• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle














  • In the U.S., buying is a mistake if you don’t think you’re going to stay for more than 5 years.

    Rather than selling the house, you can consider renting it out if you move. Depending on the terms of your mortgage, you may be only roughly breaking even when you first start renting it out, but after a couple years rent will likely increase so that you’re cash flow positive and you’re also building up equity in the house.

    If you’re single and childless, but anticipate maybe getting married and having children later, do you buy the place that works for a single person today, or do you buy the place that might work for raising kids 10 years in the future?

    If you’ve bought a small starter house 10 years ago then you have lots of options when you want to upgrade. Your starter house should have appreciated and a good chunk of your mortgage payments have gone to increasing your own equity.

    So you could sell the starter house and reinvest the profits into a larger house. If you do a 1031 exchange then you avoid paying capital gains taxes, so the starter house essentially functions as an appreciating savings account.

    Or you could do a cash out refinance and keep the starter house as a rental property and use the excess equity to invest in the new house.

    These are all good options to have. It’s going to be rare where you’re upset that you bought a starter house 10 years ago and are now looking to upgrade. That’s pretty much an ideal position to be in.



  • I mean, yeah, but isn’t it carbon neutral? The coffee comes from the earth, returns to the earth. And couldn’t coffee also be used for biogas?

    Yes you’re right, the overall process of a plant growing and then the plant dying and breaking down is carbon neutral. Sequestering the carbon would interrupt this process and make it carbon negative. This is generally speaking a Good Thing since so many other processes are carbon positive.

    There are currently many efforts around the world looking to ramp up biochar production and use in remediating agricultural soils. For example, in many places after harvest time, leftover wheat stalks are gathered up and burned to get rid of the waste. This creates a lot of smoke and air pollution. Some companies are instead picking up the waste, transforming them into biochar and then tilling it back into the soil. https://farmland.org/biochar/

    A Spent Coffee Ground project could be analogous to this.

    What further puzzles me is how they decided to use coffee. Surely there are many other waste products that have the required structure. Is coffee the first thing they tried?

    Could probably also use other sources of biochar. Since you’re replacing sand, it may be an advantage that the coffee grounds are already ground up very finely. I’d imagine something like wheat stalks or corn cobs might be too large to replace sand and require further processing.




  • This article is not clear. I’m not sure if this issue is directly related to the planned waste water release since that hasn’t happened yet. Here’s a few scenarios off the top of my head:

    1. Ground & rainwater continue to seep into the power plant and become contaminated. Maybe some of this water is not collected and instead flows out into the breakwater, continuously carrying additional contamination with it. In this case the release or non-release of the separately stored & treated water is not related to this issue.

    2. The stored water is leaking out and contaminating the breakwater area. In this case the contamination could indicate that releasing this water is a bad idea because it will release more Cs contamination. Or maybe not, because I don’t think the currently stored water has been treated yet for release. The treatment plans for the stored water includes filtering out Cs.

    3. The contamination in the breakwater is leftover from the initial disaster a decade ago and not new. Cs-137 has a half life of ~30 years, so most of it would still be around and it’s known that a lot of this stuff got into the seabed sediment in the area. In this case it again would not be an indication about anything related to the planned water release.

    4. Some other scenario.

    Unfortunately there’s just not enough information in this article to say for certain what the origin of the Cs contamination is and what consequences that holds.