Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Geophysicists are using the sound from whale's songs to map the upper layers of the sea floor.



Using whale songs to image beneath the ocean’s floor

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Geophysicists are using the sound from whale's songs to map the upper layers of the sea floor.
Using whale songs to image beneath the ocean’s floor

The paper, on which this interesting article reports:
“Seismic crustal imaging using fin whale songs” ~ by Václav M. Kuna & John L. Nábělek
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/731


On a related subject:

"Ocean uproar: saving marine life from a barrage of noise"
Ship engines, underwater blasts, sonar and oil drilling are filling the seas with sound. Researchers are now trying to pin down the damage humanity’s growing acoustic footprint has on ocean life.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01098-6

[GordMay]

Building an energy hub on an artificial island

Denmark is the largest oil producer in the European Union, but the country plans to phase out fossil fuel extraction by 2050. As part of its transition strategy, the Danish Energy Agency is building an artificial island in the North Sea to gather and distribute green energy from hundreds of offshore wind turbines to countries in Europe. The energy hub, billed as the first of its kind in the world, will be 80 kilometres offshore and cover at least 12 hectares -- the size of nearly 15 Canadian football fields. In the first phase, about 200 wind turbines will generate five gigawatts of energy, or enough to power three million homes. Later, the plan is to expand that to 12 gigawatts, or enough to power 10 million homes. The Danish Energy Agency announced an agreement earlier this month to build the hub as a public-private partnership, although the island itself will be majority-owned by the government. It is scheduled for completion by 2030.
More ➥ https://en-press.ens.dk/news/denmark...rth-sea-420532

FACT SHEET ABOUT ENERGY HUBS ➥ https://en.kefm.dk/Media/0/F/Engelsk...gi%C3%B8er.pdf

About Energy Islands ➥ https://ens.dk/en/our-responsibiliti...energy-islands

- A broad coalition of Danish parties have decided to establish two energy hubs and associated offshore windfarms. One as an artificial island in the North Sea and one at the Danish island Bornholm.
- An energy hub serves as a hub that collects electricity from the surrounding offshore windfarms and distributes the electricity between countries connected via the electricity grid.
- Furthermore, the abundance of offshore wind energy can be used to produce climate-friendly fuels for shipping, aviation, heavy industries or heavy-duty vehicles.
- The two hubs initial capacity will be 5 GW triple the current installed offshore capacity in Denmark. Later they will be expanded to provide a capacity of 12 GW in total.
- In the North Sea, the island and offshore windfarms will be located at least 80 km west of the coast of Jutland. Around 200 wind turbines are expected in the first phase of the project.
- Last year Denmark reached a deal on the future of fossil extraction in the North Sea, leading to the cancellation of the ongoing 8th licensing round and all future rounds to extract oil and gas.
- The deal also established a final phase-out date of fossil extraction by 2050 and laid out plans for a just transition of impacted workers.
- Denmark is currently the largest oil producer in the EU, and it is the biggest producer worldwide to establish a final phase-out date so far.

[newhaul]

All that green energy is a great idea but you still need fossil fueled power plants to be spun up and on standby to take the load and keep the lights on when the "green " ( make you feel all warm and fuzzy )
Power invariably fails to produce.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...ops+to+zero%29

The near term solution is imo SMR technology. Not more wind and or solar .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

All that green energy is a great idea but you still need fossil fueled power plants to be spun up and on standby to take the load and keep the lights on when the "green " ( make you feel all warm and fuzzy )
Power invariably fails to produce.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...ops+to+zero%29

The near term solution is imo SMR technology. Not more wind and or solar .

I think we've had this discussion before somewhere else. Why fossil fueled plants? For base load you've also got hydro and nuclear. There's no need to burn fossil fuels.


Germany's mistake was not in investing in wind power -- wind power is excellent. Its mistake was killing its nuclear generation capacity. Irrational and self-destructive political decision driven by irrational fear.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think we've had this discussion before somewhere else. Why fossil fueled plants? For base load you've also got hydro and nuclear. There's no need to burn fossil fuels.


Germany's mistake was not in investing in wind power -- wind power is excellent. Its mistake was killing its nuclear generation capacity. Irrational and self-destructive political decision driven by irrational fear.

