Comments on: Converting Carbon Dioxide into Liquid Fuel with Bacteria

By: Brian Kanouse

Brian Kanouse — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:17:33 +0000

Escapism,

The world in the last 20 years has turned to greed. The average NFL player in the 1960s earned 20,000 to 60,000 dollars, they now make 10 to 20,000,000 dollars per contract. The average worker has to spend his entire pay check to take his family to the game. In the same token the someone doing the work expects to make millions based on their education. This is what keeps the Bio-energy projects out of reach. Why should a wind turbine cost hundreds of thousands to millions to build? The materials are cheap.

By: Escapism

Escapism — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:33:09 +0000

Well Brian and Darth, we are indeed talking about the survival of the planet, however you have to consider Rich’s view. After all, the infrastructure needed for such a project as well as the financing has to come down from somewhere, as well as salaries and raw materials. so why does every argument come down to nickels and dimes? Because whats needed to make it come from somewhere, and at that somewhere someone has to be doing the work. And while the survival of the planet is important that thought alone wont feed the man doing the work.

By: Leonard

Leonard — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:34:48 +0000

And where do we keep the biomass? Will we burn it?

By: Darth Vegas

Darth Vegas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:46:57 +0000

Sorry Rich, while I truly appreciate your pragmatic approach, I think you’re missing Frank’s point. Seriously, we’re talking about the survival of the freakin planet, why does every argument boil down to nickels and dimes? Common sense is all it takes to choose to pay for sustainability?

By: Rich Sun

Rich Sun — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:35:44 +0000

Brian,
I can’t read your language to be in sync with mine. If you agree with my assertions great. Dollar cost and economic efficiency–fully-costed and properly measured–are exactly the way projects should be valued and accepted or rejected.
Rich Sun

By: Brian Kanouse

Brian Kanouse — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:11:37 +0000

Rich, Your view is valued but it is exactly what I was speaking of. Please re-read and reconsider.

By: Andrew Pingree

Andrew Pingree — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:23:37 +0000

All ideas for utilizing CO2 in the atmosphere are brilliant. We need more of this sort of thing. (The next step after developing the fundamentals of an idea like this, I think, is to engage with governments for research funding).

I think that if CO2 and/or methane can be captured in such a way as to manufacture building materials and other permanent structural materials, this would be even better because that sort of application will keep the carbon out of the atmosphere instead of cycling it back and forth.

By: Rich SUn

Rich SUn — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:50:43 +0000

Brian,
Let’s go back to basics–econ 101. The dollar (or any currency) is a store of value and measure of the resources you consume. It the cost to produce a good is greater than its value either(1) you will reduce wealth and income (usually disproportionately to poor people–probably not your intended goal) or (2)the cost value system is inaccurate. If you want to lament something, and you should, do it with a least a college level of economic literacy, lament that pollution costs are not fully taken into account in the costing. Otherwise, you are a danger to the green movement.
Rich Sun

By: Brian Kanouse

Brian Kanouse — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:05:12 +0000

It is too bad that the good of the earth and mankind are determined on a dollar cost and efficiency level of projects. Is the dollar as important as the health of our planet? Every small alternative energy project that advances takes that much more away from our current methods.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:08:56 +0000

I was wondering how such a plant will work. What would the structure entail or look like?

By: Michael Foster

Michael Foster — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:53:06 +0000

How cost effective and efficient is it at this stage?