[Graeme]

The 10 big energy myths

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here has never been a more important time to invest in green technologies, yet many of us believe these efforts are doomed to failure. What nonsense, writes Chris Goodall.

Myth 1: solar power is too expensive to be of much use

Myth 2: wind power is too unreliable

Myth 3: marine energy is a dead-end

Myth 4: nuclear power is cheaper than other low-carbon sources of electricity

Myth 5: electric cars are slow and ugly

Myth 6: biofuels are always destructive to the environment

Myth 7: climate change means we need more organic agriculture

Myth 8: zero carbon homes are the best way of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions from buildings

Myth 9: the most efficient power stations are big

Myth 10: all proposed solutions to climate change need to be hi-tech

[spiritof1976]

Interesting, though that article needs more references. Some of those claims need more evidence to be persuasive.


The thing about biochar intrigued me. I hadn't heard of that before.

[MrMambo]

He is definately on the right track. He is trying to be solutions oriented but also to look at problematic issues with different alternatives that are suggested.

I agree with him on solar, wind and ocean energy. I haven't looked into nuclear enough to be able to evaluate his judgement over that sector.

I have followed the carbon capture tech since the mid 90-ties and nothing I have seen there have convinced me yet. The stuff going on in Sweeden could be interesting though... But what is the energy required to get pure oxygen? That could potencially be a bottleneck for that process.

The part about smaller gass turbines is rather new to me and is somewhat interesting, but gass aswell as oil is a non renewable peaking resource.

The part about not all solutions being high-tech is definately true. Having people commute in buses or several people in the same car isn't hightech at all but is far more energy and resource efficient.

Converting to electric rail away from road transport of goods is also a non-hightech soloution wich frees up a lot of energy resources

And don't come along and stress the - "but where it the electricity coming from " routine - in the longer term renewable resources are plentiful enough for that solution. Remember the dramatic tech-changes of the world war 2 - in a crisis we are able to do dramatic changes and focus resources to the areas that most desperately need them.

If societies doesn't completely fall apart due to energy and resource limitations we can get organized on building the new renewable and resource recycling paradigm.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spiritof1976', 'I')nteresting, though that article needs more references. Some of those claims need more evidence to be persuasive.

The thing about biochar intrigued me. I hadn't heard of that before.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')yth 10: all proposed solutions to climate change need to be hi-tech

The advanced economies are obsessed with finding hi-tech solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these are expensive and may create as many problems as they solve. Nuclear power is a good example. But it may be cheaper and more effective to look for simple solutions that reduce emissions, or even extract existing carbon dioxide from the air. There are many viable proposals to do this cheaply around the world, which also often help feed the world's poorest people. One outstanding example is to use a substance known as biochar to sequester carbon and increase food yields at the same time.

Biochar is an astonishing idea. Burning agricultural wastes in the absence of air leaves a charcoal composed of almost pure carbon, which can then be crushed and dug into the soil. Biochar is extremely stable and the carbon will stay in the soil unchanged for hundreds of years. The original agricultural wastes had captured CO2 from the air through the photosynthesis process; biochar is a low-tech way of sequestering carbon, effectively for ever. As importantly, biochar improves fertility in a wide variety of tropical soils. Beneficial micro-organisms seem to crowd into the pores of the small pieces of crushed charcoal. A network of practical engineers around the tropical world is developing the simple stoves needed to make the charcoal. A few million dollars of support would allow their research to benefit hundreds of millions of small farmers at the same time as extracting large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.

[coyote]

The author is a bit sanguine about biofuels, but most of the list is all right. But this was the only real problem I had:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Myth 7: climate change means we need more organic agriculture

The uncomfortable reality is that we already struggle to feed six billion people. Population numbers will rise to more than nine billion by 2050. ... The richer half of the world's population will also be eating more meat. Since animals need large amounts of land for every unit of meat they produce, this further threatens food production for the poor. So we need to ensure that as much food as possible is produced on the limited resources of good farmland.

[jamest]

Here are links to a couple of articles about burning coal in pure oxygen:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/ ... 090801.asp

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/221090.html

Apparently a demonstration project is already in progress in Germany. Unfortunately, the articles don't say anything about the costs of separating the oxygen from the nitrogen. I would imagine that's a critical factor.

Here's a wild thought:

The coal could be mixed with dried biomass, such as miscanthus or willow. This is done currently in Europe. In that case, capturing and sequestering the CO2 from this process would actually be a net CO2 sink!

[Graeme]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'T')he author is a bit sanguine about biofuels, but most of the list is all right. But this was the only real problem I had:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Myth 7: climate change means we need more organic agriculture

The uncomfortable reality is that we already struggle to feed six billion people. Population numbers will rise to more than nine billion by 2050. ... The richer half of the world's population will also be eating more meat. Since animals need large amounts of land for every unit of meat they produce, this further threatens food production for the poor. So we need to ensure that as much food as possible is produced on the limited resources of good farmland.

[Revi]

I was at an Ag fair and they are already selling bio-char as a soil amendment. A friend uses it on his hayfields and says it works really well. he says you can see the difference in the hay that got the charcoal and those that didn't. It comes from biomass energy plants in New Hampshire.

I agree with most of what the guy from the guardian says, but he's forgetting the biggest impediment to making progress. That's culture. We have a car culture that wastes energy. We need to change, but can't because that's our culture.

[mos6507]

Yeah, issue 7 is where the guy loses the plot. He doesn't understand that no matter what we do, we're going to wind up with a food crisis.

[kiwichick]

as Coyote has said the #1 cause of climate change is us

we need leaders with the skill to lead a urgent review of the culture that says that couples who don't have children are either wierd or are to be pitied
we must reward couples who decide to either have none or only one child
and start discouraging couples from having more than one child

nine billion of us would be a disaster

[Revi]

I'm glad you revived this thread.

We are using a lot of the stuff on the list.

We use bio-char in our garden and put it in the compost (we call it the ashes from the woodstove)

We built and drive an electric car. It's really fun. www.sunnev.com

We have cut our fossil fuel use by half and are going even lower. We live better than we ever did before with half the carbon produced:

http://www.msad54.org/sahs/appliedarts/ ... /index.htm

So I would agree with most of what he says, based on our experience.

We save over $3000 a year from the changes we've made.

That buys a lot of movie tickets and dinners out.

Green means green (in our pockets)

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')'m glad you revived this thread.

We are using a lot of the stuff on the list.

We use bio-char in our garden and put it in the compost (we call it the ashes from the woodstove)
<SNIP>

[Revi]

We always have some charcoal pieces and I assumed that they were similar to biochar. Our maple syrup evaporator burns much hotter, so the ash that comes out of it is really fine. It gets recycled on the woodlot, and hasn't caused any ill effects yet.

I have heard that it affects potatoes to put too much potash on your garden. I haven't seen any problems yet from the ashes from our woodstove. It seems to improve our soil quality in the garden. We have sandy loam and it seems to help it. We need the carbon.