> >>Aside: I do want to say that awhile back you shot down my interest in > >>completely-different non-natural production of biofuels and ethanol and > >>what-not, from such schemes as PV-to-H2-to-C2H6O, or whatever, > > > >Point me at it please? I'd like to have a look at what I shot down. > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28661/ > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28717/
Okay, thanks. But: > > > Designing A Better Catalyst For Artificial Photosynthesis > > > New York - Sep 11, 2003 > > > Scientists studying the conversion of carbon dioxide (CO2) to >carbon monoxide (CO) -- a crucial step in transforming CO2 to useful >organic compounds such as methanol -- are trying to mimic what >plants do when they convert CO2 and water to carbohydrates and >oxygen in the presence of chlorophyll and sunlight. > > > Such "artificial photosynthesis" could produce inexpensive >fuels and raw materials for the chemical industry from renewable >solar energy. But achieving this goal is no simple task. "Nature >has found a way to do this over eons," says Etsuko Fujita, a chemist >at the Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory. "It's >very complicated chemistry." > > > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03zf.html > > > >I wanted to draw attention to this story, which was posted a few days > >ago by Hoagy. As I've said before, I think that synthesis of useful > >fuels, by a variety of means, is a top topic, and artificial > >photosynthesis, or something like it, is arguably a big link in > >whatever sustainable energy chain we may form in the future. If we > >could find a way to manufacture useful fuel, we'd be somewhat less > >dependent on having to take it as we find it, in the ground. > > > >MM > >In the ground or on top of it - let plants do the photosynthesis, >since they're so good at it, while we're getting to be quite handy at >manufacturing useful fuels from the plants. > >Best > >Keith > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28717/ You snipped quite a bit, I'll put it back: >>... what-not, from such schemes as PV-to-H2-to-C2H6O, or whatever, >>and I did not >>agree at all with this, but it didn't seem important to argue it at length at >>that time. I know what I think on the matter. If it can be done sustainably >>then I'm for taking a look at it, whether it fits with the way >>things were done >>in the past or not. > >Well, that's certainly no criterion, I'm sure I didn't shoot you >down on those grounds, I'd agree with your view as you've put it >here. Please give me a ref. > >>This to me is relevant in the sense that, basically, >>ethanol is ethanol. It's a chemical. What is not the same is the derivation >>method and the analysis of the sustainability of those methods. > >I'd look for the derivation method to be doable on a small-scale, >localised basis and it'd have to pass a sustainability analysis. >Standard AT criteria, as ever. So would you say that artificial photosynthesis would pass those criteria? Most unlikely, I'd say, or at least not for a long time, after a lot of development. There's also the ready-for-use argument, rather a strong one - which please note isn't an argument against research and development. Meanwhile, as I said, we're pretty good at manufacturing useful fuels. Maybe you didn't phrase it very well. It's true though that a lot of this kind of research strikes me as superfluous, or at least premature, a bit like the way that the so-called HYV "high-yielding varieties" of the so-called Green Revolution were rushed into use without the true potential of existing varieties ever having been fully explored. It's since emerged that traditional varieties can out-perform the HYVs in every way except one: the swelling of chemical corporation bottom lines, at the expense of widespread environmental damage and the creation of much human deprivation and suffering among the very people the HYVs were supposed to be "helping", or at least on the surface of it. That, by the way, has got nothing to do with whether things fit with the way things were done in the past or not. Which of the two fitted current needs? Which fits a sustainable future? Which encourages community self-reliance? There's so much work yet to be done with biofuels crops, we've scarcely scratched the surface of it. Such work would seem much more apt than reinventing photosynthesis, almost certainly in a form that would only be usable by big, centralized industry - fitting in well, no doubt, with the way they've done things in the past. Same old wine in a brand new bottle. Best Keith > >>I'll have to look around for that. I think this is what I"m getting > >>at. 99% of > >>ethanol "debates" in the US at the national news-journal level >are framed in > >>terms of ADM and others and big-farm subsidies. There is virtually > >>no coverage > >>of the idea that there are different ways to look at this. Really, no > >>mainstream coverage at all, in any way, that I'm aware. > > > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/30101/ > >Brazil & Ethanol Dual Fuel Cars > >Thanks. This progress that Brazil is making is pure gold. > > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/30071/ > >Brazil & Ethanol > >Once again it comes to mind that I'd love to see an alcohol fuel >cell for cars. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel 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/
