A cleaner future!

[Zachstar]

It's that time of the year again. The time where people who still deny global warming while the rest of the world is trying to do something about it come out in droves. They claim how industry will be hard hit by mandates for reduced emissions while ignoring science and ignoring the stunning amount of breakthroughs that will make things cleaner for the young ones.

Now before I ramble on about some of these technologies let me say that I am not so deluded to think that Coal and Oil can be replaced by expensive solar and wind. My view on these is load reducers not eliminators. That job goes to fusion and its numerous developments for universities or the US NAVY outside of the political parties and feel good dollars of ITER.

We will continue to need existing mines and wells of coal and oil. Thankfully pressure has influenced these companies to spend more and more on science and development and less and less on useless campaigns to fight the idea of climate change.

However what these fools in my opinion do not understand is the versatility and the adaptiveness of the US economy. They do not need mandates to see that Oil can gain 50 dollars in a few weeks just from speculation. Or that a dirty image costs them sales. The mandates are for the people who still rather push politics than progress.

For the past decade atleast people have been searching for a viable way to reduce the amount of Co2 entering the atmosphere. The prime way to do so currently is expensive carbon capture tech that relies on chemical reactions to reduce carbon emission from coal and oil fired power plants. This equipment is extremely expensive and expensive to operate. What companies desperately need is a cheap and natural way to reduce carbon. The solution to that is algae...

If you have been watching my posts you will note how excited I am about algae recently. In nature there is nothing that grows as fast or absorbs as much carbon as algae. Some are much better than others and some can even "eat" crap plant material instead of needing carbon and sunlight. Right then and there you are solving the solution to fuels from non food crops and carbon capture.

Get this. A proper algae bioreactor can remove close to 80 percent of carbon from the system. 80 percent is far more than needed to SERIOUSLY reduce our contribution to global warming at a price much cheaper than existing systems. That my friend is not socialism that is capitalism. There is nothing hippie about it. The challenge is setting standards and figuring out what they want to do with the resulting Algae. Also the need to operate at night will require red and blue LED setups along the lanes.

This is where legislation will have to be clear about this. You can turn that Algae into diesel and jet fuel to run transportation or you can bury it to return the Co2 to the earth...

Even tho it means only carbon neutral I would have to say go for the transportation fuels. The need to get away from oil from nations that use it as a tool of unrest is extreme. If we don't achieve this we will be in a new war in the middle east every decade. You cant tell Boeing to make an airliner that runs on batteries. fuels that pack a high energy density and base part of their energy on atmospheric oxygen cant easilly be replaced. Cars can run on batteries because the engines take up a much larger ratio of weight than large trucks or airliners and the electric engines are much lighter. In airliners the engines are already in a decades long weight reduction program and electric motors that can give the same power would be of a similar weight neutralizing the advantages. Now a small 20 passenger craft could use electric motors to cruise at 40-50 thousand feet for cross country trips IF battery tech improves but that advantage is only due to the less drag that is encountered at such altitudes and thus ground speed and trip time is better. Jetliners already have this advantage and wont benefit from going to just 55 thousand.

Now all that mess is just to reduce imports of oil and and get a double dip for the same carbon use. A huge achievement in itself. But just because we reduce does not mean a developing nation is willing to do the same. We will actually have to grow massive amounts of algae in order to start recovering atmospheric CO2 at prices we can afford. Obviously in this case we would have to kill and bury the algae my guess would be to boil it to kill and reduce the water mix it with stuff to keep it from rotting and pour it into areas marked for no extraction. Abandoned mines come to mind as a cheap way to do this. Flood them with this crap and blow any exits That would close off any route for leaking Co2 to find its way back out. It will be somewhat expensive but we are talking about in the millions for an effort that can remove tons of CO2 by the day here not billions it would take with some proposals that involve turning CO2 into chalk. Or burying it in the ocean or in the ground as a gas (Which is insane BTW because scientists have proven that the ocean is about saturated and the ground will never hold Co2 properly) And the jobs it would create per million spent are far more.

Algae therefore solves the transportation fuel crisis and the Global warming crisis. Cost overall? Low billions with much if it being brunt internationally and by industry in my opinion. And the jobs it will create are serious and meant to produce an end result rather than jobs from stimulus bills that are often without use.

So that is the tech in dev that solves two MAJOR issues that are costing the economy insane amounts of funds. But what is another that we worry about? Trash itself!

And yes I mean just about anything that has little value in its existing location so is disposed of or ignored. I am talking about everything from food scraps to shredded paper to medical waste to even high sulfur coal.

