G'day Robin et al, The advantage of using biomass (or organic waste as is possible with AD) is that we are "rapid cycling" CO2, as the plant material that was recently absorbing CO2 is used to make CO2 that will (hopefully) be reabsorbed. The problem with fossil fuels is that the carbon sequestered a long time ago is released into the atmosphere with no hope of being returned to fossil reserves in the near future (by definition). Every kJ of biogas that replaces a kJ of fossil fuel is a win/win situation.
Happy Digesting, HOOROO PS: Please delete parts of the original message that are not needed in your reply! Mr. Paul Harris, Room 202 Charles Hawker Building, Faculty of Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB 1, Glen Osmond SA 5064 Ph : +61 8 8303 7880 Fax : +61 8 8303 4386 mailto:[email protected] http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/paul.harris CRICOS Provider Number 00123M This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jones, Robin (TWP) Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011 6:02 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [Digestion] Digestion Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16 Something I have been thinking about for quite some time now. I understand that the whole argument surrounding global warming is that temperatures etc. have changed proportionately to CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere. The hypothesis is that CO2 forms a thermal blanket through which the transmission of heat waves to outer space is retarded. For most heat to be created the primary starting point is combustion which in most cases produce CO2. Therefore the level of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is proportional to the heat generated by the primary energy source (i.e. Combustion). If this is the case, can't we conclude that global warming is also proportionate to the thermal energy produced worldwide. Considering this hypothesis, shouldn't we be focusing more on conserving energy before we look at alternatives to produce more? There are hugely inefficient processes that continue operating on a global scale. The Kyoto protocol has assisted in quantifying, regulating CO2 footprints as well as reducing them. Is the world moving towards regulations on kWhs utilized against output capacity for each specific industry (e.g. a maximum of XkWh's per ton cement, food, mineral etc. produced) failing which these entities would face fines or closure until they comply? I know my thinking is very simplistic; however it would be great to see what the rest of this forum can add to this topic. The consequences of not debating or sharing new ideas on this topic would be dire to all that live on Earth. Robin Jones _______________________________________________ Digestion mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org for more information about digestion, see Beginner's Guide to Biogas http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/ and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
