Comments pmaier has made

No eggs, but a steep cliff.

What is happing with global climate change is not a question of scrambling or unscrambling an egg, but more like a situation when you are in the wilderness and walk into a direction to a point where you can see that, if you continue in that direction, you will come to the edge of very deep cliff. The question is do you continue to walk in that direction (only if you like to look at a world you can not reach from there) or do you change directions?

Making fire undoubtedly was a major reason we as humans are still here, but since we now are burning up all organic matter sequestered over millions of years, shouldn't we change directions and find other ways to satisfy our need for energy and isn't it time we start using all our knowledge we as humans have acquired over all these years?

Some may say that there is no such solution, but why is it that we refuse to look at how nature of millions of years has flourished, by autotrophic life creating organic matter, by using photosynthesis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, while heterotrophic life takes this organic matter to release the energy it needs and return the oxygen and hydrogen back to water.

So why nature already has a hydrogen based energy cycle, why can we imitate nature by using our knowledge?  Some will claim that it will take too much energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, as electricity is required. The energy provided by the sun through photosynthesis is already plenty for all autotrophic life on this planet to flourish, but as long as we can not replicate photosynthesize yet on large scale, there are much more ways we can use the huge exchange of energy between the sun and the earth, that are not explored, mainly because we are still acting like the cavemen who found out how to make fire.

When looking for alternative energy, we should adhere to two criteria:
1.    It should not have a major impact on our biosphere.
2.    The source should be stored, so it is only used when we need it.

If we apply these criteria to what is presently going on, hardly any will meet them and do not represent any major change in direction we are going, although some can be easily adjusted.

May be we have not reached to point that we all can not see the cliff yet? Or may be the lame who is leading the blind is not seeing the cliff yet or does not want the blind to see it?

If fish only could talk!

Response 2.

Google hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen combustion engines and you will find that hydrogen in cells produce electricity and that hydrogen also can be used directly in combustion engines.
You would be surprised how far this technology has been developed. Electrolysis of water creating hydrogen and oxygen has been known for a long time.
On Agriculture interests push ambitious renewable-energy goal posted 3 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Biofuel and Nutrient Enrichment of our Biosphere

Why Nutrient Enrichment of the Earth's Biosphere Is Ignored and Why EPA Still Allows Cities to Use Rivers as Giant Urinals.

Environmental issues are complicated and individuals that try to discuss them are often considered 'Chicken Little'.  Unfortunately many also have used environmental issues to promote their own 'green goals' (green not the color of trees but that of money).

The issue however is not so difficult to understand, provided you keep it simple.  Look at life as if it is a large box full of Lego blocks.  Actually much simpler than my kid's box, since this box of life only has mainly four different blocks: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and 'reactive nitrogen'.  

There is plenty of nitrogen in the air (78%), but that form of nitrogen cannot be used as a building block. Up until the start of the last century, the naturally formed 'reactive nitrogen' blocks were the limiting factor for life on earth and basically established the balance and biodiversity in our biosphere, as we know and like it.  

However, by introducing manmade 'reactive nitrogen' blocks (fertilizer) we have created much more life and we obviously have disturbed this balance.  It is estimated that 25% of the `reactive nitrogen' in the proteins of human bodies, now originates from the fertilizer industries.

It is obvious that we cannot stop using fertilizers to grow our food, but we should become aware of what happens with the 'reactive nitrogen' during and after we have used it, since most of it eventually will end up in our environment.  

The impact of  'reactive nitrogen' on our environment is mostly ignored, partly because of lack of understanding, partly because it affects different turfs of interest (agencies in government and faculties in our educational system) and possible also because nitric oxide (as a result of burning air) also a form of 'reactive nitrogen' comes from the tail pipes of our cars.

This anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of the earth's biosphere has enormous consequences, which not only impacts the atmosphere (global warming, destruction of the ozone layer), but also our open waterways (eutrophication, i.e. the 8000 square miles `dead zone' in the Golf of Mexico, red tides, destruction of coral reefs and pfiesteria in estuaries) and, due to `green rain' (rain containing `reactive nitrogen'), stimulates vegetation, which in turn, during droughts, provides the extra fuel for wild fires.

Many of these anthropogenic  `reactive nitrogen' sources will be difficult to control, but where they could have been controlled in sewage (human waste), it was omitted mainly due to an incorrectly applied water pollution test.

The Clean Water Act, now 31 years old, still allows cities to use rivers as giant urinals.
In 1972 it all seemed so easy, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act and Senator Muskie stated on the Senate floor: "This Act simply means, that we can not use our rivers any longer to treat our sewage".

Even tough many claim that this second largest federal public works program has been successful; neither of the Act's goals -- swimmable and fishable waters by 1983 and elimination of all water pollution by 1985 -- have been achieved.  

Neither can they ever be achieved, because the regulations implementing the Act ignore 40% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and all the pollution caused by urine waste in sewage.  Sadly this is the result of an incorrectly applied pollution tests.

This pollution test is called the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test, which measures the oxygen used by bacteria that feed on the organic matter in sewage. Sewage contains carbonaceous matter (fecal), which is used by heterotrphic bacteria and nitrogenous matter (urine and proteins), which is used by autotrophic bacteria.  