The Germans do have wind as well but the extreme cold temps and lack of wind have made the generators net users of power just to keep them warm enough to function . ( it's in the article). I completely agree with you about the self defeating canceling of their nuclear power infrastructure.

Also read my last sentence again I stated the best "greener" option would be SMR technology.
But nuclear is not considered "GREEN POWER"
Remember here we actually get over half our power from hydro and nuclear . The rest is 95% natural gas fired only about 5% is from solar or wind.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...The near term solution is imo SMR technology. Not more wind and or solar .

SMRs are probably one part of the toolkit, for supplying cleaner energy; but they are also at least 10 years away (or more) from wide deployment.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are nuclear reactors, with about 300 MW equivalent, or less, which can power about 200,000 homes. That is the same as about 120 wind turbines, or 60 000 solar panels, except they operate at full capacity, 24/7.
Canada, the UK, China, and the US, have small modular reactors in development, over the next ten years.
Russia, Pakistan, India, and China are the only countries with operational SMRs.
Canada's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan has been in the works since 2018. Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Ontario, have all signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government, to explore SMR technologies.

Small Nuclear Power Reactors ➥ https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...in%20the%20USA.

Canada’s Small Modular Reactor Action Plan ➥ https://smractionplan.ca/
➥ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...ion-plan/21183

SMR Roadmap ➥ https://smrroadmap.ca/
The Roadmap identified three primary uses for SMR deployment in Canada:
1. on-grid power generation given the regulatory requirement to phase out coal electricity generation by 2030,
2. on-grid and off-grid heat and power for heavy industry; and
3. off-grid power, heating and water desalination in remote communities that currently rely on diesel fuel.

“The First-Ever U.S. Approval for Small Modular Reactor Design and Its Implications” ~ September, 2020
➥ https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-...xoCSLYQAvD_BwE

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

SMRs are probably one part of the toolkit, for supplying cleaner energy; but they are also at least 10 years away (or more) from wide deployment.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are nuclear reactors, with about 300 MW equivalent, or less, which can power about 200,000 homes. That is the same as about 120 wind turbines, or 60 000 solar panels, except they operate at full capacity, 24/7.
Canada, the UK, China, and the US, have small modular reactors in development, over the next ten years.
Russia, Pakistan, India, and China are the only countries with operational SMRs.
Canada's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan has been in the works since 2018. Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Ontario, have all signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government, to explore SMR technologies.

Small Nuclear Power Reactors ➥ https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...in%20the%20USA.

Canada’s Small Modular Reactor Action Plan ➥ https://smractionplan.ca/
➥ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...ion-plan/21183

SMR Roadmap ➥ https://smrroadmap.ca/
The Roadmap identified three primary uses for SMR deployment in Canada:
1. on-grid power generation given the regulatory requirement to phase out coal electricity generation by 2030,
2. on-grid and off-grid heat and power for heavy industry; and
3. off-grid power, heating and water desalination in remote communities that currently rely on diesel fuel.

“The First-Ever U.S. Approval for Small Modular Reactor Design and Its Implications” ~ September, 2020
➥ https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-...xoCSLYQAvD_BwE

Actually several sorts have already been deployed by the Russians.
There are several designs that are ready for deployment now the only reason for them not being deployed now is thanks to California former governor Jerry brown and his friends at the Sierra club . ( https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...n-clean-energy


https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=3c90d638e0d4

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually several sorts have already been deployed by the Russians.
There are several designs that are ready for deployment now the only reason for them not being deployed now is thanks to California former governor Jerry brown and his friends at the Sierra club . ( https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...n-clean-energy

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=3c90d638e0d4

Large 3rd generation nuclear plants like the new EPR plant under construction in Finland have orders of magnitude greater safety than the already extremely safe 2d generation plants, and permanent nuclear waste disposal has also been perfected in Sweden and Finland and is nearing operational status. Nuclear power is coming of age. The remaining issue with these plants is the extreme complexity of their construction, which makes them expensive and very time consuming to build, which partially offsets their extremely economical operational costs, but also makes it hard to make investment decisions, considering the large amount of capital which needs to be deployed for long and risky development periods. High capital cost and low operating cost makes great economical sense in low interest rate environments, but are horrible during inflationary and high interest rate times, so you also have to consider that. That's actually the main reason (not so much regulatory problems) that nuclear power stopped being developed for a while in the 70's and 80's. But even with all that, this is really good technology which is desperately needed if we are to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

