Sparber
To: vortex-l
Sent: 2/18/2007 12:44:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_projects.htm
Currently (January 2007) we conduct experiments to evaluate the effects of
bio-char on nutrient adsorption
PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
In reply to Nick Palmer's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:14:48 -:
Hi,
[snip]
I wouldn't get too hung up on this prize. It looks more like Branson
buying
Lehmann (Cornell University) also claims Bio-Char or Agri-Char in the soil also
sequesters atmospheric CO2.
Over the years I have noticed that flood irrigation of farmland produces higher
crop yields
than non-aerated well water, implying that soil CO2 made available to the plant
root system
of bio-char which is a residue from the energy production that
has multiple environmental benefits.
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Sparber
To: vortex-l
Sent: 2/17/2007 4:45:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Lehmann (Cornell University) also claims Bio
Nick Palmer wrote:
Robin from Oz wrote:-
I wouldn't get too hung up on this prize. It looks more like Branson buying
cheap advertising.
Right, of course. A true solution would still be good value at $1
billion dollars or maybe even $1 trillion
It would take billions or perhaps trillions
-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Nick Palmer wrote:
Robin from Oz wrote:-
I wouldn't get too hung up on this prize. It looks more like Branson buying
cheap advertising.
Right, of course. A true solution would
Michel Jullian wrote:
I say kudos too. But plug-in hybrids or CF
wouldn't qualify I am afraid. Unless I
misunderstood the rules, what Branson is after
is a technology to pump the CO2 out of the atmosphere, not to reduce emissions.
Huh. I am not surprised, but that's silly. The
two are
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
...
If you reduce
emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2
out of the atmosphere soon
Michel Jullian wrote:
If you reduce
emissions enough, nature will pump the extra CO2
out of the atmosphere soon enough.
They are talking about 1000 years at least for natural elimination :/
More like 300 to 600 years by my calculations. See chapters 8 and 9 in my book:
Suppose the goal
What's a few hundred years between friends? ;-)
How long would it take by harvesting algae on a large scale then?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million
Jed, I meant $1 billion dollars for the prize! Also the challenge is to come
up with a way of REMOVING millions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, not
just ways to put less of it in...
JR The best method to pump CO2 out of the air is obvious, in any case.
You reforest large areas of formerly
Nick Palmer wrote:
Planting more forest in, say, Canada, can
actually be a source of global warming - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset and scroll down to Climate
impacts
That assertion is a lot of crap. The whole article seems to be
suffused with anti-environmentalist nonsense.
I wrote:
Planting more forest in, say, Canada, can
actually be a source of global warming - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset and scroll down to Climate
impacts
That assertion is a lot of crap.
To put it another way, does anyone seriously assert that we should
cut down all
Michel Jullian wrote:
What's a few hundred years between friends? ;-)
How long would it take by harvesting algae on a large scale then?
I do not know. However:
We have no simple method of harvesting ocean algae, whereas people
have been harvesting trees for thousands of years. (It would be
Jed wrote:-
To put it another way, does anyone seriously assert that we should
cut down all the trees in Canada to help prevent global warming?
No-one is asserting this as far as I know. That would be bonkers. The Wiki
article was talking about afforestation (planting forest on land that has
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Jed wrote:-
To put it another way, does anyone seriously assert that we should
cut down all the trees in Canada to help prevent global warming?
No-one is asserting this as far as I know. That would be bonkers. The Wiki
article
Two things, for one there are many uses for wood, as long as it's not burnt
why not make use of what you can rather than just burying.
And secondly the rate of pine growth varies greatly, see:
http://www.forestenterprises.co.nz/new/afi/nzplantation.htm
So location is key, as is choosing a very
Jed wrote,
snip
I am certain that returning Canada, the U.S. and other temperate areas to
their original forestation would sequester gigantic amounts of CO2 and
help reverse global warming.
Originally, I believe, the US area was one deciduous forest all the way to
the Missouri river and
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain Mr. Branson.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/SR/CashIn/CashonClimateChange.html
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal fine-mesh
seine
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal
fine-mesh seine
as an algae pond to sequester atmospheric CO2 followed by charring the
algae is
a seine idea.
Since Michel is closer to the Seine and you are closer
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal
fine-mesh seine
as an algae pond to sequester atmospheric CO2 followed by charring the
algae is
a seine idea.
Since Michel is closer to the Seine and you
I'm not so sure that in situ slash and char of scrub on a large scale would
be totally beneficial environmentally! - did you ever see a charcoal burner's
mound smoking? That's why the in vessel pyrolysers, which have acid gas
scrubbing and NOx removal, are favourite. Algae seemed better because
Michel wrote:-
Half-charred idea: how about pressing the micro-algae for their oil and
then charring the press-cake to make charcoal?
Excellent idea - carbon neutral (ish) fuel plus regenerated higher
fertility, lower input agriculture plus sequestered stable carbon. Looks
like a
land for ozzies in the Mojave Desert. :-)
Fred
- Original Message -
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: 2/15/2007 5:31:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Ok, so what do you think the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed by your
method would
Algal blooms happen naturally in rivers and at sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom often near estuarine areas which
discharge agricultural nitrogenous leachate and nitrate and phosphate rich
substances from such products as detergents and clothes washing powder.
