posted
1/5th of New Mexico is a hell of plot of land!
And I wonder if the whole state could hold all the technicians and equipment that would be required?
I'm a strong believer in the theory that a goodly part of our energy and pollution problems, resulting therefrom, is a result of centralizing the production facilities.
We need to start a serious advertising campaign directed at the idea of on-site production of energy, coupled with on-site safe disposal of what comes out as a biproduct or waste. (By on-site I mean as close as is possible, each house or building or subcollection produces its own and disposes of (there where it was produced) the residue of the process.) Getting rid of the need for transportation from point to point would, in itself, reduce the expense and waste by a significant part.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: 1/5th of New Mexico is a hell of plot of land!
And I wonder if the whole state could hold all the technicians and equipment that would be required?
I'm a strong believer in the theory that a goodly part of our energy and pollution problems, resulting therefrom, is a result of centralizing the production facilities.
We need to start a serious advertising campaign directed at the idea of on-site production of energy, coupled with on-site safe disposal of what comes out as a biproduct or waste. (By on-site I mean as close as is possible, each house or building or subcollection produces its own and disposes of (there where it was produced) the residue of the process.) Getting rid of the need for transportation from point to point would, in itself, reduce the expense and waste by a significant part.
I heard 1/10th...but, ya, that's some real estate, for sure. Presumably, that was merely for example, a way to grasp the ratios involved; further, one presumes plants would be scattered about in such a way as to enhance distribution...
But my point is it or whatever else is seriously proposed, needs to be arranged and managed so that a huge portion of the output isn't wasted via transportation to where it is needed.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case anyone cared it is GGRN & VCTPF from my breif look. Pretty facsinating stuff.
Posts: 492 | From: new york | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quality of the oil based off of these algae setups has yet to be proven.
Also, while it is mostly carbon neutral (depending on where they get the carbon dioxide the inject into the system) it does not remove the other air pollutant qualities of burning fuel.
It's a good simple set up. That gives it a chance. But there is no trust yet. Wait until the salesmen start landing real contracts before you get too excited.
(P.S. Based off his assertions in the video it would take roughly 250 square miles of algae systems per state to reach his asserted point of self sufficency.)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: The quality of the oil based off of these algae setups has yet to be proven.
Also, while it is mostly carbon neutral (depending on where they get the carbon dioxide the inject into the system) it does not remove the other air pollutant qualities of burning fuel.
It's a good simple set up. That gives it a chance. But there is no trust yet. Wait until the salesmen start landing real contracts before you get too excited.
(P.S. Based off his assertions in the video it would take roughly 250 square miles of algae systems per state to reach his asserted point of self sufficency.)
well, if it *might* work, let's have a go with it. (Not saying "buy this stock.") From the sounds of that clip, this seems like one of the many, diverse technologies we should be aggressively pursuing.
posted
I don't think there is A solution or method that has much chance of solving the problem. It will have to be a collection of techniques, with maybe the algea being one of them.
But I want to point out that manufacturing another substitute to burn in place of fossil fuel is NOT headed in a direction that will solve the problem. We MUST stop "burning" carbon compounds, where ever they came from, in order to have any chance of success in dissuading global warming.
There are a number of ways of making electricity that do not produce CO2 at all, such as wind, tides, river flow, thermal, solar cells, fuel cells and on and on. There is where the investment needs to be made.
What monies that are spent in seeking solutions will best be spent on methods that produce no dangerous by products of any kind.
There are just too damned many folks about now to keep depending on what is easiest to do.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I don't think there is A solution or method that has much chance of solving the problem. It will have to be a collection of techniques, with maybe the algea being one of them.
But I want to point out that manufacturing another substitute to burn in place of fossil fuel is NOT headed in a direction that will solve the problem. We MUST stop "burning" carbon compounds, where ever they came from, in order to have any chance of success in dissuading global warming.
There are a number of ways of making electricity that do not produce CO2 at all, such as wind, tides, river flow, thermal, solar cells, fuel cells and on and on. There is where the investment needs to be made.
What monies that are spent in seeking solutions will best be spent on methods that produce no dangerous by products of any kind.
There are just too damned many folks about now to keep depending on what is easiest to do.
Exactamundo!
What's the old saw? Sumpin' about counting seeds in an apple versus counting trees hidden in the seeds?
Algae farming could be another in a long line of "hit parade" items in humans' learning proper/appropriate-technology agriculture.
But to look upon it--somewhat "misty-eyed"--as a *MAGIC BULLET* is the same sort of myopic, narrow-vision hubris that got us into this mess. As always, nature provides the principle: Strength in diversity. Monocultures suck--literally. That is, I'm not plying the vernacular; monoculture-based agriculture not only sucks the life from its growing medium but also draws all sorts of nasty predators.
The analogy to common-energy source holds, equally as strong.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
