SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I thought this was interesting as you get a lot theories on what happens on sea floor around the outfall location in Victoria.
CRD Outfall - Diving Video
- Thread starter SpringVelocity
- Start date
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Disgusting and shameful. What many people don't realize is the massive particulate load in the sewage that comes from toilet paper. This needs to be filtered out of the sewage and put back on to the land where tree/paper fiber belongs NOT in the ocean blanketing the ocean floor and smothering sea life down there! We need to build the sewage treatment now to avoid further damage to the marine environment NOW!
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
I've done a fair amount of diving around the island and the scene described can be found in other areas without sewage out fall. The siltation he shows on the kelp in one spot of the vid does seem to be allot but accumulation of silt of this type of kelp is not uncommon from what I have seen. Not sure I agree with all this fellas observations. For example the color of green water is normal in a lot of places but particularly at 50 feet in those conditions there is not much color left in the light. The short clip at the end of the video is near the surface and in better visibility thus there is a lot more color(and life) available in the spectrum at that area near the surface. Never the less I feel release of residual hormones and medications into the marine environment would be the greatest concern.
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
In an environmentally sustainable and responsible spot based upon reliable, unbiased scientific data of course - where else?
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
If the ministry of environment is involved you wont get what you just mentioned. Speaking from direct experience.
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
burn it to make power like alot of countries that have their sh*t together when it comes to different forms of waste do.... anythings better than just dumping it in the ocean.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...228/newest-energy-source-albany-sewage-sludge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/26/thames-water-sewage-flakes-electricity
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/05/top-6-ways-convert-poop-electricity
lots of info on poo power if you google it.
probably a lot more interesting and informative links than the random ones I've posted
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...228/newest-energy-source-albany-sewage-sludge
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/26/thames-water-sewage-flakes-electricity
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/05/top-6-ways-convert-poop-electricity
lots of info on poo power if you google it.
probably a lot more interesting and informative links than the random ones I've posted
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
T
The obvious easy answer. Where does this spot exist that won't end up with its own thread here, a social media campaign and slanted mainstream media articles against it? Victoria can't even get its **** together on where to put its **** or any waste! It's all no, no, no like every other project other than building more Starbucks in this country.
The obvious easy answer. Where does this spot exist that won't end up with its own thread here, a social media campaign and slanted mainstream media articles against it? Victoria can't even get its **** together on where to put its **** or any waste! It's all no, no, no like every other project other than building more Starbucks in this country.
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a lot of CO2 is gonna come out of there if there's gonna be enough generated to make it financially viable. You guys are funny some localized sedimentation and you're proposing a new waste disposal/storage facility and release of more CO2, completely contrary to many currently active threads.
GLG
Well-Known Member
There is a market for such a product. Mater of fact we can't make it fast enough and it gets sold out when every there is a sale.
http://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/EN/main/community/environmental/skyrocket-compost.html
bigdogeh
Well-Known Member
still better than sending raw sewage into the sea in my opinion and getting no value for it. and ruining the environment at the same time. there are probably better technologies out there and they are getting better all the time.
here's some reading for you triplenickle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration
I've copied and pasted the section that talks about CO2 emmissions below. still less emmissions generated through incineration, cogeneration (greater than 30% less) than just burying it. and if a country is utilizing the energy from it rather than burning coal as some countries do then i would imagine it's still a step in the right direction.
maybe we should be treating sewage and other biological waste as a renewable resource.
reduce, reuse, recycle, energy recovery and then disposal. some companies then use the ash and solids left over and mix it with lime and concrete. so the final product is still being recycled.
sounds like you may be OK with pumping raw sewage into the ocean... but then you don't live there....
"As for other complete combustion processes, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so incineration of 1 ton of MSW produces approximately 1 ton of CO2.
If the waste was landfilled, 1 ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic metres (2,200 cu ft) methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. Since the global warming potential of methane is 34 and the weight of 62 cubic meters of methane at 25 degrees Celsius is 40.7 kg, this is equivalent to 1.38 ton of CO2, which is more than the 1 ton of CO2 which would have been produced by incineration. In some countries, large amounts of landfill gas are collected. Still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere is significant. In the US it was estimated that the global warming potential of the emitted landfill gas in 1999 was approximately 32% higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted by incineration.[23] Since this study, the global warming potential estimate for methane has been increased from 21 to 35, which alone would increase this estimate to almost the triple GWP impact compared to incineration of the same waste.
In addition, nearly all biodegradable waste has biological origin. This material has been formed by plants using atmospheric CO2 typically within the last growing season. If these plants are regrown the CO2 emitted from their combustion will be taken out from the atmosphere once more.[citation needed]
Such considerations are the main reason why several countries administrate incineration of biodegradable waste as renewable energy.[24] The rest – mainly plastics and other oil and gas derived products – is generally treated as non-renewables.
Different results for the CO2 footprint of incineration can be reached with different assumptions. Local conditions (such as limited local district heating demand, no fossil fuel generated electricity to replace or high levels of aluminium in the waste stream) can decrease the CO2 benefits of incineration. The methodology and other assumptions may also influence the results significantly. For example, the methane emissions from landfills occurring at a later date may be neglected or given less weight, or biodegradable waste may not be considered CO2 neutral. A study by Eunomia Research and Consulting in 2008 on potential waste treatment technologies in London demonstrated that by applying several of these (according to the authors) unusual assumptions the average existing incineration plants performed poorly for CO2 balance compared to the theoretical potential of other emerging waste treatment technologies.[25]"
Last edited:
