Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.
When Lord Monckton told Congress “CO2 is plant food”, the Global Warming activists went crazy because … well, because they know he spoke an inconvenient truth. Monckton’s statement was ridiculed in many blog posts and You Tube videos, but no one directly contradicted his claim because it is clearly correct. Instead, they changed the subject to the supposed effects of rising Carbon Dioxide: too little AND too much precipitation (drought/flood), unusually high AND low temperatures (burn/freeze), and other contradictory consequences.
But, no one can deny the truth. Plants live on CO2. They are made of carbohydrates (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen). They get their carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is a fact that the best food crop yields occur when plants are grown in atmospheres that are triple or quadruple current CO2 levels. That proves current CO2 levels are way below most of the period of plant life evolution and adaptation on Earth.
This posting is about a concept that unites two technologies I predict will gain prominence in coming decades: Underground Coal Gasification and Elevated CO2 Farming, and how they may be united to provide a sustainable ENERGY and FOOD supply for the coming century.
See Clean Coal (Say WATT?) for an introduction to the concept of clean coal as a critical part of our energy future.
Also download this narrated PowerPoint Show for an animated version of this posting, complete with audio description and more detailed graphics than posted here.
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND FOOD CONCEPT
The concept illustrated in the graphic is based on using underground gasified coal (or coal to liquid as an alternative) to generate both electrical POWER and provide CO2 as a plant food in an elevated CO2 greenhouse that produces FOOD as a byproduct, with biomass feedback to generate biogas as additional fuel for power generation.
As indicated, there are three steps to the process:
- Underground Coal Gasification, Burning the Coalgas to POWER the generation of electricity, and Capture of the resultant CO2 (the plant food).
- Growing FOOD in an elevated CO2 greenhouse where, using the captured CO2 and the energy of the Sun, yields are greatly improved.
- Recycling the cellulose and other non-edible biowaste into biogas (methane, etc.) that may be fed back into the fuel supply system for electrical power generation.
WHY COAL?
Coal is currently the most used fuel for generating electrical power in the US, and it is the centerpiece of this concept because it is the most plentiful here and in many other countries. As indicated in the graphic, fossil fuels, namely coal, natural gas, and oil, constitute about 70% of electrical generation in the US. These fuels create CO2 when burned. CO2 has been depicted as a poison, with James Hansen calling coal trains “death trains” and coal-fired electric plants “factories of death”. There are proposals to capture the CO2 and re-sequester it by pumping it into old oil wells, perhaps extracting additional oil by doing so. It seems to me it would be smarter to use the CO2 for the purpose Nature intended, as plant food!
The remaining 30% of US electric generation may be considered “green”. Of that, most is nuclear. We should have done a better job using nuclear, as France did, but we were scared away from it by the dangers of release of radiation and radioactive waste. There is a resurgence of interest in nuclear and we may see more new plants built at some time in the future, but the regulatory environment is daunting.
The “renewable” component of “green” energy makes up about 11.5% of the US total, and consists mostly of water (hydroelectric) with some wind and other sources such as direct solar electric. These pure forms of “green” will probably grow, under the umbrella of government subsidies, but they are unlikely to provide much more than 20% of our electricity for decades, if ever.
MORE DETAIL ON THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND FOOD CONCEPT
The chemistry of the concept is diagrammed in the graphic.
1) Gasified Coal-Fired Power Plant with CO2 Capture
(a) Underground Gasified Coal.
Coalgas (also called synthetic gas or syngas) may be generated within a coal mine. This is done almost completely underground to reduce transport costs and pollution. Safety is improved because there are no personnel required within the mine itself. This technique is especially suitable for very deep mines, where traditional methods would be more expensive, or for low-quality or depleted mines. Newly developed technology makes possible robots that operate in harsh environments as well as remotely-controlled sensors and actuators that permit the highest possible level of control of the gasification process.
Gasification works by first igniting the coal within the coal seam and then pumping in air and water in quantities that are just sufficient to maintain incomplete combustion, such that combustible Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide are generated. The chemistry is as follows:
6C {carbon from coal} + 2H2O {water} + 2O2 {Oxygen from air} ==> Coalgas: 4H {hydrogen} + 6CO {Carbon Monoxide}
Description of formula: Coal is almost completely carbon. Six Carbon atoms (6C) are combined with two water molecules (2H2O) and two Oxygen molecules (2O2) to produce Coalgas that consists of four hydrogen atoms (4H) and six Carbon Monoxide molecules (6CO).
Coalgas may be further processed to yield liquid from coal, or it may be used directly as fuel in an electrical power plant.
(b) Burning the Coalgas and Capturing the CO2.
The coalgas is piped to the power plant where it is burned to heat the boiler and generate steam to run the generators. Electrical POWER is transmitted to customers via the grid.
The chemistry is as follows:
Coalgas: 4H {Hydrogen} + 6CO {Carbon Monoxide} + 4O2 {Oxygen from air} ==> POWER + 6CO2 {Carbon Dioxide} + 2H2O {Water}
Description of formula: Coalgas, consisting of four Hydrogen atoms (4H) and the six Carbon Monoxide molecules (6CO), when burned in the powerplant, yield POWER to drive generation of electricity plus six Carbon Dioxide molecules (6CO2) and two water molecules (2H2O).
