On 27/04/2008, at 9:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious > plan to > handle global warming.
Actually, I was asking if you could look at the weaknesses of the powersat idea and offer possible solutions - it's often revealing to see what comes out of the mind of someone who has been critical of an idea. But anyway, this'll be interesting. > Now, lets get to some other green energy sources that have been > discussed. > Solar heating has been mentioned, and it works in some market as a hot > water source. But, its applicability is limited. China (which is > cited as > representing 80% of solar heating use) is increasing its CO2 > production at > a breathtaking rate. There is nothing I’ve seen that indicates that > solar > heating will represent more than a fraction of a percent of energy > consumption. Yeah. The point of solar hot water is it's so cheap, and pays for itself very quickly (3 - 5 years) if it's installed in a new house. So while it'll never amount to a huge percentage, it's still an inexpensive way of saving a significant amount of energy. So, like mandating loft and wall insulation and double-glazing (and rainwater tanks) these are small but significant contributions that everyone can do. Reducing the total energy consumption of a house by 15 - 20% is a lot of energy that you don't need to generate! > Geothermal works well where the temperature gradient in the earth is > high. > But expansive use is not practical….the best sites are already used, > and > low gradient geothermal isn’t efficient at all. > > One sees arguments for wave, current, and tidal electricity, but > those are > still vaporware. Except where they're not. There are small scale commercial wave farms being constructed in Portugal and Scotland, after successful pilots. However, it's true that no matter how successful these new ventures are, they will always be confined to limited suitable areas. > > Unfortunately, the ones that have been produced and that have worked > have > been extremely susceptible to infestation by fungi. A group that > Gautam > knows (he knows the founder personally) has come up with a novel > solution. > They are in the process of building a right-handed version of this > algae. > It’s fairly well known that DNA and proteins are left handed. But, > according to many in the field, there is not an a priori reason why > this > must be so. Thus, it should be possible to construct mirror image > duplicates of the DNA and assorted proteins that will function in > the same > manner. Yes. It's plausible, but difficult. The biochemical pathways are well understood, but extremely complex. > > > One other solution that has some promise is the sequestering of CO2 > in the > earth. And feeding some of it to the algae. If hydrocarbon generating algae are a success, there's no reason that the output from carbon-burning power couldn't go to the algal vats. > > I certainly could go on, but this is L4 in length already. Just to > summarize, I don’t see any single magic bullet. There isn't one. As you say, lots of small measures add up to a lot. Good post. C. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
