Environment argument Continued ( Split from QuoVadis Versus Pandora Thread)

[ekianjo]

Certainly never does any harm to have a paper print out of any important stuff (presentations, tickets, etc.) with you on a business trip (I say no harm, it doesn't help the environment,.

Can we stop the myth that paper destroys the environment? The paper industry does not destroy trees, they are not cutting the resources they have access to and destroying their own future. They plant tons of trees to ensure they resupply their stocks. It's a renewable resource, and on top of that a LOT of the paper you buy is recycled. 

 

[Asiyura]

Indeed, most of the paper is made from managed forests.

At least in Europe, USA and Australia.

 

[TrashyMG]

I'm no eco nut but that's not entirely true, Natural forests are being cut down and replaced with trees not native to the area and the results are a destroyed natural ecosystems..

Also Wildlife, Water sheds are disrupted and such.. Aswell one could argue that high use of paper and poor recycling practices around the world are clogging landfills with paper waste..

 

[Asiyura]

In Europe, the trees are replaced with native species.

IIRC in Belgium, they're even replacing the non-native species that were used long ago with native ones…

It's not called "sustainable management" for nothing

They remove unhealthy ones, they remove some trees (when they're too close from each other) to let the others grow, etc…

And not all the forest are used as wood resources, many of them are left more or less wild.

Most of european countries have a pretty strict waste disposal, we must sort recyclable waste (plastic bottles, metallic cans, clean paper, …) from non-recyclable waste. Some parts even have a third category "green" wastes, that can be used to make natural fertilizer.

 

[TrashyMG]

Some states in the US still strips an entire mountain side and only replaces it with one species of trees..
 

Glad things in europe are good.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

Certainly never does any harm to have a paper print out of any important stuff (presentations, tickets, etc.) with you on a business trip (I say no harm, it doesn't help the environment,.

Can we stop the myth that paper destroys the environment? The paper industry does not destroy trees, they are not cutting the resources they have access to and destroying their own future. They plant tons of trees to ensure they resupply their stocks. It's a renewable resource, and on top of that a LOT of the paper you buy is recycled. 

It is not a myth, and doesn't take too much reasoning; if I cut down 100 billion trees, and turn them all into paper, that entire process will cost a lot of energy which will by far come from non renewable sources. Then once you have decided you didn't need the vast quantities of paper after all, if then has to use more energy to be carted away, recycled (or put in landfills). Then there is transporting the paper around (lorry? boat?). I am absolutely not an 'environment' type of guy, I don't join groups to save the planet, or lead a detrimental life in order to save the world, however I do try to take the 'green' option if it is of no real detriment to me.

 

[Asiyura]

Certainly never does any harm to have a paper print out of any important stuff (presentations, tickets, etc.) with you on a business trip (I say no harm, it doesn't help the environment,.

Can we stop the myth that paper destroys the environment? The paper industry does not destroy trees, they are not cutting the resources they have access to and destroying their own future. They plant tons of trees to ensure they resupply their stocks. It's a renewable resource, and on top of that a LOT of the paper you buy is recycled. 

It is not a myth, and doesn't take too much reasoning; if I cut down 100 billion trees, and turn them all into paper, that entire process will cost a lot of energy which will by far come from non renewable sources. Then once you have decided you didn't need the vast quantities of paper after all, if then has to use more energy to be carted away, recycled (or put in landfills). Then there is transporting the paper around (lorry? boat?). I am absolutely not an 'environment' type of guy, I don't join groups to save the planet, or lead a detrimental life in order to save the world, however I do try to take the 'green' option if it is of no real detriment to me.

And making computers parts, making computer from the parts, making batteries, shipping all those from asia, making the electricity needed to charge the batteries and powering your computer (and the whole internet infrastructure if you use some internet) is far greener?

Oh, and let's not forget all the paper and cardboard that will be needed to pack the computer (even more if you buy separate computer parts) when it'll be shipped to you

 

[b_o_b]

I have done a course where carbon footprint of packaging materials was one of the subjects. The numbers provided deviate enormously depending on who you ask. Paper industry will tell you their product has the lowest carbon/ecological footprint and shows you why with a lot of statistics and another industry will show you the complete opposite based on their "unbiased research". Sometimes their conclusions were based on the same study. The teacher had some great examples.

Nice article:

http://re-nourish.com/?l=articles_detail&id=125

I like the last sentence " To accurately determine what is greener would involve complex calculations of all the impacts of a system of integrated lifecyles. In the end, redesigning our energy portfolio, our transportation methods, and how our materials and technology are made and recycled/disposed are necessary to make both print and digital greener." 

