A cleaner future!

[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!

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by 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)


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.

Have to agree about Gore. He is great at bringing GW down to human terms but his opinion on the effect man has on it is irrelevant. He put his money where his mouth is in investing in clean energy but he is not one of the scientists who worked their butt off to get real data to the govs quickly on the issue.

Even Bush admitted it. Its here and its real.

As for algae. most that are being selected are ones designed to grow prolifically in certain conditions. In nature where there is not as much Co2 PPM or perfect light conditions they would quickly die off. Risk is minimal. On top of that they are not using advanced versions of algae (The ones that produce toxins or the like) Just very simple ones that get fat on CO2 and sunlight.. Make oil reproduce and die.

[SS107.9MHz]

Great post ZS, I'm completely with you on this one; Algae Biofuels are a potencial fuel and waste problem solvers... This technology has to be supported by the governments just the same has the oil industry was when it first began. But there're also other effective sources for these, like sugar cane.. part of the bio-fuel failure in the US was the choice of maze as a ethanol fuel, which is a terrible option in terms of cost/benefit... I don't know how things are looking up in Sweden for example, weren't they launching a program to have 100% biofuel-only car market?

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by SS107.9MHz

Great post ZS, I'm completely with you on this one; Algae Biofuels are a potencial fuel and waste problem solvers... This technology has to be supported by the governments just the same has the oil industry was when it first began. But there're also other effective sources for these, like sugar cane.. part of the bio-fuel failure in the US was the choice of maze as a ethanol fuel, which is a terrible option in terms of cost/benefit... I don't know how things are looking up in Sweden for example, weren't they launching a program to have 100% biofuel-only car market?

We want to move away from food based biofuels completely. If you want to go the route of sunlight-starch-algae-diesel cycle there are certain types of algae that will consume even heavy materials like sawdust and crap grass without sunlight or Co2 to make lipids for fuels. It works but requires boatloads of material to make enough fuel because you are not utilizing energy from the sun or CO2 from smokestacks.