As a pilot neither of these things are out of question, though. If it works that would be a lot of land area.
Re: Maintenance (Score:5, Informative)
Spoiler: It's not economically viable.
Thanks, please pay my consulting fee into the usual Cayman account.
Re: Maintenance (Score:4, Informative)
Just look at what EEVBlog says: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: Maintenance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with solar pavements and Solar Freakin' Roadways [youtube.com] is that they are a profoundly stupid idea trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Solar panels at ground level get covered with dirt, dust, and gravel. They have to be designed to support the weight of foot traffic and vehicles. They can't be angled to the sun.
This makes them more expensive, less effective, and require more ongoing maintenance.
For what? Because we are running out of other places to put the panels? Of course not. There are
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a few small niches for it. Parks, for one: If you don't want to ruin the view of carefully-crafted nature by putting up photovoltaics, and running cables in trenches would be expensive, then integrating solar into the footpaths might be a viable way to provide power for lighting or a small kiosk.
These are niche applications though - overall, the idea is just not practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Why some morons on the internet always think people doing something with solar are stupid: is beyond me.
I think you underestimate the stupidity of both this solar road project and yourself.
It is a damn "experiment".
It's a damn "experiment" that can be shown to be a stupid idea beforehand.
Why do you need an experiment for something that you know will fail and why it will fail? What do you hope to learn from it?
Should they do it in a lab?
No, an old envelope and a proper engineer is all you need.
Think of it this way: Would you give subsidies to someone who wants to proof that gravity can be reversed by looking for apples that fall upwards? No? Well, this project i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly. You only find things out by trying them. Twenty years ago we had many different technologies; neither solar nor wind were any where cost competitive with coal or gas. Now both of them are (more than cost competitive). Tidal and wave still largely are not. Much of this is because of out better understanding of maintenance, and its cost, which has reduced capital financing costs, which has allowed scale and away you go.
This might not work. But that doesn't mean it is not worth trying.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't just try everything out ... you'll be out of money in no time. Common sense has to be the first filter, then modelling, then practice. Solar roadways fails on the common sense level, asphalt tears all the time, has massive amounts of rubber deposited and glass being good anti-slip is a joke.
Using tiles for a footpath and doing this in a country without real winters is at least avoiding most of the common sense filters. If you can make the tiles cheap enough and the electrical connections robust en
You won't be out of money (Score:3)
> You can't just try everything out ... you'll be out of money in no time.
Nah, you won't be out money. You'll be $28 TRILLION upside down. You'll be in debt $225,000 per taxpayer.
https://www.usdebtclock.org/in... [usdebtclock.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Asphalt is somewhat pliable ... large areas of non pliable material as a road surface are shit out of luck, they will just break. You can do pavers for a low velocity road, but the amount of distortion on a paver road is also immense, forget about maintaining electrical connections. Solar roadways fail a common sense check. The wear and tear, pollution and distortion are far too great.
Re: (Score:3)
Which part of:
- it is no road
- it is an pedestrian area
Don't you grasp?
I guess both.
It is in the summary: reading and on top of that reading comprehension, helps. It actually helps a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No need to spend 30000 dollars to try it again.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been one prior attempt at this and it was successful.
In the Netherlands there was a solar cycle-path. It produced more energy than expected and held up well.
There was a tangentially related failure in France with a road surface that didn't stand up to the load of vehicles on it and was noisy. But that was a road, not a pavement for pedestrians and cyclists.
There are obvious benefits if this technology works and is reasonably affordable, such as integrated lighting or heating (to prevent icing). Th
Re: (Score:2)
You actually can find things out without trying them because components have smaller sections that can be individually assessed.
* Simple trigonometry can give you the relative efficiency of a flat upwards facing solar panel located 41 degrees from the equator compared to one that tracks the Sun.
* Simple multiplication can tell you the efficiency of the solar panel with a durable coating applied to the surface based on that surface's transmissibility which is readily available in datasheets compared to the e
Re: (Score:2)
* You can look at the prior failures with Solar Roadways to understand why this method wasn't scaled up.
while your first points have some merit - but are mostly irrelevant, e.g. we all know a flat thing parallel to the ground can not track the sun, so what is the point? - this nails how stupid you are: it is not a road
Pretty clear in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Their first installation was a sidewalk: It's actually still there, you can see a live webcam of the flickering lights that keep malfunctioning.
https://www.sandpointidaho.gov... [sandpointidaho.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. You only find things out by trying them.