Biochemical oxygen
Message -
From: Nick Palmer
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Vortex-L
Sent: 2/15/2007 5:35:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
I'm not so sure that in situ slash and char of scrub on a large scale would
be totally beneficial environmentally! - did you ever see
Other minds are on this. Look at the first comment (from mbmurphy) below this
article on Branson's prize.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17524/
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Other minds are on this. Look at the first comment (from mbmurphy) below this
article on Branson's prize.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/duncan/17524/
direction.
Or would you prefer a government grant?
Mike Carrell
-
- Original Message -
From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate
Robin from Oz wrote:-
I wouldn't get too hung up on this prize. It looks more like Branson
buying
cheap advertising.
Right, of course. A true solution would still be good value at $1 billion
dollars or maybe even $1 trillion
Thomas Malloy suggested algae ponds in the southwest desert.
I suggest floating filters-sieves as algae ponds on streams, rivers, and lakes,
and Blanton's swimming pool, where the water passes through and the algae
are contained in them for harvesting for dumping into abandoned coal mines for
two billion tons of waste coal, and more than 180,000
acres of abandoned mine lands left over by the unregulated mining practices of
the past.
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Sparber
To: vortex-l
Sent: 2/14/2007 2:42:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate
-
From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Thomas Malloy suggested algae ponds in the southwest desert.
I suggest floating filters-sieves as algae ponds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Thomas Malloy suggested algae ponds in the southwest desert.
I suggest floating filters-sieves as algae ponds on streams, rivers
!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Michel Jullian wrote:
Floating microalgae ponds indeed Fred, but seas and oceans
On 2/14/07, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Malloy suggested algae ponds in the southwest desert.
I suggest floating filters-sieves as algae ponds on streams, rivers, and
lakes,
and Blanton's swimming pool,
Fortunately, I no longer own said aglae hole. I have moved up in
@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Michel Jullian wrote:
Floating microalgae ponds indeed Fred, but seas and oceans might be a
better bet than fresh water surfaces, because of higher mineral contents
. Spraying
the phytoplancton laden seawater could achieve the same result maybe?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Michel
Terry Blanton wrote:
Fortunately, I no longer own said aglae hole. I have moved up in the
world to the land of $10k prostitutes:
And those are $10k middle aged prostitutes, no less.
- Jed
In reply to Robin van Spaandonk's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:31:29 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]
of silicon, from silicates, not from SiO2 (the anions in the silicates are
Oops, that should be cations.
needed to combine with the CO2 to form carbonates). Solar cells as a use for
the
Silicon perhaps?
On 2/14/07, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are really only a few forms in which carbon can be sequestered. As organic
compounds, or as pure carbon, or as carbonates.
I, and the women I know, would like to see C sequestered as diamonds.
However, deBeers disagrees.
Terry
On 2/14/07, Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Undoing it in less than 300 years is going to be costly.
Fred
I disagree.
see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020412080812.htm
Cost of the entire process is equivalent to about 20 cents per gallon of
gasoline.
So for
Ok, Fred and Michel, I was reading this about waste disposal technology
today on the M.I.T.Technology review website
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18183/
and I linked up what the Vorts have been talking about with algae as a means
of creation of biofuel etc and the waste disposal
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:04:27 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
On 2/14/07, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are really only a few forms in which carbon can be sequestered. As
organic
compounds, or as pure carbon, or as carbonates.
I, and the women I
Here's three more websites (particularly the first one) that extol the
apparently huge benefits of bio-char charcoal in soils. If the char was
created from pyrolysed algae that was fattened on fossil fuel sourced CO2,
we could be on our way to a share of $25 million! Can anyone do some
In reply to John Berry's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:37:05 +1300:
Hi,
[snip]
see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020412080812.htm
Cost of the entire process is equivalent to about 20 cents per gallon of
gasoline.
[snip]
I note that they don't mention where the energy is coming
It's not going to be easy, but, if there isn't any success it's Goodbye Cruel
World
for your grandchildren. In the meantime the WW II adage, is this trip really
necessary?
and curtailing other fossil fuel consumption would help.
A 100 watt light bulb burns a pound of fossil-fuel carbon every 10
BlankFred wrote..
A 100 watt light bulb burns a pound of fossil-fuel carbon every 10 hours
generating 44/12 = 3.666 pounds of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide out the
power plant chimney.
Howdy Fred,
The UNIT # 1Fayette Power Plant ( FPP) located near Fayetteville Texas, a coal
fired plant owned by
water spreaders and heat lamps.
Fred
- Original Message -
From: RC Macaulay
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: 2/13/2007 7:16:07 AM
Subject: [VO]:Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize
Fred wrote..
A 100 watt light bulb burns a pound of fossil-fuel carbon every 10 hours
generating 44/12
Frederick Sparber wrote:
A 100,000 BTU per hour central heat furnace each hour of burning fossil fuel
adds about 30 pounds of Carbon Dioxide to the earth's atmosphere,
Equally bad for the environment, and probably far worse for humans
(incresed cancer risk) is this information:
An interesting article, Jones.
But, for the life of me I can't see why spending money to get the
coal-burning power plants
cleaned up is so hard for the greedy-profit-oriented energy czars to
swallow.
The EPA edict on automotive emissions-mileage, antifreeze, and crankcase
and lube oil processing
Frederick Sparber wrote:
An interesting article, Jones.
But, for the life of me I can't see why spending money to get the
coal-burning power plants
cleaned up is so hard for the greedy-profit-oriented energy czars to
swallow.
what do you expect after 30 years of:
Free enterprise can do
53 matches
Mail list logo
