Comments on: Mass v Gas and the Biomass Buzz http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:34:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-2#comment-498719 David Bradley Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:56:46 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-498719 John, yeah, I know, I had the press release under embargo, but was offline (singing) when it expired, so didn't get around to give it a mention till today. I've written about Nocera's excellent work on several occasions over the last few years. I suspect this really could be a breakthrough we must watch. John, yeah, I know, I had the press release under embargo, but was offline (singing) when it expired, so didn’t get around to give it a mention till today. I’ve written about Nocera’s excellent work on several occasions over the last few years. I suspect this really could be a breakthrough we must watch.

]]> By: Johnx http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-2#comment-498679 Johnx Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:26:09 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-498679 David, It hit the news yesterday, big time, and good news it is. About funding research, of which I am an advocate. I understand that Nocera's work was funded by the National Science Foundation, and augmented recently by a large gift from the Chesonis Family Foundation. David, It hit the news yesterday, big time, and good news it is.

About funding research, of which I am an advocate. I understand that Nocera’s work was funded by the National Science Foundation, and augmented recently by a large gift from the Chesonis Family Foundation.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-2#comment-498389 David Bradley Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:11:10 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-498389 Okay. You probably saw it already but Dan Nocera has announced a breakthrough in <a href="http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/8/1/4847/54240" rel="nofollow">solar energy</a> that could revolutionise energy production. http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/8/1/4847/54240 Okay. You probably saw it already but Dan Nocera has announced a breakthrough in solar energy that could revolutionise energy production.

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/8/1/4847/54240

]]> By: Johnx http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-1#comment-497459 Johnx Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:06:13 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-497459 My advocacy of drilling for oil and natural gas, and my advocacy of mining coal and using new nuclear fission technology was, I thought, expressed as an interim one, if a count of tens of years can be thought of as interim. The best evidence is that these sources of power are all that we have really available for the foreseeable future use. I suspect that none of these resources (oil, gas, uranium and coal) can be extracted for "burning" as fuel beyond another 60 to 100 years, if that long. That is why I strongly advocate fusion research even though probably nobody of my generation will ever see the fruit of those laboring in this arena. This is also why I strongly advocate research devoted to unlock the secrets of photosynthesis (something non-brained flora and some non-brained fauna perform so efficiently without even being able to think about it). I think wind generators are fine, as are solar panels. However, in the future world of nine billion people wanting to refrigerate their food, desiring mobile transport (sans looking at the rear end of a horse, an ass or a water buffalo), these power sources are but a blip on the screen, or at best, will serve small and specialized markets and needs. I watch with glee as the ITER project moves forward, and as projects ongoing in the US and Australia progress with the same goals on the chart. I similarly watch as scientists of chemistry are really beginning to unlock the hydrogenase enzymes secrets (not being a chemist, I doubly admire these men and women -- more than half of what they write I do not understand -- so be it, I read it anyway). The need for energy can be thought of, at the same time, as a short term debt and long term debt obligation. Short term payment requires energy now. Long term payments requires really difficult and expensive scientific research that we all should support. If my previous post conveyed the wrong message, I apologize. My advocacy of drilling for oil and natural gas, and my advocacy of mining coal and using new nuclear fission technology was, I thought, expressed as an interim one, if a count of tens of years can be thought of as interim. The best evidence is that these sources of power are all that we have really available for the foreseeable future use.

I suspect that none of these resources (oil, gas, uranium and coal) can be extracted for “burning” as fuel beyond another 60 to 100 years, if that long. That is why I strongly advocate fusion research even though probably nobody of my generation will ever see the fruit of those laboring in this arena. This is also why I strongly advocate research devoted to unlock the secrets of photosynthesis (something non-brained flora and some non-brained fauna perform so efficiently without even being able to think about it).

I think wind generators are fine, as are solar panels. However, in the future world of nine billion people wanting to refrigerate their food, desiring mobile transport (sans looking at the rear end of a horse, an ass or a water buffalo), these power sources are but a blip on the screen, or at best, will serve small and specialized markets and needs.

I watch with glee as the ITER project moves forward, and as projects ongoing in the US and Australia progress with the same goals on the chart. I similarly watch as scientists of chemistry are really beginning to unlock the hydrogenase enzymes secrets (not being a chemist, I doubly admire these men and women — more than half of what they write I do not understand — so be it, I read it anyway).

The need for energy can be thought of, at the same time, as a short term debt and long term debt obligation. Short term payment requires energy now. Long term payments requires really difficult and expensive scientific research that we all should support.

If my previous post conveyed the wrong message, I apologize.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-1#comment-496929 David Bradley Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:20:49 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-496929 David, is your comment in response to John or my post in general? If the latter, then the point was that gas (CH4) seems to be the optimal material, if the former, then I'll leave it to John to comment further. David, is your comment in response to John or my post in general? If the latter, then the point was that gas (CH4) seems to be the optimal material, if the former, then I’ll leave it to John to comment further.

]]> By: David http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-1#comment-496891 David Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:12:57 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-496891 That would be great if there was an endless supply of oil but I don't think that is likely. Hypothetically if it was proven, I bet gas prices would plummet. That would be great if there was an endless supply of oil but I don’t think that is likely. Hypothetically if it was proven, I bet gas prices would plummet.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-1#comment-496731 David Bradley Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:27:51 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-496731 Johnx, there's some very, very promising news still under embargo that's will be published later this week...cannot say any more now, but will highlight as soon as the embargo expires. Johnx, there’s some very, very promising news still under embargo that’s will be published later this week…cannot say any more now, but will highlight as soon as the embargo expires.

]]> By: Johnx http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/disadvantages-of-biomass.html/comment-page-1#comment-496717 Johnx Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:13:16 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1767#comment-496717 It is refreshing that scientists such as Maria Sudiro and Alberto Bertucco publish something that makes sense and is sans all the hysteria. I am glad you brought it to our attention. My thinking that In this interim, we must drill for oil and gas, and yes mine coal. Also, we must use fission. At best, all we can do is make more efficient use of these processes. We have no other choice. In the future, there is fusion, but not probably in my lifetime. More promising is artificial photosynthesis -- and I understand that we are getting very close. Imagine carbon dioxide becoming a hot commodity! Thanks for the article. It is refreshing that scientists such as Maria Sudiro and Alberto Bertucco publish something that makes sense and is sans all the hysteria. I am glad you brought it to our attention.

My thinking that In this interim, we must drill for oil and gas, and yes mine coal. Also, we must use fission. At best, all we can do is make more efficient use of these processes. We have no other choice.

In the future, there is fusion, but not probably in my lifetime.

More promising is artificial photosynthesis — and I understand that we are getting very close. Imagine carbon dioxide becoming a hot commodity!

Thanks for the article.

]]>