Out of sight out of mind does not work.. When you get a chance find out what your community or city is paying for landfill fees. If it can even find space as landfills are filling up fast. This is a SERIOUS issue not only for the local level but for the planet as these landfills leak enormous amounts of methane and other carbon based gases that are MUCH more potent greenhouse gasses. And if that is not bad enough. Some areas are forced to start burning large amounts of trash to compensate for space issues. open burning is not an efficient means of managing the carbon in the least bit. Coal when burned in a power plant gives off an extremely high ratio of energy to Co2 output. That means less coal has to be burned. (This is why electric cars output less CO2 per mile than traditional engines) When trash is burned its just burned to reduce pouring astounding amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.

Well when people starting saying they wanted the issue fixed. A little PR later and suddenly new tech appears to fix the issue economically.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...-megawatt.html

Plasma is extremely good at reducing trash. It does not belch polluted crap into the atmosphere it produces a gas that can be cooled and turned into fuels or burned to produce more energy than the facility uses (The military is already doing this) And the resulting stuff is harmless matter than can be used as road material. Capitalism folks.

By the time the garbage gets near the heat bed, it is vaporized - reduced to its basic elements. The gaseous elements consist of hydrogen and carbon monoxide which create a synthetic gas similar to natural gas. Residue that drops to the bottom of the island is turned into an inert glass-like substance that can be used for road beds, floor tiles or simply returned to the earth.

What is even more important? How about this

Third, what kind of processing can be done prior to intake? Recycling is better than gasification, right? The answer to this question is a resounding
"Yes!" Every item of value can be recovered from the waste stream before it is delivered to the gasification facility. This is simply the last stop in the garbage cycle. One great aspect of this technology is that there is no requirement to process the garbage after recycling. As long as the garbage can fit into the hopper, it can be utilized. This includes tires, small appliances, computers, sewage sludge - you name it!

Sewage.. Do you have any idea how bad this issue is? Waste treatment plants use millions of dollars worth of equipment to reduce what could be called algae fertilizers. If left untreated this stuff would cause an algae bloom from hell and kill insane amounts of wildlife and make the water unsafe to drink (Wild algae can produce toxins extremely dangerous in large amounts) Reducing even part of the sluge would save cities insane amounts of funds.

Computers.. I don't know if you have seen the 60 minutes report on E-waste but there are companies that try to avoid certain costs by shipping tons of dead computers and equipment to china. In lax regulatory (Regulation OH NOES SOCIALISM!!!) conditions towns spring up that revolve around recovering gold from circuit boards. They actually burn the nasty boards and use the local water supplies to get to the gold. The crap gets everywhere and into the local water supplies and has created one of the most polluted places on the face of the planet. The people are paid pennies by rich companies that use their influence in china to police and gov officials to try to keep media out. Things have gotten better but this could likely finally make it cheaper to ship it to these facilities to be reduced than to ship it to china. The US is not running out of gold. The price of gold is causing mines to work that much harder and for people to try to find small pockets of gold all over the place. FAR more than can be recovered from circuit boards.

Also this article mentions an interesting conversion system.

In another example, an electric generation plant in Massachusetts is being repurposed to use plasma gasification instead of combustion to produce electricity from coal. This results in a vast reduction of emissions and allows the plant to use local coal instead of having to bring low-sulphur coal all the way from South America. The plant operator intends to mix the coal with biomass, creating a renewable energy source.

Do I need to explain this? Able to burn local coal that gains jobs instead of paying to import coal a whole continent away? The ability to burn HIGH sulfur coal that we are plagued with?

-------------------------------------

Some politicians and certain types of people want you to believe that there is no money in a green economy. No jobs and no future. Meanwhile people with half a brain are fast forwarding into the future by developing this tech. Algae is going to become the next giant green business while plasma burning of trash is set to save cities inane amounts of money and improving local conditions. And that is just scratching the surface. I could go on for days about HUGE advancements in battery technology that will make electric cars cheaper to own and operate than traditional cars. Days about humanitarian green tech like water filtration tech that can turn NASTY polluted water in the poorest of nations into desperately needed pure water. The important thing is that these things are running now. Small scale so far but far better than a power point presentation at a party.

