Comments

• >>> two NEW ideas about RENEVABLE energy sources >>> Gaetano Marano on 05/16/2007 at 8:52 AM

  Posts: 64 Avg Rating:

  . . the Ethanol can't cover all future needs of energy we'll always need large amount of electric energy that biofuels can't give us at low prices clealy, the best ways to have low cost electric energy are solar panels and wind turbines unfortunately, the latter source needs very large areas and giant/costly infrastructures also, the wind energy is not constant and can't be "stored" at reasonable prices but there are two NEW ideas that may change (very much) the wind energy scenario the first (from USA, Canada and Australia scientists) is to use the high altitude Jet Stream winds this is a link to an article that explains this new technology: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/07/MNGNEPMD801.DTL of course, you can find many other info and data about it, googling the second idea REDUCES the wind energy PRICE saving on infrastructures and areas costs: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/028energy.html . . Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: >>> two NEW ideas about RENEVABLE energy sources >>> theblight on 05/21/2007 at 8:37 AM
    Posts: 4 Avg Rating:	Regards the Wind Sky Scraper...  Wow, so many distortion all in one page  picking one...  building and wiring and controlling output from dozens of turbines is not going to lower costs, but instead raise costs. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Invalid Example of Negative Ecosystem Impact wf on 05/16/2007 at 11:02 AM

  Posts: 14 Avg Rating:

  "For example, if plant matter containing these enzymes was left in the field, it could change ecosystems by making sugar more readily available to microorganisms." This conflicts with the earlier statement in the article concerning Sticklen's major advance: "As a result, the enzyme remains dormant until it is heated to about 50 ºC." I doubt that any cornfield will be reaching temperatures of 50 ºC. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Invalid Example of Negative Ecosystem Impact tofumi on 05/16/2007 at 12:42 PM
    Posts: 1	It's not the cornfield that matters here, but the end use, which might trigger the necesssary heat. Corn goes into food, fuel, feed etc. Also, lack of regulatory approval for any of the above leads to costly recalls. I love biotech crops, but loathe company-killing liabilities. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Invalid Example of Negative Ecosystem Impact aymeric on 05/17/2007 at 8:41 AM

      Posts: 17 Avg Rating:

      That was not the argument in the article. They said that the enzyme in the waste left in the fields (nothing was said about the end consumer at this point)would make sugar more available to the micro organisms in the field. An like the previous poster has correctly stated, that unless you grow corn in the middle of the desert you will never reach 50C to activate the enzyme. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Invalid Example of Negative Ecosystem Impact kanilure on 04/15/2008 at 1:08 PM
    Posts: 3 Avg Rating:	These statements do not conflict.  Corn parts left in the field can easily reach 50C which is equal to 122F.  Compost reaches temperatures of 130-150F.  Just think of the devastating environmental concequences of a jumping gene that breaks down all cellulose at 50C!  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Corn not the answer? nekote on 05/17/2007 at 7:58 AM

  Posts: 116 Avg Rating:

  From my research so far, corn is a comparatively lousy way to capture and store solar energy. So far, algae seem 100+ times as productive. And they can hopefully be "farmed" in desert type regions, using sea water or brackish water. At 100+ times the productivity, only 1/100 the acreage would be required, for a given solar energy capture. Using desert type areas avoids competition for land that can grow familiar food crops. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Corn not the answer? rhapsodyinglue on 05/18/2007 at 11:31 PM
    Posts: 55 Avg Rating:	I think the so far is just that some have written reports stating that it might be possible to get algae fuel production to that point.  No one has come close to that yet.  Still a lot of production issues to be worked out. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Corn not the answer? kanilure on 04/15/2008 at 1:14 PM
    Posts: 3 Avg Rating:	I think you are right nekote.  I'm an old phytoplanktologist and the productive capacity of these organisms has been known for decades.  Unfortunately, it takes water space to grow algae and that has always been more expensive and less available than soil space, even though most of the planet is covered by water! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Let Them Eat Cake! kanilure on 04/15/2008 at 1:36 PM

  Posts: 3 Avg Rating:

  While we are perfecting ways to genetically modify corn for fuel, and introducing potentially dangerous genomes into the environment, people in third world countries are still starving.  The price of rice has gone up 500% in 5 years, doubled just this year.  Corn for ethanol has already raised the cost of grain feed and high fructose corn syrup.  Given that not all corn is produced for export or for animal feed and that it is difficult to reach all corners of the globe with food exports for the starving:  it is still abhorrent to me that America, with it's capacity to feed the world, is now greedily feeding its cars with potential food.  Rate this comment: (Reply)