Re: [Amc-list] My Two Cents on Hydrogen etc

[Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>]

adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker) said:


>" 3. Ethanol and Bio-Diesel may be low emission fuels, but they are not
>" zero emission fuels.  Both create CO2, the so called greenhouse gas,
>" and contribute to global warming.


Only if you believe the hype.


>yes, but they come from plants that absorb co2, making them
>net-zero-sum.


I'm not sure sequestering carbon is all it's baked up to be.

Hmmm.... No pun intended.

Atmospheric carbon levels (except since ~ 1700's) have fallen to such a low level that plant suffocation may not be far off the radar.  During the history of life on earth, atmospheric CO2 has been in concentrations between 500-4000 ppm; whereas now it's down to around ~300 ppm; and the long-term trend is still towards decline.  At ~250 ppm, some plants start dying off; and every shedding of a few thousand more ppm's means more varieties will go extinct.  Any that go extinct will take the fauna that have adapted to live alongside them down too.  Higher temperatures & higher carbon levels have equated throughout the earth's entire history with more explosive life-creation and expansion.

The lower temps and CO2 levels we have now mean intermittent ice ages, which kill everything; and a much slower pace of life arising and finding niches to exploit.  Think of how much life you will find in an acre of rain forest vs how much you will find in Siberia.

Heck, everyone reading this is a carbon-based entity.

Perhaps nature gave us brains so that we *would* release more carbon into the atmosphere and keep the world livable for a few more years.


>" And then there's the whole debate about food vs fuel.  Is it better to
>" use corn/soy crops for ethanol/diesel or to feed people?
>
>burning food as fuel is definitely stupid.  they looked around for
>something to run engines from and found alcohol brewed from
>sugar/starch, and not pausing to consider food competition never mind
>efficiency stopped looking.  this has made adm very happy...


I'm sure plenty of people are happy; not least among them the politicos who get votes for pushing environmentalists' latest hotfixes that don't work.

I have an enviro friend who advocated ethanol twenty years ago.  Now that it's here, he complains about it.


>cellulosic is much better on both counts; you can use any plant, and
>nearly all of it instead of just the small fraction that is starch or
>sugar.  there's nothing comparable for biodlesel yet, but plants that
>produce inedible oils are just starting to be investigated.


Actually I'm not sure aither statement can hold up any more.  The real solution for growing our way past "fanatic oil" is probably with algae production.  Experimental algae farms are now wringing 60-70 times more useful plant mass than any other type of crop known.  It can be inferred that algae grown in CO2-enriched air can yield oil that can be converted into biodiesel (and one plant is doing this now on a small scale).  In addition, the system does not require fertile land or potable water.

See: http://www.oakhavenpc.org/cultivating_algae.htm

I think it likely that in 15-20 years, our economy will run on biodiesel.  Better get that 232 ready!

-- Marc




_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list