I can hardly believe when I hear people in my political party talk about how we are doomed to constant recessions and depressions and constant addition to middle eastern oil. It is almost as if there is a certain amount of people that think that if we go into some kind of deep depression that we will suddenly either accept living with nature or accept massive deregulation of business. None of that will happen. In a true economic collapse people will burn everything they can to stay warm. Hunt everything in sight. Fish everything dry.. With 6-7 billion people highly dependent on modern facilities and systems a sudden reversion to "the simple times" would cause environmental destruction not seen since the end of the dinosaurs.

However I do have hope for the future. Algae will keep planes flying and provide bio oil to make the plastic bags that the children will fill to make road material and energy not landfills. I don't believe in a model of tech stagnation just because of rapid population growth. The idea of reducing impact on the planet does not mean bankruptcies. It means the simple progression of capitalism into a model of sustainability.

This has been one of my longest opinion pieces I have ever posted. If you lasted through it good on you! I don't expect to change peoples opinions only to get them saying "Hey that looks interesting let me google that"

[SteamWake]

Wall of text...

I never realized that the global warming debate was seasonal.

Well it doesent matter what we the people think anyhow.

While everyone is busy with regional elections and healthcare bill congress has been busy.

So go ahead and 'debate' all you want.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A key U.S. Senate environment committee approved a Democratic climate change bill on Thursday that would require industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...5A42WB20091105

[Zachstar]

You know what is weird. I had no idea about that passing until a few mins before now. Oh well.

Sorry about the wall of text. Just needed to post lots of stuff out there. The deniers want us to believe that private industry can't cope when in fact it has proven time and again how adaptable it is.

[SteamWake]

Private industry survives just fine... untill the federal goverment starts to intervene.

In the long run this bill will be a job killer not a job creator.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Private industry survives just fine... untill the federal goverment starts to intervene.

In the long run this bill will be a job killer not a job creator.

A bill that is weak as hell gives over a decade to implement (Which would be easy even without algae tech) And is already full of amendment to protect the status of big energy.

Ya a big yawn from me on that one. You see tech is moving on and if anyone cant reduce by 20 percent by a whopping 10 years they are just lazy.

Ya all that child labor was keeping private industry alive until that darn fed gov came in and stopped that eh?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Ya all that child labor was keeping private industry alive until that darn fed gov came in and stopped that eh?

Hey, industry can be a fine shepherd of the environment without pesky government involvement. Here's a picture of the beautiful Cuyahoga River as proof:

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie and Zach are correct here. Industry needs to be watched. Let's start with Love Canal and go from there:

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.htm

[NeonSamurai]

The love canal event is nothing compared to whats going on in a lot of third and second world countries at this moment in time (or what went on in the past). Industry needs to be closely watched and regulated globally, and hit hard over the head when it's bad.


As for the topic, we shall see. I am reluctant to blindly accept new technology as being a miracle cure all. It has in the past often claimed that, and proven not to be so (or worse the exact opposite). I can see plenty of possibilities for disaster with the algae mentioned if its bio-engineered and gets loose. Our 'genius' is often greatly out done by our foolishness and arrogance.

[CaptainHaplo]

Zachstar.... I want you to make sure your sitting down.

For once, we actually agree on something. At least, in the "big picture". Your absolutely right in that a catastrophic collapse would cause unimaginable damage to the ecology. A return to "simple living" would be anything but, because between that section of humanity that COULDN'T survive in such a situation, and the mass of "consumers" that nature would be forced to support in a MUCH less "ecological friendly" way that it does now, would devastate the environment as we know it.

I also agree that we, as a country, should be leading the way in finding responsible ways to meet our needs while moving away from petroleum.

The problem isn't your party, or any of the other parties. The problem is the POWER PEOPLE in the parties. Almost all of them are, in one way or the other, more inclined to keep the status quo, because that protects their personal power.

Our electrical needs could be met easily with nuke power alone. In addition, a nuke plant is ideally suited to provide the power (and heat) necessary to produce hydrogen. One study indicated a modern nuke plant dedicated to hydrogen production would have an output equal to 400,000 gallons of gasoline - PER DAY! That's ONE plant.Move to hydrogen fuel cells for POV's and you have cut a huge amount of pollution out of our economy.

Now, nuclear plants emit NO carbon - thats right, we are talking ZERO emissions here. However, they do have one drawback - the "waste".

But there is an answer. Right now, when the fuel is "spent", its hauled to Yucca and buried - but the bugger is that the fuel still has 95% of its energy UNUSED! This is bad for the environment because your storing this crud in the earth, not to mention you are creating waste when you should be using as much of that stored energy as you can! Dr. Claudio Filippone has already developed and demonstrated how his project - called CAESAR (or Clean And Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor) can create "ultra-spent" remnants from regular (non-enriched) Uranium while creating electricity. This solves the problem of "breeder" reactors which create weapons grade waste and thus are huge problems. Existing reactors need ENRICHED uranium - which then creates proliferation problems. CAESAR uses non-enriched fuel (once started) so its resultant "leftovers" are tremendously less harmful.