It's been a while since we investigated the effect of jumping off a tall building and hitting on the ground on the human body. Do you want to volunteer or would you agree that this is not something we actually need to try and that we can actually predict the results quite well?
This isn't the 1800s anymore. We don't bash rocks together and see what technology we invent as a result. Modern engineering is based largely on science and theoretical studies from first principles. In this case we know how solar pan
Re: (Score:2)
Spain, like many parts of Europe, has things called pavements which is where people go without cars, so I am not sure that this is an issue. And, obviously, you need to look at details rather than just the headline to determine whether it seems plausible or not.
Trying things involves it failing sometimes. That's not waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Spain, like many parts of Europe, has things called pavements which is where people go without cars
In most of Europe people park cars on pavements ("sidewalks" to an American), usually illegally although the police don't do anything about it.
Re: Maintenance (Score:3, Insightful)
Find out?
This is one of those projects where you need a seven year old on the team, to cut through all the yes men.
It will be too scratched to work within weeks.
And non-slip means it isn't made of glass, and already bad at letting light through right from the factory.
It's probably gonna leave a trail of microplastics on both directions.
But we do live in a worls of engineering and usabilityy trainwrecks becoming mainstream and the new definition of good. See: The iPhone.
So, as a business, it will probably be
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and it's even possible that they have thought of these issues up front.
There's a lot of land out there, covered in paving slabs. Got to be worth a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, and it's even possible that they have thought of these issues up front.
And it is possible they have not. I have worked in technical design offices and from my experience the latter is quite likely.
Anyway, the PHBs and politicians who make the decisions are not generally the thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so he's comparing a production roof top system to a prototype system both on production levels and cost.
His conclusion 1/3 output for 10 times the cost. So, a prototype is 10 times the cost of a production system. Surprised? 1/3 the output for an area which is open and not currently in use.
That is well worth trying.
patio roof (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, totally agree with you, this whole idea is completely asinine, brings more problem than solution, and is an answer to a question that nobody asked.
It would be much better to just mount the pannels on a roof-like (think gazebo, patio-roof, etc.):
- it's way cheaper (just some structure to support garden-variety regular solar pannel VS some hightech custom built tiles)
- can be angled, so it can be much momre efficient by pointing toward the (general path of the) Sun.
- can be angled, so there's less problems of stuff accumulating on top of it like - dirt, sand, mud, dead leaves or (less relevant as Spain doesn't get that many days of it, usually) snow - which could block the light on a flat surface where it would have less chance of sliding/rolling of.
- doesn't need to be walked on top, so doesn't need a special non-slippery surface
- use normal (slippery) solar pannel covering, thus more light transmission
and specifically for a southern country like Spain:
- provide a nice cool shade to the pedestrian walking on the regular pavement underneath.
or bonus for a potential country a bit more northern where there is a bit more rain, etc:
- the angled surfaces could be aranged in a way to deflect the rain from the people walking underneath: it's a roof after all. (e.g.: have the lower rim of the angled surface above a gutter).
Re: (Score:2)
And only installable in a limited number of locations. This is not about producing a maximally efficient set of solar panels. This is about making land usable for two purposes -- energy and walking.
The idea of building solar awnings is already widely used including over car parks, especially on motorways. Energy and a car that is not hot as hell when you return.
Re: (Score:3)
In 2 decades when you run out of low hanging fruit, technology will have massively improved. Experimenting with high hanging fruit with public money right now is a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the guy who has no clue about the topic.
- can be angled, so it can be much momre efficient by pointing toward the (general path of the) Sun.
In German e.g. that is no longer done. As we have so much solar power during midday, that we have trouble to consume or store it.
Having it flat on the pavement means: it more or less produces the same energy during daylight all day ling.
- can be angled, so there's less problems of stuff accumulating on top of it like - dirt, sand, mud, dead leaves or (less relevant
Re: (Score:2)
Completely irrelevant on a pavement that gets cleaned every night.
You must live in Fairyland. Near me they get swept once per year, and that is just before the leaves fall for some bonkers reason, so they are immediately dirty again.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no tires on that pavement.
