[NMLUG] Why so many Linux distros?

[sbrowne at ix.netcom.com (Steve Browne)]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:35:36 -0600, you wrote:

>Brian Rodgers wrote:
>> I think Lee has a very good point. " Coal-burning power plants could be 
>> made to be MUCH less polluting if
>> they would just switch to fluidized bed furnaces using limestone media.
>> The technology is appallingly simple and has been available since the
>> 1920s.
>> 
>> Let's focus on burning carbon neutral biomass more efficiently.
>> Wood heaters that burn all the fuel, is going to be one of my experiments.
>> Also I am currently working on waste veggie oil furnaces.
>> Gasification of biomass also has a bright future.
>> Our local community college is starting a renewable energy department 
>> which I am proud to say I will be part of. We have list member Matt 
>> Bowie to thank for this great Web Page at the school.
>> http://www.luna.edu
>> Brian Rodgers
>
>With my background in Chemical Engineering, I'm into mass balances.
>
>Seems to me that any carbon we get in carbon fuels is carbon that was 
>concentrated in plant biomass and then further concentrated by the 
>geological process of heat and compression over time. Therefore, it's 
>just a much longer cycle than the comparatively short cycle of growing 
>crops and turning them into fuels.
>
>Another interesting feature of the huge ethanol industry is that ethanol 
>product results in a net increase in emissions. It takes about 1.3 
>gallons of petroleum fuels to produce one gallon of ethanol, and 
>billions of taxpayer dollars. (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8260)

You are passing on a spin by special interests, whether consciously or
not, and those kinds of discussions are very tiring (and out of place
here). I would suggest, though, you look at an article in the current
issue of WIRED Magazine (hardcopy, not online), which showcases an
ethanol producer which uses biomass (cowshit) to produce energy to
process corn and also fertilize it. There are ways to make a
self-contained energy cycle with almost no waste.

>biodeisel is really interesting. From what little I've seen, it's 
>terribly toxic, terribly corrosive and extremely expensive (I seem to 
>remember that it cost in the range of $10.00/gallon to produce?). It 
>also appears to be every bit as interesting and fun as home brewed beer.

The process involves lye (sodium hydroxide), which I use every day
domestically in my mountain-hard-water environment anyway. Your memory
of cost is way overblown.

>Wind energy is expensive and extremely maintenance intensive... and 
>kills bats. Lots of bats. go figure. I expect to see environmental 
>activists fighting environmental activists over wind farms soon.

Wind energy is dependent on selective locations where the wind blows
continuously. FPL Group (Florida Power & Light) has specialized in
building windfarms, and recently built some in eastern New Mexico.
You're probably enjoying power from them right now.
>
>I just don't see a lot of problem releasing the sulfur and carbon from 
>petroleum and coal reserves so that it can go back into new plants. No 
>good reason to let perfectly good renewable energy source go to waste 
>just because it's old.

Evolutionary scientists are now seriously speculating that sulferous
and carbon eruptions caused the near-extinction of life on Earth
(before the dinosaurs). We don't want it to happen again.

Steve
Stephen B. Browne
sbrowne@ix.netcom.com
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible."
                          - Walt Disney