07 Dec 07
Indonesia
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0326-indonesia.html
Western society is asking for biofuels in the form of palm oil, and is encouraging massive deforestation and de-peat-bogging. CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source.
Forgetting the global warming debate, treat this as hypothetical. What's the best way to reduce the demand for this particular biofuel?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyBirth control.
Indonesia
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0326-indonesia.html
Western society is asking for biofuels in the form of palm oil, and is encouraging massive deforestation and de-peat-bogging. CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source.
Forgetting the global warming debate, treat this as hypothetical. What's the best way to reduce the demand for this particular biofuel?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyAn initially high cost metal hydride fuel cell system. Current technologies in Hydrogen production use bio-chambers, whereby algae consume CO2 to create the energy needed to seperate water into its components, thus fueling cars, removing the necessity for terribly inefficient biofuel crops (which are a poor solution IMO) and being clean and safe. After the initial investment, it provides safe secure energy, free from political and economic effects meaning stable prices, as all you need is a big plastic tube, some algae and seawater, you can even use sewerage, you could even have your own at home running off the greywater from your home.
Indonesia
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0326-indonesia.html
Western society is asking for biofuels in the form of palm oil, and is encouraging massive deforestation and de-peat-bogging. CO2 is CO2, no matter what the source.
Forgetting the global warming debate, treat this as hypothetical. What's the best way to reduce the demand for this particular biofuel?
Like I said, very expensive initially, but well worth it long run for a host of reasons.
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonThe problem is the initial cost. Energy from organisms like algae or photosynthetic bacteria is ideal, but very difficult to implement.
An initially high cost metal hydride fuel cell system. Current technologies in Hydrogen production use bio-chambers, whereby algae consume CO2 to create the energy needed to seperate water into its components, thus fueling cars, removing the necessity for terribly inefficient biofuel crops (which are a poor solution IMO) and being clean and safe. After the i ...[text shortened]... home.
Like I said, very expensive initially, but well worth it long run for a host of reasons.
How do we persuade the capitalists of the world that it's worthwhile?
07 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe cost of the bioconverters isn't actually that high, it's just perspex and a teaspoon of algae, they multiply themselves. Storage, distribution and a currently insufficient market are the reasons for lethargy on the part of industry, but there are buzzings of movement in the next few decades as demand increases. A prototype bioconverter is being upscaled to industrial spec aas we type.
The problem is the initial cost. Energy from organisms like algae or photosynthetic bacteria is ideal, but very difficult to implement.
How do we persuade the capitalists of the world that it's worthwhile?
The one funny thing is that anti-GMO hippies are causing the industry much more grief than anything else. The only way to produce the Hydrogen in sufficient quantities is to use GM algae specifically designed for the task. (given that algal spores can survive for literally millions of years without water or sunlight and in a variety of conditions that would kill anything else, they can even survive the vacuum of space and radiation that would kill a geigercoutner, the hippies feel it's a step too far)
Give the technology 15 years and we'll see it begin to roll out. Given that it'll be virtually free, it'll catch on pretty quick...
"President Bush has already allocated approximately $2 billion in hydrogen highway research. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing to get 200 hydrogen filling stations built by 2010 stretching from Vancouver, British Columbia, all the way down to Baja, California. Since Californians buy one-fifth of the nation's cars, the new hydrogen car technology could simply replace the current gasoline engine automobiles in what is called "disruptive technology" where something so innovative comes along it simply replaces the old technology very quickly."
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThis may seem radical, but how about: Make presentation showing its prospects worthwhile?
The problem is the initial cost. Energy from organisms like algae or photosynthetic bacteria is ideal, but very difficult to implement.
How do we persuade the capitalists of the world that it's worthwhile?
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonI thought the hippies for the most part are only concerned when it's food that's being tampered with. If not, then it is getting to the point where an organism's genetic code is god-given and sacred. The risks that some GM crops carry (mostly leaking genes into the environment) simply don't exist in this situation. Same with manufacturing many organic solvents.
The cost of the bioconverters isn't actually that high, it's just perspex and a teaspoon of algae, they multiply themselves. Storage, distribution and a currently insufficient market are the reasons for lethargy on the part of industry, but there are buzzings of movement in the next few decades as demand increases. A prototype bioconverter is being upscaled ...[text shortened]... simply replaces the old technology very quickly."
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe problem is biodiversity. With crops, GM soya can infect other natural soya, thus losing the natural soya diversity due to the better performance of GM crops. The problem is excarcebated when using bacteria and algae (moreso with bacteria) that the genetic material is not just in competition, but also that through recombination where bacteria swap genetic material through plasmids and stuff. Bacteria evolve at a much faster rate than multicellular organisms and as they're the base for pretty much every food chain there is an understandable fear that it could contaminate the biosphere.
I thought the hippies for the most part are only concerned when it's food that's being tampered with. If not, then it is getting to the point where an organism's genetic code is god-given and sacred. The risks that some GM crops carry (mostly leaking genes into the environment) simply don't exist in this situation. Same with manufacturing many organic solvents.
My personal opinion is that evolution takes care of these things itself, but there's room for argument. The costs vs. the benefits though... that suggests go with it IMO.
08 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonIn this case that shouldn't be a problem at all, as the algae are being very, very energetically wasteful in their production of hydrogen and will easily be out-competed by natural fauna and flora. Most of the genes introduced will be involved in screwing up the photosynthetic pathways.
The problem is biodiversity. With crops, GM soya can infect other natural soya, thus losing the natural soya diversity due to the better performance of GM crops. The problem is excarcebated when using bacteria and algae (moreso with bacteria) that the genetic material is not just in competition, but also that through recombination where bacteria swap genetic there's room for argument. The costs vs. the benefits though... that suggests go with it IMO.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyTrue, but in the time it takes them to go extinct, they've already swapped genes, muddying the biosphere. Also, they won't really die, but will more likely go to spore, get spread around, and in their wasteful process, consume endlessly the resources required by natural algae and mess up a few food chains. That's the fear anyway, though I'm confident that evolution has met such challenges before and dealt with them.
In this case that shouldn't be a problem at all, as the algae are being very, very energetically wasteful in their production of hydrogen and will easily be out-competed by natural fauna and flora. Most of the genes introduced will be involved in screwing up the photosynthetic pathways.
I'm well for GMO's, but I can see where some may have a problem.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonThe problem is Monsanto.
True, but in the time it takes them to go extinct, they've already swapped genes, muddying the biosphere. Also, they won't really die, but will more likely go to spore, get spread around, and in their wasteful process, consume endlessly the resources required by natural algae and mess up a few food chains. That's the fear anyway, though I'm confident that ev ...[text shortened]... re and dealt with them.
I'm well for GMO's, but I can see where some may have a problem.
But that's surely clear to everyone.