• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Yes. Who'd've thought all the previously acquired data on the risks of fracking would have been correct?
 
I dont think earthquakes on their own are a reason to stop fracking. You're pumping high pressure water and chemicals into the ground to release gas - it would be surprising if they didnt cause tremors. And by all accounts these arent even noticeable at the surface as they are so tiny. So in the short term hacking harms no-one.

But....

Its still a relentless search for fossil fuels. A desperate attempt to retain our supply of a dangerous drug. Any investment should be in long term sustainable solutions. Not short term fixes.
 
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE ANYTHING IN THIS FUCKING WORLD THAT ISNT COMPLETELY FUCKING FUCKED?
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844

Cement is the most widely used man-made material in existence. It is second only to water as the most-consumed resource on the planet.

But, while cement - the key ingredient in concrete - has shaped much of our built environment, it also has a massive carbon footprint.

Cement is the source of about 8% of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to think tank Chatham House.

If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world - behind China and the US. It contributes more CO2 than aviation fuel (2.5%) and is not far behind the global agriculture business (12%).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Didn't know that about cement. Someone pass the lego.
 
It's not exactly news though is it? Everyone has known that concrete has a massive carbon footprint for years.
 
Cement does. Concrete considerably less so. Turning cement into concrete isn't that carbon expensive. It's not like you have to fire it to set the stuff.

The main footprint for our part of it would be running compressors to power the spray guns and then all those HGVs transporting the ingredients to us, and the completed product out.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Cement does. Concrete considerably less so. Turning cement into concrete isn't that carbon expensive. It's not like you have to fire it to set the stuff.

The main footprint for our part of it would be running compressors to power the spray guns and then all those HGVs transporting the ingredients to us, and the completed product out.
Click to expand...

You can't make concrete without cement though, so you can't really talk about the impact of concrete without including the cement making process.

It'd be like the meat industry trying to distance itself form the carbon footprint of farming.
 
Oh yeah - absolutely agreed. Concrete without cement would be somewhat pants at the intended applications, unless you wanted to enter a sandcastle competition.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
Cement does. Concrete considerably less so. Turning cement into concrete isn't that carbon expensive. It's not like you have to fire it to set the stuff.

The main footprint for our part of it would be running compressors to power the spray guns and then all those HGVs transporting the ingredients to us, and the completed product out.
Click to expand...
Although you need aggregate to add to the cement to produce concete. The production of aggregate is hardly carbon efficient either.
 
leedswolf said:
Although you need aggregate to add to the cement to produce concete. The production of aggregate is hardly carbon efficient either.
Click to expand...

Depends what sort of aggregate you use. Most GRC just uses coarse Bathgate sand which is fairly painless. If you are adding the much bigger grained stones like they do in other applications, then yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top