Special Microwave Turns Plastic into Oil!

You heard it here first, folks!

Global Resources Corporation has developed a specialized microwave that directs energy at plastics and releases the hydrocarbons. The result? Waste plastics are transformed into diesel oil, combustible gas, carbon, and whatever else is in the original plastic!

As we know, plastics are made from oil. Some, however, are extremely energy-intensive and expensive to recycle into new plastics. GRC's process can recycle essentially anything which contains hydrocarbons, including those pesky worn-out tires that burn so freely in junkyards across the nation!

I'm all for reducing and reusing first, and buying more durable products which we need not recycle so quickly; however, a process like this can provide incentive for people to mine our junkyards for oil resources, stretching the life of in-earth oil reserves AND the capacity of our landfills.

Read more at http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12141-giant-microwave-turns-plastic-back-to-oil.html

Gas Station Owner Finds Ultimate Marketing Ploy

In a brilliant move to draw business to his station, Harvey Pollack, owner of Towne Mobil Market in Mequon, Wisconsin shut off his pumps for one day to "protest high gas prices". This move, costing him a mere $1500 for the full day, has brought him national free coverage lasting several days.

Winner of the coveted "Energy Idiot of the Week" title, Maria McClory, gives her performance in the CNN article linked above:

Maria McClory, 38, drove 10 miles out of her way to buy a diet soda from Pollack's station after seeing local television coverage of the protest.

"I just wanted to support them and thank them for making a statement," said McClory, who drives about 100 miles a day for work in her sport utility vehicle.

This dim bulb (incandescent, I'd wager) drove an extra ten miles to buy a soda, in her gas-hog SUV, which she "drives for work". I wonder, is she transporting half a dozen workers in that SUV? Or just her overladen handbag?

Perhaps she'd have made a stronger statement by ditching the SUV for something a bit more efficient, eh? Or not driving ten miles for a soda!

Kudos to the unnamed CNN reporter who made sure we all knew that Ms. McClory likes to complain about gas prices while simultaneously using as much as possible . . . without this information, she'd not have been able to win her title.

Self-Degrading GE Corn? No self-esteem issues here.

Corn's had a tough row to hoe lately. One of the world's leading food crops for generations, it's rapidly being diverted into ethanol production. The simple sugars in the kernels can be fermented into ethanol much faster than the cellulose in the stalks. With a new, self-degrading genetically-engineered corn plant, that's all about to change.

According to this LiveScience article, Michigan State University genetic engineers have developed a strain of corn which develops its own cellulase, an enzyme needed to break down cellulose into simple sugars. The plant sequesters the cellulase until the stalk is crushed and heated.

Cornstalks which can produce their own cellulase means the corn grain can continue to enter the food chain, while the stalks -- usually waste material -- become feedstock (feedstalk?) for the fuel chain.

No word yet on a timetable for further testing and availability of this product.

The wise engineers, sensitive to biodiversity concerns (and patent management), are making a point of ensuring that the cellulase-production genes cannot be passed through simple reproduction.

Sheryl Crow Solves Global Warming Problem!!

That's right, folks. Sheryl Crow has come up with a brilliant, two-part plan to curb global warming. The hours of sitting on the "Biodiesel Bus" touring the country to raise awareness have given her plenty of time to come up with a plan.

Not only is it simple in execution, but it's so very easy for each of us to do on our own, with only minimal government intrusion into our personal lives!

The first step of her ingenious plan:

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," she wrote on her Biodiesel Bus Blog.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," she suggested.

"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required," she wrote.

That's right, folks. A simple ban on overuse of toilet paper, along with the placement of single-sheet toilet paper dispensers in every public and private restroom in the nation, complete with monitoring to determine whether someone is overwiping, is the first part of Crow's Global Warming Prevention Plan.

Never mind the volume of energy required to construct all those monitoring dispensers and place them in hundreds of millions of bathrooms. Never mind that toilet paper becomes sewage sludge, used as fertilizer. This will curb global warming, by . . . um . . . well, it just WILL!

I suggest we all carry about a plastic scraper, for use prior to the use of our single sheet of toilet paper. Yes, yes, I know. Energy invested in 300 million scrapers . . . perhaps we can share?

Lest you lose faith in Crow, she has the second part of her Plan in place already. In this, she works out her renowned fashion designer chops!

Crow also commented that paper serviettes "represent the height of wastefulness" and that she'd designed a "dining sleeve" that's detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve' once you've used it to wipe your mouth.

That's right. Banning paper napkins, which do end up in landfills, is the second half of Crow's scheme. Instead, each of us will cart about multiple extra shirtsleeves, and wipe our mouths and clean up spills with our clothing! Then, of course, after a date, we can just toss those extra sleeves into our Sleeve Carrying Bag, and put on new ones.

I believe that this "dining sleeve" falls short, however. We could go so much farther.

I propose we add a "snot sleeve" as well, and ban tissues. Yes, since folks like Crow are accustomed to places which only have paper napkins, and wiping their mouths upon their sleeves, they should be quite happy to do the same with their noses!

In fact, we can trace global warming back to Napoleon, who added buttons to the sleeves of his soldiers' uniforms to stop their nose-wiping. Ever since, waste and global temperatures have increased steadily. See the connection? Obviously, Crow missed this crucial step which will allow her plan to succeed in curbing global warming.

Wait, you say, why do we not just use cloth napkins and handkerchiefs? Well, that would seem an adequate solution, but both of those are already in use. We need something new, and it has to be designed by our new savior, Sheryl Crow.

All she wants to do is have some fun. And save the environment. Would you deny her?