 

[ekianjo]

I have done a course where carbon footprint of packaging materials was one of the subjects. The numbers provided deviate enormously depending on who you ask. Paper industry will tell you their product has the lowest carbon/ecological footprint and shows you why with a lot of statistics and another industry will show you the complete opposite based on their "unbiased research". Sometimes their conclusions were based on the same study. The teacher had some great examples.


Nice article:

http://re-nourish.com/?l=articles_detail&id=125


I like the last sentence " To accurately determine what is greener would involve complex calculations of all the impacts of a system of integrated lifecyles. In the end, redesigning our energy portfolio, our transportation methods, and how our materials and technology are made and recycled/disposed are necessary to make both print and digital greener." 

So sad since carbon footprint has most likely nothing to do with climate change, but thats another topic.


Anyway our energy needs are increasing and its closely related to our standards of living. Its not about how to reduce our energy footprint, its about how to produce more in a cheaper and cleaner way.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

And making computers parts, making computer from the parts, making batteries, shipping all those from asia, making the electricity needed to charge the batteries and powering your computer (and the whole internet infrastructure if you use some internet) is far greener?


Oh, and let's not forget all the paper and cardboard that will be needed to pack the computer (even more if you buy separate computer parts) when it'll be shipped to you

You seem to be coming from a very confused position; the question isn't "Is the entire production of the Pandora more or less green than a piece of paper with something printed on it", that would be a very odd question for anyone to pose. The actual statement was more: "If I have a Pandora with an electronic copy of a document on it, it helps the environment by not printing everything out just for the sake of it". It seems like a pretty basic concept to me. It isn't a myth, conspiracy or anything else, to be honest it is just common sense.

Its not about how to reduce our energy footprint, its about how to produce more in a cheaper and cleaner way.

A lot of people would say it is about both. Why leave on lights all the time if they aren't being used? Why leave all the office computers on all night when no one is in the office? Why have the air conditioning on, and the window open and the heating on? As I said before, I wouldn't want to determinant my life to be green, but in some cases it is just sensible, it is also the sign of what I'd describe as a 'good person' - wishing to preserve resources where possible, taking what you need, no wasting for the sake of it. These are certainly values which are commonly taught where I have grown up anyway.

 

[ekianjo]

Its not about how to reduce our energy footprint, its about how to produce more in a cheaper and cleaner way.

A lot of people would say it is about both. Why leave on lights all the time if they aren't being used? Why leave all the office computers on all night when no one is in the office? Why have the air conditioning on, and the window open and the heating on? 

Because it does not matter. I mean it can matter on an individual basis if you want to save a few dollars on your bill, but if you think that this helps the world being "greener" in any way you clearly misunderstand how energy is produced. 

In most developed countries most of your energy is of nuclear origin (and Germany pretends to be green by not having nuclear plants on their territory but buy electricity produced by its neighbors with nuclear plants!), and you don't stop a nuclear reactor at night. A nuclear reactor runs until its uranium pellets are depleted (enduring multiple series of fissions) and that can take a very long time depending on their quantity and concentration. Basically, nuclear plants almost never shut down and keep producing energy continuously. It does not matter if you stop your light at night or not - you will be charged more but you are not "saving" electricity. The electricity produced and not used is actually going to waste, so you shouldn't feel bad about using it. Overall there's always more electricity produced than what is actually used (and that's precisely why you don't have much power outages these days).

And by the way, I am in no way advocating waste - I myself tend to avoid wasting stuff when I can, but sometimes it just does not make sense if you think two seconds about it, especially in the case of energy.

And don't feel bad about uranium depletion, I think we have enough uranium for like the next 30 000 years, so it's nowhere near a "fossil resource" like the others. And by then we will have cleaner thorium reactors (already started in norther europe in small scale) and probably fusion of deuterium or tritium down the road (which is uber-abondant on Earth).  

 

[Rockthesmurf]

but if you think that this helps the world being "greener" in any way you clearly misunderstand how energy is produced

I don't know up to date information (or really any information at all, other than what I just used Google for), but in the UK, here is some data for Q3, 2012: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/increase-in-renewables-in-uk-energy-mix the scores on the doors:

Coal: 34.5%

Oil: 0.9%

Nuclear: 22.3%

Gas: 28.2%

Renewable: 11.7%

Other: 1.6%

So if your basis for assuming I have a misunderstanding on how energy is produced, is based on nuclear being the primary source of energy production, then the data above would suggest that you may not have quite as good as an understanding as you believe (that or the figures have changed drastically since the above).

But even if 'only' 10% of energy comes from depletable/bad for the environment sources, then it still would be bad to be using energy 'for the sake of it'?

