BY JOSE PALU-AY DACUDAO
THE RELATIVELY large amount of sulfur in plants is the reason why fossil fuels also contain large amounts of sulfur.
Thus lots of SO2 production is also caused by the processing and burning of fossil fuels. When plants turned into fossil fuels, the sulfur remained behind with them.
Because of excess SO2 anthropogenic production, for more than a century, there has not been much need for sulfur fertilizers. Land plants, including our crops, were being fertilized by anthropogenic SO2 from the air. Ironically, with the cutting down of sulfur dioxide emissions in Europe, there has been indications that some crops plants may be in need of sulfur fertilizers.
Thus, the solution of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions may simply be to space the industries that produce it far apart, such that they do not produce a local overabundance of this gas, in order to avoid some of it getting transformed into sulfuric acid and acid rain.
Going back to anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the smelting of minerals for their metal content:
Human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the production of the elemental forms of these metals additionally come (most in fact) from the fossil fuels that are used as energy sources in the industrial processes of smelting their ores. Thus, using essentially carbon-neutral sources of energy would stop these net anthropogenic emissions.
In previous articles, we listed down the practical carbon-neutral energy sources, the use of which would cut down on anthropogenic CO2 emission (by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels). Practical and feasible ways for an archipelagic (islands) tropical country (rain everywhere) with lots of tectonic activity in the Pacific rim of fire (volcanoes, hot springs):
* Geothermal power plants.
* Hydroelectric power plants.
* Modular relatively cheap nuclear plants.
***
Important Note
As of the present only Russia has constructed tried and tested commercial modular relatively cheap floating nuclear plants. One of these powers an arctic town.
These nuclear reactors can theoretically be manufactured in Russia wholly, towed to anywhere in the Philippines, and emplaced in any of our numerous coastal areas.
Only one company, Rosatom, is involved in making, maintaining, providing nuclear fuel, removing nuclear wastes, providing nuclear technicians and nuclear technology. In all other nuclear reactors in the world, multiple companies are involved.
Thus, it is mighty convenient for an importing country to order and use these Russian reactors; you just have to deal with one company. However, with the present sanctions on Russia, the Philippines may have to seek an alternative. Unless we can separate economic projects from international politics.
The only other commercial functioning modular nuclear reactor is a land-based 4th generation “pebble bed reactor” in China. It is relatively untested, but has been functioning well.
In any case, our present relations with China would be a barrier to importing it. Unless we can separate economic projects from international politics.
We shall talk about nuclear reactors in future articles./PN