Corn-Based Ethanol - The Ungreen Alternative Fuel

Today's a busy day, so please forgive me for simply cutting and pasting a very well-written article from The Economist which explains in detail why ethanol made from corn is neither a cheap fuel nor a green fuel. I've added some bold here and there to call attention to particular points, and just a few comments following the story.

Corn-based ethanol not cheap, not green

THE ECONOMIST

It is not often that this newspaper agrees with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticizing George W. Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point.

Along with other critics of the United States' ethanol drive, Castro warned against the "sinister idea of converting food into fuel." The United States' use of corn to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with gasoline to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn.

As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply is being diverted to feed the United States' hungry cars.

Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in the U.S., and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It accounted for only around 3.5 percent of U.S. fuel consumption last year, but production is growing by 25 percent a year because the government subsidizes domestic production and penalizes imports. As a result, refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the Midwest, which sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.

Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that the U.S. may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.

The automotive industry loves it, because switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual for the time being.

Taxpayers seem not to have noticed they are footing the bill.

But corn-based ethanol is neither cheap nor green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.

Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil, the main producer, has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rain forests.

Other developing countries with tropical climates could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to rich Americans to fuel their cars.

There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs, and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes, but much research is under way to make the process cheaper.

That is still some way off. In the meantime, the U.S. should trash its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidizing bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener and the U.S. taxpayer would be richer.

Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But its proponents do not claim that it would. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good ethanol, that is -- not the bad stuff the U.S. is so keen on.

Copyright 2007 Economist Newspaper Ltd. Distributed by The New York Times
Syndicate

So there it is. As more farmland is diverted to fuel production, the cost of food increases. Meanwhile, we taxpayers crank out subsidies of more than $7 Billion annually to produce a fuel product that costs us in hidden ways: First in our taxes, and then again in our food purchases. Eventually, it may also cost us when we need to choose between growing fuel and growing food.

What can we do? Write a letter to the editor, or to your Senator or Representative, promoting sensible alternative energy . . . not more subsidies to large-scale corporate agribusiness in our supposedly "capitalist" society!

You may also log on to The Economist's site and view the article here: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJGDQTN&CFID=110855567&CFTOKEN=d7690f-c020e84b-64aa-4dde-a2f2-23db0af23931

The MPG Hacks Heat Up

Over at Treehugger.com, I read about this little doozy. Yes, someone has tweaked out a Hummer to get 40 mpg!

OK, not really. "The equivalent of" 40 mpg. That actually seems to mean 22-24 mpg. How exactly 40 is the equivalent of 22, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Law of Fives has something to do with it, or some of that "Fuzzy Math" Bush II was once so fond of mentioning.

The full story at ZDNet tells us the same thing. "Equivalent of 40 mpg", but only lists 22-24 mpg as an actual achievement. My best guess is that it gets the equivalent distance in emissions as a 40 mpg vehicle if you use biodiesel. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Anyway, it's a lot better than 10 mpg. Right? Let's consider.

It requires the complete replacement of the engine and transmission. This isn't a little tweak. This isn't a home conversion kit you buy off the 'net.

There's no mention of the expense involved in this little "adjustment", but I'd wager it runs several thousand dollars. Probably not worth the expense of the fuel savings. But now it will get 650 horsepower, wheeee! (I bet that figures into that magical 22 = 40 thing. An unmodified Hummer gets 325 hp.)

Then there's the additional invested energy in making a replacement for a brand-new engine. How much energy will be wasted in that? Will anyone make use of the old engine?

In my view, this "greening" of Hummers is all about stroking the egos and soothing the consciences of the owners. It's expensive and wasteful, and serves only to keep these mammoth fuel-wasters on the road and make them appear more socially acceptable.

Want to get 27 mpg in a truck for only $5,000? Do what I did.

Buy a used mid-sized or compact pickup.

Want more luxury? Buy something that's more efficient than a Hummer!

Skyfarming: Skyscrapers to Replace Flat Farms?

New York Magazine offers a look at "vertical farms", an energy-saving, land-saving food production strategy.


Columbia University's Dr. Dickson Despommier (www.verticalfarm.com) has been working on the vertical farm concept since 2001, and is now beginning to attract the attention of both scientists and investors.


Essentially, vertical farms propose 30-story buildings, each floor stacked to grow two to ten different crops.

Once operational, nothing would be wasted:

• Treated wastewater from the adjacent city is retreated for safety and used for irrigation.
• Pure water transpired by plants is condensed, collected, and either sold as drinking water or reused in irrigation.
• Solar collectors or windturbines collect environmental energy.
• Solar power feeds a "pellet power" production facility, recycling biowastes like corn husks and cobs, along with restaurant waste, into pellets. Pellets are then burned to operate a steam-driven electric plant.

Not limited to plants, such urban farms can also raise fish and poultry.


A few benefits of such structures:

• Can be built today, using current technology
• Each building removes thousands of acres of farmland from production
• Efficiently uses resources
• Virtually eliminates transportation expense for food
• Organic farming more feasible
• No weeds, insects, or plant viruses, so no need for GMO plants or pesticides

Using these vertical farms, thousands of acres of farmland could be returned to forest growth, supplying timber and helping reduce global warming.

Drawbacks? They won't be cheap to build -- approximately $200 million in current dollars -- and won't be cost-effective up front. Placing them where they're best sited, in urbanized areas, means relocating or redirecting urban development.

The first such tower may be built in Dubai, the oil-rich emirate in the Middle East which recently constructed an indoor ski resort and is presently constructing islands approximating the shape of all the countries of the world. Dubai has little to no arable land, little water (they're fed by desalinization plants), and plenty of money.

If you ask me, it's about time they put some of their cash toward something useful.

Further designs and information may be found on Despommier's website, www.verticalfarm.com.