Proliferation concerns resolved, waste concerns resolved, ecological concerns resolved, and it moves us further toward being able to actually ACCESS other clean fuel sources that will continue to wean us off petroleum.

Its not pie in the sky wind farms, its not a Biomass farm that would have to be the size of Iowa 10 times over to meet our current energy needs. Its here, workable, safe and clean.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The love canal event is nothing compared to whats going on in a lot of third and second world countries at this moment in time (or what went on in the past). Industry needs to be closely watched and regulated globally, and hit hard over the head when it's bad.


As for the topic, we shall see. I am reluctant to blindly accept new technology as being a miracle cure all. It has in the past often claimed that, and proven not to be so (or worse the exact opposite). I can see plenty of possibilities for disaster with the algae mentioned if its bio-engineered and gets loose. Our 'genius' is often greatly out done by our foolishness and arrogance.

Its not a miracle cure all. Fuel prices for transportation will still be at or near today's levels but it is OUR fuel for once. Not some countries that will use proceeds to fund terrorism.

Very few algae companies dare to touch genetic modification. It gets your company blacklisted in a bunch of nations and ruins your PR. Most just test boatloads of wild algae and find types that fit needs. No need for expensive modification. There are gazillions of breeds of algae.

[Zachstar]

CH I support the theory of fission power and how its safe operation provides boatloads of clean energy. However the political games both sides of the issue play make it impossible for mass deployment ala france.

Things are not suddenly going to change for fission politics. NIMBY is EVERYWHERE. Requests for land will be at once attacked with multiple lawsuits and demands of extremely lengthy environmental studies that are disputed time and again. And even if they get the land for some reason costs keep rising unexpectedly. To the point where investigations are being started...

All and all its a nogo in my opinion. Fusion stands a much better chance but for now I am focusing on fuel and waste level issues.

[baggygreen]

Zach,

I reckon I'm in what you'd class as the 'denier' category, though I'd like to clarify I don't deny the climate is changing - I just have doubts on our influence on that, and especially the proposed fixes, like your Cap and Trade scheme, or our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

You've made mention of CO2 in your wall of text.

How does Gore's admission this week to Newsweek that CO2 is not actually the driving force behind alleged AGW impact on your argument?

FWIW, I agree with you completely on fusion and on the need to find greener tech. I'm just very cranky that down under, our baseload will be provided by wind and solar, with a few "clean coal" plants thrown in. 2 power sources providing baseload power to our country, completely at the whim of the weather. how irresponsible is that!

[Zachstar]

Im not going to debate with you on basic science that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and man is putting great amounts of Co2 out there. Now you can debate the extent. You could say our children or great grandchildren will feel the effects. But the science is sound.

Pushing complete baseload with wind and solar would require storage systems. I hope they included that in the cost analysis.

[NeonSamurai]

I have to say I don't care what Gore says or not, he is not a scientist and it is not his field of expertise. He is just a mouthpiece nothing more (and thus utterly irrelevant to real discussion). Here are some scientific facts (note these are not theories or the like, these are dependable, repeatable, and observable facts)

1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, it helps trap radiated heat in our atmosphere. Light passes through it but radiant heat does not.

2. Man is pumping massive amounts of Co2 into the environment (along with of course what nature itself produces). This also is readily quantifiable and measurable with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

3. We know more or less what will happen when there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere and oceans because it has happened before in earth's history. Again this is readily observable and even quantifiable with the right knowledge and tools.

Now of course nature has its own effects on all of this, but I don't see how we can rationally deny that we have any part in it, given the massive impact our species is having on the ecosystem (which is also scientific fact and readily observable).


As for algae I am still a bit wary, You can bio-engineer something with out actually directly modifying it genetically, humanity has done that for thousands of years. Also there is still the risk of it getting loose in a non native environment and causing havoc (something we have done plenty of). We have had a long history of implementing technology with out fully considering all the ramifications it will have.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have to say I don't care what Gore says or not, he is not a scientist and it is not his field of expertise. He is just a mouthpiece nothing more (and thus utterly irrelevant to real discussion).

I love you man! It had to be said and you did it in fine style! Nothing like calling it like it is!