Don't use land, use the sea.
Seaweed biofuels: A green alternative that might just save the planet http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/01/seaweed-biofuel-alternative-energy-kelp-scotland Kelp Farming: More of plants energy goes into growth and carbohydrate production (doesn’t need to fight gravity). One species grows up to a foot/day. No fertilizer is necessary. Cleans up sewage areas. Cools the water to prevent hurricanes. Cools the water to restore krill/ plankton and other marine life. Absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Re-oxygenates dead zones. After kelp distillation the liquid stillage left over is excellent organic fertilizer. This would replace the toxic fertilizers now used and eliminate fertilizer plant explosions. Using American coastal areas for kelp farming would replace all transportation fuel for the US as well as a large chunk of natural gas and electricity. Needs to be implemented world-wide to slow effects of climate change. No farmland is required. Existing oil platforms could be converted to plants that process seaweed for alcohol and piped to shore. Jobs for fishermen and others. Neatly solves many problems in one stroke. Kelp is currently being farmed for food successfully in Maine, USA by Sarah Redmond, Seth Barker, Tollef Olson and Paul Dobbins and in Connecticut, USA by Dr. Charles Yarish. Kelp farming for fuel would slow the effects of climate change and get us off fossil fuels. This new industry needs to be funded and expanded worldwide. A free kelp farming manual may be downloaded here: http://www.oceanapproved.com/blog/ “To download a copy of our kelp farming manual, please click on the link below.” Ocean Approved OceanApproved_Kelp Manual Information on ethanol production and use can be found at: David Blume http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com All ‘problems’ with engines/vehicles have been worked out. Contact David for solutions. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: zeke Yewdall > Sent: 12/18/13 12:40 PM > To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The great biofuels scandal - Telegraph > > Ahhhh. Good to know.... > Z > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 18, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Keith Addison <ke...@journeytoforever.org> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > Bjorn Lomborg is, was, or used to be into various shades of global warming > > denial, depending, I think, on which way the wind's blowing. Recent big > > winds may have deepened his apparent shade of green. Professional > > contrarian, author of the infamous The Sceptical Environmentalist. He's a > > statistician, without environmental qualifications. At a promotional > > reading of his book in London in 2001 he had a cream pie thrown in his face > > by none other than Mark Lynas - he who recently changed coats to become a > > supporter of nuclear power. Maybe they deserve each other. I don't think we > > deserve either of them. > > > > More here: > > <http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.org&q=Lomborg> > > > > All best > > > > Keith > > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bjørn Lomborg wrote: > >> > >>> The costs of global climate policies is running at about $1billion every > >>> day. Wind turbines cost 10 times the estimated benefits in terms of > >>> emissions cuts, and solar panels cost close to 100 times the benefits. > >>> Yet, > >>> with spending on these technologies of about £136 billion annually, there > >>> are a lot of interests in keeping the tap open. > >>> > >>> But opposition to the rampant proliferation of biofuels also shows the way > >>> to a more rational climate policy. If we can stop the increase in biofuels > >>> we can save lives, save money, and start finding better ways to help. This > >>> is about investing in more productive agriculture that can feed more > >>> people > >>> more cheaply while freeing up space for wildlife. > >>> > >> > >> It seems to give a fairly rational explanation of how bad mega-biofuels > >> are..... then concludes with these two paragraphs which all of a sudden > >> attack wind turbines and solar panels without giving any data to back up > >> their fairly wild claims. And gives a fairly vague sentence about "more > >> production agriculture". Does that mean urban farms, edible landscapes or > >> more intensive chemical use and GMO crops, or what???? I was pretty on > >> to agreeing with everything he said till the end, but now I kind of > >> question exactly where he's coming from and what his agenda is... > >> > >> Z > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list > >> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org > >> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list > > Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org > > http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > _______________________________________________ > Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list > Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org > http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > _______________________________________________ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
