I think you misjudge the ability of life to deal with our excess.
Have you noticed that crop yields have also increased with the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere.
It could be that it is simply the action of fertilizer and selective
breeding alone, but I've noticed that when I dose aquatic plants with
excess CO2 they proliferate rapidly.
One might even suggest that to continue our parisitic relationship with
the world, humans may require an increasing atmospheric CO2 quantity
just to meet our food needs... that is if our increasing population
trend continues (and it shows no great signs of slowing down).
No, I haven't. Show us some evidence for that.
Greenhouses use CO2 generators to elevate the level much higher than
atmospheric levels, and there is some benefit. The difference between 1860
levels and 2005 is about 100 ppm. That is a rise of 1 in 10,000. If you got
a yield increase of about 1- 10,000th, or (1% of 1%,) that would make sense.
Very simple. The atmosphere won't know the difference between fossil fuel or
biofuel. The carbon emissions are the same. Growing more crops for biofuels
won't cause the CO2 to go down, only slow it's rise at best. Most of the
arable land on earth is already covered with vegetation, consuming CO2.
Radically increasing the arable land on earth to supply all the biofuels as
a direct replacement for fossil fuels is not a feasible option for a very
In-short, "carbon-neutral" doesn't translate into significant CO2 reduction
in the atmosphere.
But you intend to burn those plants, putting the carbon back into the
air. So you are not reducing the carbon, just keeping it at the same
level. To reduce the carbon you would need to grow the plants then
take the carbon out of the cycle by not using the plants for fuel.
Do a little mental math. How any tons of carbon would you need to handle to
make a significant difference to the atmosphere?
We are putting 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually, so
to just to hold the levels static, you would have to handle about 2500 lbs
of bamboo for every man, woman and child on earth. How practical is that
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels?
Do we really need to burn up 75 kilowatts of hydrocarbon fuel energy just to
visit a friend in the next city? Electricity or hydrogen fuel seem to make
You sound like someone who finds the hardest possible way to do a task.
LOL....my idea gets rid of more carbon with less energy then making dry
ice and shooting it into space..I think..more practical....<grin>....
Hydrogen is not a replacement for oil ..it is a storage medium...like
a battery...you need to separate from whatever it is chemically bound
to...in order to get...and when you use it you get less energy back..
if the separation is done by electricity that is not produced by oil,
it ends up not being a losing game..
Electricity works if not generated by oil...using hydro or wind or
you can produce more out then you have to put in, the first two put in
the energy from the sun which is basically free, nuclear puts in the
binding energy of the atom which is a lot more energy then it takes
to refine the fuel....bio fuels are iffy...it is not clear yet whether
takes more energy to produce...energy to run farm machines, energy for
Seen it all, done it all, can\'t remember most of it
Electricity and hydrgogen fuel cells are not energy sources in the
macro context. they are energy transfer, just like springs.
They do not solve the problem you seem to think they solve.
(They do solve a DIFFERENT problem, which is why they're a good
Electricity is the cleanest currency for which to transfer energy from the
source to the end use. We won't always believe that burning hydrocarbons
are the answer to everything. Alternate energy potential is truly vast but
expensive to utilize compared to fossil fuels, which are bound to be a
short-term party. Once we grow up and realize the future is in renewable
sources, electricity and hydrogen won't look like such bad energy carriers.
Electricity has alot more effeciency than hydrogen which is about 12%.
149kw of energy for 21kw delivered by the hydrogen.
Hydrogen has the potental of jumping carbon fuel use by 3 to6 times present
Much of the arable land is used for grass, or grain to feed cattle,
where the carbon is released into that atmosphere as either exhaled CO2
or farted methane. If we used that same land to grow hemp to make paper
and stored the paper in nice dry buildings (made of fibrepanels produced
from hemp) for centuries, that carbon would be sequested, and hemp
produces more biomass per acre tham grass.
Much of that (at least in the US, and I would assume in Oz as well or it
would already be doing something else) isn't suited for other than range
I great number of cattle are also fed on dual-purpose crops already such
as what we do--we run heifers on wheat pasture and milo stubble over the
fall/winter/early spring, take them off in the spring and send them on
to the feeders while the wheat goes on to grain and we prepare
non-summer fallow ground for the spring planting...
That last staement spurs me to a response.
Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some
responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find
that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was
imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they
are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff"
that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.