When the test was developed in England, around 1920, it was found that completing the test would take 30 days, but when applied on raw sewage, the autotrophic bacteria only contributed to the oxygen consumption after 6 to 10days. During the first 5 days, the test only measured the oxygen demand of the heterotrophic bacteria, called BOD5, while the proper name is C-BOD5.

The oxygen usage by autotrophic bacteria (N-BOD) also could be measured with another nitrogen test and the BOD5 test became a timesaver, but always intended to be used together with the nitrogen test.  When the BOD5 in sewage is measured 200, the total C-BOD is 300 and the N-BOD 200.

Although all this is well described in the old literature, it became common engineering practice worldwide, to solely use the BOD5 test value and consider this value to represent all the organic waste in sewage.

While writing the CWA in 1972, Congress was told that eliminating all water pollution was not possible, but that demanding "secondary treatment" -- considered 85% treatment-- would be a good step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, when EPA applied the 85% treatment requirement for its NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permits, EPA applied this requirement on the BOD5 test, which, as explained earlier, only measures 60% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and not any of the pollution caused by urine waste.

Since the BOD5 test does not distinguishes between C-BOD and N-BOD, it is not possible to evaluate the treatment efficiency of a sewage treatment plant, neither is it possible to establish a waste load on receiving water bodies.  Last but not least, since this test value-- still assumed to be C-BOD5-- is used for the design of a treatment facility, plants are designed to treat the wrong waste.  

The results of one day proper testing in 1984, discarded an approved plan to expand Salt Lake City's sewage treatment plant which would have cost the city 135 million dollar.

Autotrophic bacteria -essential in the nitrogen cycle--will be present in sewers and sewage treatment plants and will exert a N-BOD when effluents of plants are tested. This will raise its BOD5 value, often higher than the 30 (85% of 200) as was required for the discharge permit and causing such plants to be out of compliance.

Not only that many cities and industries were fined, thus penalized for treating their wastewater better then was required, legal enforcement of the NPDES program was impossible.

EPA acknowledged the problems in 1984, but instead of correcting the test procedures, EPA allowed also the use of the C-BOD5 test, which is similar to the BOD5 test, except that a special chemical is added to kill the autotrophic bacteria.  Many sewage treatment plants, prior to 1984 out of compliance, got into compliance by adding this chemical to their test.

EPA, by administrative ruling, lowered the goals of the CWA from 100% treatment to a mere 40% treatment, without asking or informing Congress.  

Although aware, several members of Congress do not want to take action, because they are told that demanding better sewage treatment is not necessary and would be very costly.  Reality is that sewage treatment technology already was available in 1972, which achieves 95% treatment of both C-BOD and N-BOD and is less expensive to build and operate than conventional sewage treatment, which actually was developed solely to control odors.

Although it will be difficult for everybody directly and indirectly involved in the implementation of the CWA, the Act should be implemented as it was intended and promised to the American public.  Only then, with better knowledge and understanding, would we be able to reduce this eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of our biosphere, which may not affect our environment tomorrow, but certainly decades from now.

While natural eutrophication of lakes, according to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory 1992 Report to Congress, would take thousands of years, man-induced eutrophication is occurring in decades. On Agriculture interests push ambitious renewable-energy goal posted 3 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Nobody should be surprised!

Visualize the following: a man standing on the banks of a river with in one hand a glass of city drinking water and in the other a glass of beer. EPA's water pollution regulations, will not allow him to throw the drinking water into the river, but would allow him to throw in half the beer.  He also could drink both glasses, wait and be allowed to urinate into the river.

EPA regulations not only ignores part of the pollution caused by fecal waste, but all the pollution caused by nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, on top of many other pollutants.

Fortunately for EPA this is technical stuff nobody is supposed to understand, especially not individuals working in the media.

Sadly it is only the tip of the pollution iceberg that now impacts the water quality of our drinking water.On Post-Katrina floodwaters are dirty, but so are other U.S. waterways posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Friedman Fighter

Energy Independent Nation? Only if all the oil is depleted!

Men's ultimate freedom would be to have wings and since the automobile provided part of such freedom, we will need an energy source which provides this mobility and preferable would not cause any air pollution.

With our present technology, hydrogen would fill such requirements, except that, since it is an explosive gas, its handling and transport is troublesome and since only limited fuel can be carried by cars, trip lengths will be limited. This then would require a large infrastructure with many fuel stations. Hydrogen can be directly used in car engines and in stead of burning air will yield water or can be used in fuel cells and generate electricity to drive a car.

It is true that it requires energy to generate hydrogen, but there are many `free' green (wind , wave, sun and different temperatures) sources already available and others will be developed, provided the country is committed to replace fossil fuels with hydrogen, which indeed will require a massive federal program.

And that, I am afraid, is not going to happen as we have a government controlled by oil men.  It would mean giving up their power and their huge profits they now and in the future will have.  

Since oil contracts still are based on US dollars, foreign producers lost as the result of the devaluating dollar, so they raised their prices. The US only imports 65% of the oil, so those who produced 35% locally benefited from these price increases, while they could blame the foreigners.

We probably only will see Washington move towards an independent energy policy, when the American oil establishment has milked our economy dry and have moved to The Bahamas.
On An interview with New York Times columnist and "geo-green" advocate Thomas Friedman posted 4 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses