BY JOSE PALU-AY DACUDAO
SO WHAT’S your take? Is the continuing production of CO2 by human activities bad or good? Mass media and western controlled institutions would have us believe that it is bad. Period. But as one can see from the above, an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is actually good for plants. That CO2 is good for plants has been known for more than a hundred years. They grow faster and stronger. That’s why greenhouse owners pump commercially produced CO2 into their greenhouses.
What would be bad is an extreme rise in CO2, if it results in the melting of the South Pole ice cap and the Antarctic glaciers, as that would cause the sea level to rise to the point of drowning coastal areas. As in most things, extremes usually prove bad. Moderation is OK.
So do we actively try to stop more CO2 production?
1. This is NOT usually found in the mass media. There are studies that show that plant intake of atmospheric CO2 has increased to the extent that the rise of CO2 is not occurring at the projected high rates. In other words, plants are growing thicker and in more places that they previously did not grow in, which has resulted in a negative feedback effect on CO2 rise. In other words, as the CO2 rises, the rate of its uptake by plants has also increased. If this rate of plant uptake increases drastically, it may not even be needed to limit man-made CO2 production. The Earth’s flora will eat the excess up. The plants will be happy. So will us that eat plants.
2. Let’s play it safe and limit CO2 man-made production.
Limit CO2 man-made production.
The obvious thing to do is decrease the combustion of fossil fuels. That sounds logical and great. Except that we do need energy.
The obvious solution is alternative forms of energy.
In this matter energy density comes to factor. More energy in less space. Nuclear is the most energy dense.
1. The most energy dense resource we have if nuclear fuel. As of now, nuclear plants fission Uranium 235. The disadvantage? We can talk about it in a later article. It must be noted though that 3rd generation plus nuclear plants have proven to be quite safe so far. The world leader on making them is Russia. The Russians have built at least four types, one of which is a small floating model which they use in the Arctic coast to power an isolated town above the Arctic circle. And which can conceivably be towed to power cities and towns with coastal areas in archipelagos like the Philippines.
2. Thorium nuclear plants are is still undeveloped commercially. But if they were, theoretically Thorium can provide all of humanity’s energy needs for thousands of years, even at the present rate of energy consumption. Thorium is one of the most abundant of elements on the Earth’s crust, nearly as abundant a Lead. The world leaders in researching Thorium are China and India. They already have built experimental Thorium reactors.
We can talk about nuclear in future articles. (To be continued)/PN