EDIT: I am not overly happy about this thread being derailed; and don't really want to keep defending 'green' stuff when it isn't really a strong thing that I do. But at the same time I just wanted to defend the comments against my position which seem a little crazy to me, i.e. having readers believe they should print without thinking and use all the electricity they can whether they need it or not.

 

[ekianjo]

but if you think that this helps the world being "greener" in any way you clearly misunderstand how energy is produced

I don't know up to date information (or really any information at all, other than what I just used Google for), but in the UK, here is some data for Q3, 2012: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/increase-in-renewables-in-uk-energy-mix the scores on the doors:

Coal: 34.5%

Oil: 0.9%

Nuclear: 22.3%

Gas: 28.2%

Renewable: 11.7%

Other: 1.6%

I don't live in the UK so I was not aware of their energy mix... but it looks like the UK is pretty dirty in terms of energy production. Using so much coal, in the 21st century ? 

Gas is a reasonable choice, while nuclear is clearly better. Renewable is probably for PR purposes. Not sure what "other" mean.

I know that France uses 75% nuclear. Belgium, 60 %. Many countries in Europe use more than 33% of nuclear to produce energy, and I believe the trend is that they are converting more to it (but depends on the policies of each country). China is building more nuclear reactors like crazy because they need much more energy and if they used fossil fuels they wouldnt be able to afford it. 

ANyway, the source of energy does not matter. The production does not stop at night and there is always more energy produced than what is used. Therefore you don't "save" anything by not using it. 

 

[Asiyura]

I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but in Belgium, we were used to say that the power surplus is used to make wind turbine spin   

They can adjust the production in nuclear reactors. I don't know the precision, but they have control bars (absorbing neutrons that can slow down or even stop nuclear reaction) that they insert into the nuclear fuel. The problem is, AFAIK, it needs some time to slow down the reaction.

 

[elwing]

here we buy energy when it's in surplus/cheap to pump some water back into our accumulation barrage to store energy for when it's needed....

 

[ekianjo]

I don't know if it's an urban legend or not, but in Belgium, we were used to say that the power surplus is used to make wind turbine spin 

It's true. But it's not just for show. There is threshold effect for wind turbines, It takes a lot more energy to have a wind turbine start from zero (i.e. non rotating state) to rotating state, therefore they keep the wind turbines turning to save on that energy required to start rotation.

Of course, whether or not this makes sense overall, I do not know and it really depends whether there is enough wind often enough every day on average. But it could. 

 

[ekianjo]

They can adjust the production in nuclear reactors. I don't know the precision, but they have control bars (absorbing neutrons that can slow down or even stop nuclear reaction) that they insert into the nuclear fuel. The problem is, AFAIK, it needs some time to slow down the reaction.

Yes you can adjust the reaction with control rods to slow down the reaction with neutron absorbers. But even if you do that the energy output is huge (1 atom of uranium 238 releases 100 000 more energy than 1 atom of carbon burned) and basically you can not really stop the nuclear reaction completely at once, simply slow it down over time until shutdown. 

 

[Klumpen]

Again Fukush...  Japan is defending nuclear energy, even here in the OP-Forum.

Just plainly ignore the security problems and the nuclear waste problem and everything is fine.... -.-

I always wonder how well made the pro-nuclear propaganda there might be.

 

[Znirk]

In most developed countries most of your energy is of nuclear origin (and Germany pretends to be green by not having nuclear plants on their territory but buy electricity produced by its neighbors with nuclear plants!), and you don't stop a nuclear reactor at night. A nuclear reactor runs until its uranium pellets are depleted (enduring multiple series of fissions) and that can take a very long time depending on their quantity and concentration. Basically, nuclear plants almost never shut down and keep producing energy continuously.

But not all power is produced in thermal stations (nuclear, coal, oil) which take days to fire up and shut down: Gas turbines can be brought online for the anticipated load increases of the day. Hydro plants, both the river and the reservoir types, can respond to changing actual load within minutes; some even within seconds. Pumped-storage hydroelectric stations can (within limits, and with the obvious inefficiencies) store the night's overproduction for the following day's peaks.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

I don't live in the UK so I was not aware of their energy mix...

Based on this, it is probably best not to advise everyone of how to consume energy on a forum used internationally...

But seriously, lets all chill out a bit now, it seems reasonable to say there is *some* amount of waste from using resources we don't need. How much depends on lots of factors, including your countries energy policy. Even if you country is 100% nuclear, if all the citizens use 10X more power than they need (for no reason at all), it will increase how much the government/energy companies end up having to produce (so more power stations have to be built). Building 10X the number of power stations 'for the sake of it' is clearly not good, unless you have a stake in the power companies I guess (and as I live in Britain, I have a slight bitterness with power companies as most British people do).