womplex_oo1 wrote: >According to Iogen
I wouldn't regard them as any authority on such issues. >only a small amount of cereal straw is mixed back >into the soil. The larger fraction is actually sent to a landfill or >burned by farmers. They're probably right about that, to an extent. But ... >This is what makes it a good, albeit limited, >feedstock for their bioethanol plant. ... this certainly doesn't follow. Unless the soil is being replenished with organic matter (read "biomass") the bioethanol is not sustainable, no matter how nice and green the "bio-" bit might sound. This soil is almost certainly being replenished with chemical fertilizers, which is no replenishment at all - worse than no replenishment. Such topsoils end up in the oceans, along with much of the fertilizer, where it causes things like "dead zones". A nation that loses its topsoil is doomed. Further, reducing the organic matter content of topsoils by bad farming practices such as these is a major contributor to carbon emissions, entirely human-caused. >My plan removes the supply of >cellulose from the landbased farms, from the established methods and >practices of traditional farming. It is not an established method and practice of traditional farming to burn straw or dispose of it in a landfill. >Oceanic kelp, green algae, or >water hyacinth, has the potential to be grown over a far larger area >than could be grown on land. Excess production can be used as >fertilizer for land-based crops. And kelp is known to be one of the >most beneficial and productive marine habitats for fish, mollusks, >crustaceans, seabirds, etc. Other types of aquaculture could sprout >up alongside the kelp rafts as a result. You're looking at it through a keyhole. If you want to make anything like a dent in current fuel use you're talking about immense areas of ocean that will be radically changed. It's not just a production line, it's a SYSTEM - everything's connected to everything else, change one thing and it affects everything else, maybe significantly, maybe not, maybe with benefit, maybe not. You have to look at it in it's full context. Ocean systems are immensely complex. Your manmade carbon sink might be insignificant compared with galloping "side-effects" which quickly outstrip any benefits. Look around, you don't have to look very far. >And creating a manmade >carbon sink should delite the hardcore environmentalists. Keep your labels to yourself. You'd do far better by way of carbon sinks to put the wheat straw back in the soil which grew it. Keith >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > womplex_oo1 wrote: > > > > >Wow! Thanks for the tips. > > > > ... and to change the subject completely... > > > > > The earth's surface is covered in 70 > > >percent water by area. I am interested in aquaculture to grow kelp > > >forests that could supply large quantities of cellulose. Kelp can >be > > >grown on floating rafts in the middle of the ocean - screens > > >suspended 15-40 meters below the surface from buoys. Some Kelp > > >varieties, such as Macrocystic Kelp, can grow up to 30 cm per day. > > >In addition kelp forests have their own floatation air sacs so that > > >the infrastructure (floating raft) that is used to provide a >surface > > >to root onto only has to support its own weight, and not the weight > > >of the kelp. Large areas of ocean can be planted this way, away >from > > >coastal regions, where the ocean floor receives no light and there >is > > >very little flora & fauna anyway. > > > > > >If the process can be tweaked to use kelp as a feedstock, then it > > >will not interfere with land-based foodcrops, or animal feedcrops. > > > > So you said before, but you still haven't answered the question, >nor > > even comprehended it, and apparently forgotten it, if you saw it in > > the first place, or the second, or the third. > > > > >Your idea of waste and nature's idea of waste are two different > > >things. What you call "waste" is returned to the soil to maintain >the > > >organic matter content, essential for everything - soil fertility, > > >crop production, and the viability of the "soilfoodweb", the tons >of > > >micro-organisms in an acre of soil that make plant growth possible. > > > > > >So if you're going to take that away too and burn it in your car, > > >what will you substitute for it? Chemical fertilizers? > > > > Your only response (?) to that was that it's a "HUGE WASTE". > > > > Now you want to go messing with the ocean, which is in a sorry >state, > > a very a sorry state, in case you didn't notice (partly because of > > chemical fertilizer run-off). > > > > What will be the effects on the ocean ecosystem, and related >systems > > - in other words all systems - of your kelp culture plan, beyond >how > > much it might interfere with land-based foodcrops or animal > > feedcrops? If you don't know, why not? You should have figured that > > out by now, before you start proposing it. > > > > The biosphere, nature, natural "resources", are not just some stuff > > lying around waiting for you to use it or abuse it or use it up or > > destroy it or waste it just however you wish. It's exactly that >kind > > of non-thinking which has got us into this mess. Or didn't you >notice > > we're in a mess? > > > > Keith > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Looking for a more powerful website? Try GeoCities for $8.95 per month. Register your domain name (http://your-name.com). More storage! No ads! http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info http://us.click.yahoo.com/aHOo4D/KJoEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
