| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| RichardW |
Will mushrooms save the world?Will this discovery save the world?LINKY Justme |
||||||||
| jocorless |
Oooh interesting - Its always been said that the answers to most of the worlds problems can be found in the rain forest - if only we look carefully - Isn't nature a wonderful thing! | ||||||||
| dpack |
if 240 million tons of wasteis available even at a high conversion rate wont even be noticed in global energy use | ||||||||
| cab |
Re: Will mushrooms save the world?
Its nice, rather like the butanol producing bacteria are nice, but its not 'the answer'. Regrettably we cannot produce sufficient biomass to get to 'the answer', however we convert it into fuel. Still, amazing, ain't it? |
||||||||
| Slim |
doesn't mean it can't be part of the answer. 
(why does everyone always search for the one and only solution?) |
||||||||
| cab |
Oh, I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that it can't be part of a solution, or that it won't be exploitable. Microbial routes for producing fuelstuffs aren't rare, the trouble is that the cost of production and the energy expenditure in extraction are often prohibitive. |
||||||||
| RichardW |
Actually I was being slightly sarcastic as any "fuel" that still gives off emissions will still be a bad thing. Maybe not as bad as fossil fuels but still bad. We need to cut back as well as find alternatives. Things like this just make "Joe public" think they can carry on as before.
Richard |
||||||||
| cab |
Depends really. Grow a crop sustainably, you take carbon dioxide from the air, burn a product thereof you release carbon dioxide. Can be carbon neutral. Doesn't mean that the current biofuel products are, of course. | ||||||||
| RichardW |
So if I dont burn any thing is it carbon negative? | ||||||||
| cab |
Don't follow you. What do you mean? |
||||||||
| Slim |
depends what you do with it.
You could: 1) fell trees 2) sink them in the Marinas Trench where they'll never decompose as there's no oxygen 3) grow new ones to sequester more carbon 4) go back to step 1 repeat until you like the atmospheric CO2 levels... |
||||||||
| Jamanda |
Only if you start photosynthesising. |
||||||||
| RichardW |
If I burn something thats recently grown thats neutral If I burn some thing thats ancient thats positive so if I dont burn anything is that negative? IE the answer is to cut back even on neutral stuff. Richard |
||||||||
| cab |
Yes, if grown sustainably (i.e. lacking unsustainable chemical inputs)
You'd be causing a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Provided you don't instead leave it to rot, the impact would be neutral; no increase or decrease in carbon dioxide emission.
As Slim pointed out, there isn't one answer. However you look at it, we're using too much energy; much the answer* must be to use less energy. Its also a wee bit more complex than that; all energy sources are not equal, and to assume that we can maintain the same life style even with the same amount of energy generated by different means would be a mistake. *unless of course some bright spark craks the nuclear fusion problems, then all bets are off. |
||||||||
| resistance is fertile |
As someone said recently, If we want things to stay the same, then things have got to change! |