How should they get there?
Perhaps get a dictionary or read the damn article at least.
PERIOD. PERIOD.
Screaming "period" only makes sense:
a) if you have a point
b) you scream it once
- or -
c) thrice
Screaming it two times is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no tires on that pavement. How should they get there?
This might about a path in a Barcelona park but in the UK we would not call a path in a park a "pavement". A "pavement" in the UK means what is known as a "sidewalk" in the USA. IDK about Barcelona but in London you would not get much area out of park paths. In the UK and a lot of Europe, cars and lorries park (usually illegally) on the pavement all the time [express.co.uk] and they break paving slabs, let alone solar panels
BTW, you blow your cred by quoting Grumpy Greta. I'd drop it IIWY
Re: (Score:2)
People said the same thing about solar panels on roofs, the first hailstorm would destroy them. Same thing about glass floors, they would get scratched to hell within a week and turn opaque.
In fact people said the same thing about aircraft windows back when we had that volcanic eruption disrupting flights. Apparently the ash would sandblast the windows. One company decided to take a passenger jet up, flew around a bit and landed without any damage.
Could be Good for Sail Yachts (Score:2)
You need to be able to walk all over the foredeck, so only the rear has a roof that is suitable for solar panels.
If panels could be strong enough to be walked on, and flexible enough to fit to the curves of a boat, this could double the amount of solar available.
When you run a fridge on a small boat you want plenty of solar.
Re: Maintenance (Score:3)
Regardless, it sounds like a lot of money to just power 3 houses.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it. It's a pilot to find out how hard it is and how much that costs.
In the end, 30,000 Euro of energy for three houses says that it needs to work for 10-20 years to be cost efficient, or the price needs to drop significantly (say by 2/3). As a pilot neither of these things are out of question, though. If it works that would be a lot of land area.
The problem is that the numbers are bullshit. It didn't cost 30,000, it cost AT LEAST 30,000:
And they say "generate 7,560kWh a year, enough to supply 3 households" but it's not enough to actually do that. That's not enough to supply even 1 Spanish household, not to mention an American one. This document [europa.eu] says the average Spanish household uses 10,500 kWh per year. The average American house
Re: (Score:2)
This document [europa.eu] says the average Spanish household uses 10,500 kWh per year.
That is most likely an error in the paper from the EU webs site. A spanish household hardly uses more than a German one, which is about 3.500 kWh a year.
On the other hand this is about a place in Barcelona, they probably know pretty well how much the neighbours of that area consume as power.
The average American household uses about the same, the EIA [eia.gov] says 10,649 kWh per year in 2019.
And we all know an average A
Re: (Score:2)
It is providing power enough for 3 households, so ROI is about 10 to 12 years in Germany. Spain has more sun, so I assume it is shorter. (A typical 4 person household needs a solar installation in the range of 12k - 14k Euro - depending if you want a battery or not - and the ROI is 12 years without and 14 years with battery)
Let them spend their own money (Re:Maintenance) (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it. It's a pilot to find out how hard it is and how much that costs.
Why can't we get people to say the same thing about nuclear power? We don't know how much a nuclear power plant costs any more because we haven't built them in decades. We can't build just one to know how much they cost either because there is always room for improvement in labor saving techniques and design changes. We brought down the cost of solar power by eating the up front research and development costs in order to benefit later from the cost savings later.
Listen to any energy expert and they will
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it. It's a pilot to find out how hard it is and how much that costs.
Why can't we get people to say the same thing about nuclear power? We don't know how much a nuclear power plant costs any more because we haven't built them in decades. We can't build just one to know how much they cost either because there is always room for improvement in labor saving techniques and design changes.
Well, because we have a pretty good idea about the current crop of nuclear power plants, and have found them to be really expensive. However, there are many companies investing in different forms of nuclear power generation that they hope will be quite a bit cheaper. So, I think we are doing this.
Same is true for fusion. Even though we've never managed to use fusion to produce usable power (well, cept for bombs), there are quite a few companies working on various systems trying to get them to commercialisat
Re: (Score:2)
So, we are doing this. But, it looks further away than solar and other options at the moment.
