" From: Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx> " " " adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker) said: " " [] " " 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. this is the first i've heard of this argument; it has piqued my curiosity. what's the source of data for [pre]historic co2 levels? " >" 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. happiness, i would venture to say, that has everything to do with self interest and nothing to do with national energy/economic policy. " I have an enviro friend who advocated ethanol twenty years ago. Now " that it's here, he complains about it. he's finally seeing a downside that wasn't apparent when ethanol was just a potential niche fuel. a similar now-hidden downside with biodiesel is what to do with the massive glycerine byproduct amounts. uses will be found for it; uses -must- be found for 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 forgot about algae! and if rising co2 is a problem, algae farms could be colocated with smokestacks so that co2-rich emisisons could be routed directly into the growth water. " I think it likely that in 15-20 years, our economy will run on " biodiesel. Better get that 232 ready! this sounds to me like certainly the most sensible future, but politicians and power interests don't always do what's sensible for society at large. ________________________________________________________________________ Andrew Hay the genius nature internet rambler is to see what all have seen adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and think what none thought _______________________________________________ Amc-list mailing list Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list