SMRs are actually a revolutionary technology which will solve that last problem by being mass produced in modular form, greatly simplifying the engineering and construction on site. I think SMRs will be THE technology which kills off fossil fuels forever. NOT wind, although wind is also a superb technology which is already cheaper than any other power source, and which goes well with technologies like hydrogen which don't need constant output. Also when a large quantity of wind is built out over a diverse geography, the fluctuations in production are reduced. But for the reasons Newhaul mentioned, wind alone cannot replace fossil fuels. You need base load generation of one kind or another, and nuclear is ideal for that.

[GordMay]

Since the Industrial Revolution, shipping vessels alone have cranked the low-frequency volume along shipping routes by an estimated 32 times. That’s along with harsh tones from sonar, seismic surveys, pile driving, and even motorboats (all of which can be heard in the video below[3]), which can strand whales and trap narwhals in ice by delaying their migration, according to a review published in “Science”.[1]
The paper notes that climate change also threatens the soundtrack of the sea. The Great Barrier Reef has quieted over the years, as it has shrunk in size, and become less habitable. Animals that rely on the sounds of coral reefs to locate food and breeding settlements may struggle to adapt.
The authors argue that tamping down the humanmade audio in the ocean should be a core component of environmental policy. And they say it can be done:

A study conducted at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, found that a reduction in shipping traffic coincided with an average decrease of 1.5 decibels in waters along shipping routes near the Port of Vancouver.[2]

[1] “The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean” ~ by Carlos M. Duarte et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../6529/eaba4658

[2] “Quieter seas: Measuring noise reduction in the ocean during this pandemic”
➥ https://www.dal.ca/news/2020/05/11/q...ring-this.html

[3] Watch, and hear, the impact human noises have on marine life
➥ https://youtu.be/E96nGbzKL2Y

[GordMay]

Climate Change Performance Index
The 2021 Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) ranks 58 countries, on their progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, renewable energies, and climate policy.
While a turning point in global emissions seems to be within reach, five years after the Paris Agreement, no country is on a path compliant with the Paris Agreement goals.
Overall, greenhouse gas emissions have increased slightly, but are actually falling in more than half of the countries (32) surveyed. In two-thirds of the countries (38) more than ten percent of the total primary energy required now comes from renewable sources and in twelve of these countries renewables account even for more than 20 percent.
The United Kingdom (5th), India (10th) and the EU score high on the index.
The vast majority of G20 countries, however, are trailing in the rankings. The USA (61st, last), Saudi Arabia (60th), Canada (58th), Australia (54th), South Korea (53rd) and Russia (52nd) are all rated "very low".
“CCPI” ➥ https://ccpi.org/

About ➥ https://germanwatch.org/en/19686

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In two-thirds of the countries (38) more than ten percent of the total primary energy required now comes from renewable sources and in twelve of these countries renewables account even for more than 20 percent.

What a massive pile of manure. About 70% of Canada's energy comes from renewable sources, yet it's 3rd from the bottom of the list. What a joke.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

What a massive pile of manure. About 70% of Canada's energy comes from renewable sources, yet it's 3rd from the bottom of the list. What a joke.

Approximately 67% of Canada's ELECTRICITY comes from hydro (60%) and other renewables, but transportation and heating nearly all run on fossil-fuel, and we export rather a lot of fossil fuel. Hence the poor showing re carbon emissions.

[Fbfisher]

Really? Not according to Canada. “Canada is a world leader in the production and use of energy from renewable resources. Renewable energy sources currently provide about 18.9 per cent of Canada’s total primary energy supply.”

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-...nergy/7295#key

I’m no expert and I’m not looking for an argument, was just curious about your statement and decided to Google it and see what I found. I shared my source, what’s yours?

[newhaul]

The worst part about all the MMGWC stuff is with biden in the white house all of the bs studies and reports will flow freely without proper CRAAP testing.
This is a real joke . The US is the only major country that is actually reducing co2 emissions and we are not even part of the scamming paris treaty .