What the fuck are you talking about? We get 10% of the world's electricity from nuclear fission power, and this has been true for decades. Nuclear fission power is a proven technology as it is. In spite of this we have morons in Germany, France, and other nations that think they can leave nuclear fission power, move to wind and solar, and keep the lights on.
The experts agree that by closing nuclear power plants early nations like France and Germany have killed people that didn't need to die. People that
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that German industry is running off of French nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know how much a nuclear power plant costs any more because we haven't built them in decades.
The Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant [wikipedia.org] in Georgia is under construction now.
It is a decade behind schedule, WAY over budget, and is projected to cost four times as much per kwh as gas or wind.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you let the industry stagnate, people forget how things are done. We don't base the performance of the industry on the first of a kind and the outliers.
Why is it that the solar power shills bring up Vogtle and Hinkley C? Those aren't the norm. There are over 400 operating civil nuclear power reactors in the world today. Many of them are quite old and will need to be replaced. Because the world brought new nuclear power construction to a near stop for the last four decades the p
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know how much a nuclear power plant costs any more because we haven't built them in decades.
Well, if you mean with "we" you and me, then please exclude me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Look at "Unit 3"
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it. It's a pilot to find out how hard it is and how much that costs.
That doesn't make it any less stupid. Solar power is a well known quantity. Regardless of what this pilot is going to show the result will be more expensive, less efficient, and wear far more than putting solar panels on roofs. Until we run out of roofs the pilot has literally no purpose other than to waste money on nothing. Even the results of this pilot will be completely invalid should we ever find ourselves in a position where we have run out of far more ideal places to put the damn things.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they are doing it.
No, that is NOT why they are doing it.
They are doing it because they have tax-payed subsidies that they need to spend on 'the environment' and will take any fucked up stupid to the bone idea that will make them look 'green' to other stupid people.
But luckily for us it was only 30.000 euro. It's basically a fart in space. Nothing of consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I missed the 30k plus the rest. That solar energy requires a lot of space is why the are doing this though. Double up land use.
It's not the same thing as a solar highway, because it doesn't have cars driving over it routinely.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
They've been installing them in sidewalks before, never actually seen a 'road' for cars installed because the sidewalks have been breaking too much. There's been about 1 installed each year since 2015 at various places and each one has flopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing it won't last 40 years. It barely lasts 1.
Solar roadways that have only been exposed to pedestrians and bicyclists have barely lasted 6 months before they're completely torn up.
And they produce a quarter of the power with 9 times the cost as putting a solar panel on a nearby roof.
Sure there is more surface area by paving the streets with solar cells, but the efficiency of a roof solar system is much higher and much
Will probably the last as well (Score:2)
The whole idea is so stupid it is staggering. Use standard solar installations, not this "smart idea" crap.
Idiocracy (Score:5, Informative)
Much like with the retardation of Solar Friggin' Roadways or the disaster of the Dutch solar bike path, and the French PV solar road, flat on the ground is literally the worst way and location to install PV solar panels, except for maybe at the bottom of a deep ocean trench.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at this the wrong way and SlashDread has it right. The question isn't whether it's cheaper to generate power in some other way, the question is which has a lower total cost over its life: ordinary pavement or solar pavement. It really doesn't matter if solar farm electricity is cheaper per watt (including transmission lines)... you have to install pavement regardless, and if you can generate enough power from solar pavement to more than offset the additional cost vs regular pavement you'd be
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
Ordinary pavement is cheaper by a long shot. So now do you agree that the idea is moronically stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of project that'd fit right in the world of Idiocracy.
Nonsense.
Whether or not this makes sense depends on a host of factors, few of which are obvious. While it's clear that roof space has advantages over ground space, it's also clear that lots of sun strikes the ground, and if ground installation cost, durability and generation make it a net profitable approach, there's no reason not to do it. Those are a lot of ifs, but the only way to find out is to test. Oh, you can calculate the likely energy generation and the installation cost, but durability, weatheri
Re: Idiocracy (Score:2)
Rooftop solar will ALWAYS be better than solar stupid pavement : Better angle, no shadow, cheaper to build/better durability.
Solar pavement will maybe start to make sense once every roof is covered by panels. Not before.
Now go look at Barcelona on Google maps and I dare you to come back here and say again that it doesn't have enough roofs.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest to go to Barcelona, once ...
Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows that PV solar panels work best when a) angled, ideally following the Sun, and b) when cooled, e.g. by a draft along their backside in a roof-mounted configuration. ... )
Half correct. (A upward draft on a roof cools exactly: nothing
Now explain us how to install such a thing on a pavement?
Re: (Score:2)
The angular "preference" is about the question how big the area is that points to the sun.
That at least is the topic your parent meant. So, yes: there is an angular preference.
and b) when cooled, e.g. by a draft along their backside in a roof-mounted configuration.
This still holds true
Actually it does not, as hot air does not cool hot things by a small updraft going behind a panel that is mounted in an aluminium casing.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the flux is cos(theta).
It seems that people that make insulting remarks like "three brain cells" are severely limited in their own intellectual capacity.
Solar Friggin' roadways are a joke (Score:2)
Power for three homes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general you can assume that an american household uses 3 - 5 times as much electricity, than an European one.
But that varies widely over the US and as well widely over Europe.
Despite the fact that Barcelona is quite far south, you do not need much power for AC in general as many people live in 100 - 200 year old houses that have half a yard think stone walls. The fact that it is at the coast, cools the town down over night. Also the fact that mediterranean cities - also man land locked cities in south Eu
Re: (Score:2)
American houses tend to be pretty inefficient, power wise. The standard method of construction is to fling up a box as rapidly as possible and then beat the inefficiencies into submission with heating and AC. This means houses are very cheap and quick (same thing to a large extent) to build. Very many houses in Europe predate AC so they were build to be liveable without it by necessity and the style often stuck. I live in a 107 year old house, which in this part of the world is utterly unremarkable. It's ju
Re: (Score:2)
The experts agree, we need nuclear fission power (Score:2)
This is great, we experiment with a new technology to see how much it costs and how to lower those costs with iterations of labor saving techniques and optimizing design to lower material costs. We should do that with nuclear power. Those that listen to the scientist will know that we will not solve our energy problems without building nuclear fission power plants at a large scale. Those that complain about the costs of nuclear power forget that we didn't lower the costs of solar power overnight. The wa
Re: (Score:2)
Calling something a first or second generation makes no real sense.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. That means it was a huge pile of charcoal. When it went boom they had a gigantic conflagration.
Fukushim was a set of water reactors, no idea if boiling, pressurized or heavy water, you can google that.
Both have absolutely nothing to do with each other how to operate them etc. p.p.
A car analogy: Chernobyl was a tractor, not a car.
The problem here is the fossil fuel corporations (Score:2)
Cataluña doesn't currently h
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so Barcelona, Cataluña, is one of the most visited cities in the world & gets a lot of footfall (Public transport & on foot are the best ways to get around). As a result, the pavements need frequent renovation.
How frequent are you talking about? Pedestrians are incredibly low wear compared to motor vehicles. Bits of London get very heavy footfall (e.g. the strip of pavement at Brixton station exit which is under 10 wide gets 35 million people per year) and the pavements aren't replac
This is crazy (Score:2)
Eh, the 10kW I installed on my roof 9 years ago was a bit over 40sqm and cost a total of 18000 Euro with installation, inverter etc and has needed no maintenance. Why would, a decade later, be discussing panels several times more expensive just so they can maybe withstand the wear from being installed at the worst place possible?
Hey, I know, let's put them inside fountains ! Oh, wait, better idea, solar manhole covers ! The possibilities of stupid are endless...
Re: This is crazy (Score:2)
The reason is simple: money.
Companies have smelled that politicians are stupid enough to give subsidies to "innovative" projects no matter how moronic and scientifically ridiculous it is, so they sell them such stupid stuff.
Those companies know damn well that those projects are disasters, so they always say it's a prototype/experiment/pilot/test so that get the money and don't gave any consequences when it inevitably fails a few months later.
Re: This is crazy (Score:2)
But considering how many morons are defending thar stupidity in this very thread, that tend won't stop anytime soon.
Do these people have shit for brain? Seriously. (Score:2)
The 50 sq meters of non-slip solar panels, installed in a small park in the Glories area of the city, will generate 7,560kWh a year, enough to supply three households.
