June 19th, 2008 -- Posted in Oil and petrol, Water Saving, science snippets |
Prologue:
I have always had an avid interest in science, and last year I fulfilled a long-held desire - to get a subscription to New Scientist magazine.
It is always an engaging, fascinating, and educational read, and I love learning about all the cutting-edge technologies and ideas out there. I actually have a few posts planned that are based on some interesting environmental stories I have read in there recently, and this is the first. In fact, given my science background, I’ll probably aim to make my ’science snippets’ a regular feature here at SS - let me know if you’d like to get updates from me on the scientific issues regarding sustainability!
And so, on to the story…
NS discuss a new biofuel in the latest edition - an emerald green form of crude oil produced by the process of photosynthesis in genetically-engineered algae. It’s being produced by a company called Sapphire Energy in California, and they’re planning on producing about 10,000 barrels a day within five years.
On their website, Sapphire claim that “the company’s final products will have the same chemical composition as gasoline and will be completely compatible with the existing refining, distribution and fleet infrastructure.” (Sapphireenergy.com)
Now, the benefits of this over other ‘biofuels’ are obvious. First, it’s not using land that has been previously devoted to growing food, as sugar-cane for ethanol has been (and that is the main reason that ethanol fuel is becoming more and more frowned upon from a global perspective). Second, it can be grown in treated waste-water, and pretty much all it needs is the water and sun to grow. Now, I’m a scientist by training and by nature, so biotechnology as a rule is something I am in full support of - when it’s used intelligently for the greater good, not just the greater profit (e.g. I am fully against Mon’satan’ and their approach to monopolising agriculture and creating a world of non-self-pollinating seeds).
So, all that sounds great… however. Sapphire Energy say that the quality of their oil is such that it can be pumped into the current pipeline, and used to fuel any vehicle that runs on normal petrol… does this mean, therefore, that this oil will result in the same carbon emissions as ‘normal’ oil? And if so, is it really a good alternative?
To add your thoughts to the issue, please leave a comment below.
To read the NewScientist article, click the link - Emerald Oil
P.S. And on a random note - if they’re making emerald oil, why are they called sapphire energy?
May 15th, 2008 -- Posted in Uncategorized |
Today I’ve been contemplating this whole idea of carbon neutrality. I have a vague notion of what it’s all about, but thinking about it, I wondered - how did paying a few extra dollars for my most recent flights, or for my tickets the the John Butler Trio concert make these things ‘carbon neutral’? The plane was still spewing out the same emissions, and the concert was still using the same amount of energy to power it. Even my web host claims to be carbon neutral! It seems to be the ‘in’ thing at the moment for companies to make this claim. But what does it actually involve, and how much difference does it really make?
So, I’ve started looking into the concept. I think the move towards using more renewable forms of energy is fantastic, as is reducing emissions by using our vehicles less and attempting to move away from oil as our main source of fuel - though the environmental concerns about using biofuels like ethanol leave me a little worried. However, the whole idea of buying carbon credits sounds a little dubious to me.
An interesting critique of this practice can be found at The Carbon Neutral Myth. Obviously, as the title suggests, they are against the whole concept, and they have some good arguments for being so. The most scientifically interesting part of their argument for me is the following:
“The carbon cycle can be divided into two
parts: active and inert. Trees are part of the active carbon cycle, a continual
movement of carbon among plants, organisms, water and the atmosphere. In
contrast, reserves of fossil fuels are inert: the carbon they contain is locked up
and does not come into contact with the active part of the carbon cycle unless
we burn them. Movement of carbon between the active cycle and the inert pool
is one-way - once carbon is released from the inert pool by burning fossil fuels,
it enters the active cycle. It will not return to the inert pool unless it undergoes
the same sort of millennia-long geological process that transformed it into a
fossil fuel in the first place.” -accessed 15 May 2008-
On the other hand, there are companies like Carbon Neutral, a non-profit organisation that seems pretty upfront about how long it will take to actually offset your emissions. According to these guys and their emissions calculator, I come out at the following figures:
total emissions: 15.6
trees to offset: 94*
donation: AUD$296.4
Now, for most of the questions I used the average, so I think in reality my carbon footprint is probably a bit less, but it’s still hugely more than the Sustainable World Average, which is apparently 2 tonnes - as opposed to my 15.6 tonnes!
I’m not yet convinced that planting trees is the best way towards climate change. Don’t get me wrong - every tree planted is a fantastic thing, and I’m all for us trying to reverse the horrible deforestation we’ve subjected the planet to over the last few hundred years. But I think the best ways towards living a more carbon neutral life involve the changes we can make ourselves - using the car less, using less electricity and more from renewable sources, reducing our waste by composting and recycling.
So, the jury’s still out on carbon offsetting for me. I think perhaps more research is in order!
