From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 06:39:54 MDT
Eugene Leitl Opined:
<<Here's a solution, for a difference: try to bind atmospheric carbon
dioxide in land biomass (planting and maintaining forest ecologies -- it
looks pretty, and makes nice microclimate, too, and there's timber to be
had there) and sea biomass (e.g. using iron for fertilizer, which allows
you high-productivity aquafarming, or alleviate the overfishing problem).
Secondly, fill up cavities created during (surface) mining with plant
biomass and seal them up, taking bound CO2 out of circulation. Here's
another solution: use hydrogen rich fuel, such as methane, resulting the %
of CO2 produced by Joule burned. Here's another: don't burn at all, but
use fuel cells, not Carnot processes. Here's another: use photovoltaics,
and solar hydrogen. Here's another: save energy, by using it more
efficiently (Gosh, whodathunkit?). There are others, but this short list
will do. >>
Great. All this Amory Lovins stuff is technically do-able, why not? The
problem is, its unaffordable, otherwise other nations, other societies,
whacky indiv iduals would be doing it. Any number of countries would be off
the grid, and everyone would be driving methane cars, and the world would
look look article from Wired (they get Viridian every onece in a while). But
thats not planet Earth, circa 2002, and journalists and greens and atomic
power plant enthusiasts can promise and exude all kinds of confidence that
they like. Or you can blame oil companies for surpressing data and
inventions, this works especially well in conservative circles, although I am
sure the anti-globalists have caught on to this meme by now.
My point is, these green technofutures are all hollow as a coconut unless
they are made flesh in the marketplace. Make it factual, surrender the pink!
Until then I will at least give kudos to scientists who invent cool stuff.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:26 MST