That's about 17 Watt per square meter at an efficiency of 1.7%. What a fucking waste!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "biomass" and is already widely used for energy production. The UKs largest electricity generation plant (Drax) runs on wood, having moved from coal a few years ago.
The wood is imported from Canada, but otherwise...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no renewable solution that scales to our current needs. Biomass might be part of the solution. In the UK, we do not produce enough wood, but that's because we've chosen to cover vast tracks of land with sheep. Eat the sheep, grow more trees, things become a bit more viable. With deer and pigs you might even get a reasonable amount of meat out of the same area.
Re: (Score:2)
If we start doing intensive forestry on that scale, soil depletion will hit in a couple generations ... and trees use a little more nutrients than a sheep, making up the difference with fossil/mineral fertilizer isn't an option for forestry.
For sustainability we ultimately need a semi-closed nutrient/mineral loop on human time scales, not on geological timescales. This goes even for crop/animal farming too, but large scale biomass forestry would massively accelerate the need.
Re: (Score:2)
You get soil depletion from sheep also, because they are mostly reared in the UK on upland peat which disappears away.
Of course, we do have stable forests, created in living memory in the UK, and they are being used at scale and commercially. They generally doing cause soil depletion unless you plant them in the middle of the aforementioned peat bogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Trees, much like cows stomachs aren't nuclear fusion plants. All the ash and a significant amount of the smoke is stuff that isn't going to go back into the soil any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Heating with firewood is not even 1% of the typical German or French households.
The regrows of woods is mostly due reduced farming and big inter european projects to have all countries reconnected against with each other with forrests or other wildlife reservations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe uses lots of old fashioned firewood, which is carbon neutral, despite being smokey.
It would be carbon neutral (in the sensible definition of the word) if all that smoky carbon would be absorbed by trees. Which it isn't.
Re: Easier Low-Tech Solution (Score:2)
You could even do it the nice way: Free contraception, and if you make more than one child, free quick abortions or you pay for the harm having that child does or you lose your citizenship.
(If they make their own coutry with blackjack and unprotected hookers, you can still declare war if they ruin your air or whatever with their overpopulation.)
Re: Easier Low-Tech Solution (Score:2)
Re: Easier Low-Tech Solution (Score:3)
No, it would merely be delaying it. Like veganism.
You are attacking the symptoms so you can keep being in denial about the core proble.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive population decline will be a consequence of limited carrying capacity at current levels of technological development.
Without a singularity, peak everything will decimate us in the near future ... it might be better to do it ourselves in a more gentle way than letting chips fall where they may.
Re: Oh hai mr Malthus... You go reduce you first, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, if it comes to that I prefer the natural solution ... your kids will get fucked, I'll be dead. It works too.
Re: Oh hai mr Malthus... You go reduce you first, (Score:2)
Nope. You're wrong. (Score:2)
You fail to realize that thanks to racism, colonialism and various other forms of economic and political fuckery - THE most energy- and resource-rich countries are BOTH criminally underdeveloped AND the location of future population and economic booms.
There are PLENTY of resources. We're not at peak anything. Hell, we're leaving oil in the ground cause it's not worth it to pump it out. [theguardian.com]
There might not be as much money made on the backs of destitute child labor and conflict minerals - but resources there are
Re: Slashdot RSS is down (Score:2)
The front page doesn't even display the number of comments since the last change. I'm gonna say that's a no.
It's all iT [sic] cargo cultists and BizX cokeheads now.
Re: (Score:2)
People have actually suggested that BizX is doing a better job than Dice.
But the site was at least not getting worse under Dice.
I could swear white supremacy has exploded since the changeover as well, but I haven't done a study.
Re: Slashdot RSS is down (Score:2)
I think its safe to say no one over there has given a shit for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the app, it is the text input mode of your mobile that messes up quotation marks. Go int settings and fix it.
Or use a browser, who uses an App for /. ??? Seriously.
Re: Slashdot RSS is down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not my web site. /. lack of unicode support, this does not work: then YOU are doing it wrong.
And yes, if you have set your tablet to do "intelligent" replacements of quotes, and don't realize with
Re: Slashdot RSS is down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it is still not "my software" ... otherwise I had fixed it long ago. /.
But not as you think, but by removing the silly "auto conversion of quotes".
Which is the fault of APPLE and not of