LOL. Thanks, Horace. I was trying to figure it out. I like the idea: treat CO2 as an asset from which to produce a useful material, rather than as a pollutant to be released into the environment. That would present a double advantage. I'll go check the website. I hope it has some preliminary engineering and cost analyses.
Language is an odd and limited tool, isn't it, when trying to describe reality. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:When two wrongs make a right -- oil and nuclear I wrote: "It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines." It just occurred to me this is confusing wording. It should say: "It is notable that we *can* make feed stocks from CO2 using algae and sunlight: http://www.oilgae.com/ Unfortunately, most of the CO2 producing power plants are in the north. One solution might be to pipeline CO2 south. Probably more sensible to build new hybrid solar-algoil power plants in the south and ship power to the north using HVDC transmission and and bio-oil products using pipelines." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