CO2 has been wrongly depicted as a poison. There are projects underway to re-sequester the carbon by pumping it into abandoned oil wells and so on, possibly recovering additional oil in the process. However, since CO2 is plant food, I think it makes far more sense to capture and utilize this valuable product to grow food!
The current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 390 ppm (parts per million). Doubling or tripling that level in a CO2 greenhouse can greatly increase the yield of many crops. It turns out that 1000 to 1400 ppm is ideal for increasing production of tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce by from 20% to 50%; grains such as rice, wheat, barley, oats, and rye by from 25% to 64%; roots such as potatoes, yams, and cassava by from 18% to 75%, and legumes such as peas, beans, and soybeans by 28% to 46%! It is likely that genetic engineering could develop new food crops that would thrive in CO2 levels of 2000 ppm or even higher, greatly increasing yields.
CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to produce carbohydrates – the material of which their roots, body, and fruits consist. Increasing CO2 level reduces the time needed by plants to mature. CO2 enters the plant through microscopic pores that are mainly located on the underside of the leaf. This enables plants to combine CO2 and water, with the aid of light energy, to form sugar. Nutrients and water uptake usually increase with higher levels of CO2 and plants develop larger, more extensive root systems that allow them to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients, and spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. The chemistry is as follows:
6CO2 {Carbon Dioxide) + 2H2O {water} + 4H2O (added water) + SOLAR ENERGY ==> C6H12O6 (sugar} + 6O2 {Oxygen}
Description of formula: The combustion process produced six Carbon Dioxide molecules (i.e. PLANT FOOD) plus 2 water molecules. To these we add four molecules of water plus the ENERGY from the Sun. This yields FOOD in the form of a sugar molecule as well as six molecules of Oxygen, released into the atmosphere to partially compensate for some of the Oxygen used during the combustion process.
3) Recycling Cellulose to Biogas. Parts of the plant that are inedible, such as cellulose (chemical formula C6H10O6), are biowaste that may be fermented to form biogas, such as methane, which may be pumped back into the combustion process described in step (1).
CONCLUSIONS
The sustainable ENERGY and FOOD concept outlined here has the potential to provide necessary electricity along with foods in the form of vegetables, grains, roots, and legumes in a most efficient manner with minimum release of CO2 to the atmosphere. The concept makes use of coal, which is plentiful in the US and many other countries.
It will be many decades, if ever, before renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, and solar can provide levels of electricity needed for the human population. Nuclear energy, currently around 30% in the US, is probably the best alternative, as France, with over 70%, and other countries have demonstrated. However, despite growing acceptance of nuclear in the US, it remains fraught with regulatory paralysis and “not in my backyard” parochialism.
Clean coal, which even President Obama has said he will defend, is the best answer for the coming several decades at least. There are two aspects to clean coal: (a) Prior to combustion: Reducing release of pollutants onto land or into water or the atmosphere, and (b) After combustion: Capturing and re-sequestering the CO2 and other products of combustion. Underground coal gasification (or the alternative, coal to liquid) is the answer to (a). However, the idea that the answer to (b) should be sequestering CO2 by pumping into old oil wells strikes me as a waste of a valuable plant food resource.
I’m just a systems engineer, but I’m quick on the uptake and have the ability to absorb a little bit about a lot of things – just enough to come up with innovative concepts that may or may not be practical (and, even if practical, are bound to have some sticking points that need lots of detailed study, science, and engineering :^). I love to work with domain experts who know how to dig deep in their area of specialization. I’d appreciate comments on this proposal by WUWT readers who have, I am sure, far more detailed and specific knowledge of the science and technology involved in this concept.
If I’m not mistaken, growers of a certain plant of questionable (or at least variable) legal status, that is especially popularly grown in rural Northern California, purchase tanks of CO2 to feed their crop when it’s grown indoors.
Perhaps we could save all this excess CO2 and provide it for them, to help them grow their crop and help sequester all this evil excess carbon, in a completly natural and organic way?
This is all second-hand information of course. I have no personal knowledge of growing these crops.
(/sarc off)
Pamela Gray says:
January 7, 2011 at 6:25 am
Organic is better quality? –Those who think that organic is better are entirely without a clue as to how non-organic farming practices have resulted in drastic reductions in low quality produce on the shelf, including regional and local sourced produce, and in world hunger, rotten.–I tell you what, if you want to go back to spoiled rotten fruits and veggies, you had better crawl through your great-grandma’s recipe file for ways to use bruised, wormy, rotten produce. Why? Because that was what much of real organic produce looked like.
——————————————————————————-
Pamela. How true and well said. I couldn’t believe the tripe that Gary Lensman was spouting earlier and was waiting for someone to speak a bit of sense.
Douglas
@Noelmc
‘Using CO2 to increase crop yields is being used commercially in the UK.’
It has been done since people started to use green houses.
You don’t have to inject CO2 into a green house to raise the CO2 concentration, it’s just so that it “autmagically” happens by itself due to magical properties of decomposing plant material, especially in combination with poorly controlled green house ventilation systems. This is why them flowers tend to flourish in the used and abused exercise room, if it is fairly sunlit to boot. :p
Ira Glickstein:
I am replying to your responses to criticisms of the possibility of commercial underground coal gasification that you have posted at January 7, 2011 at 8:55 am.
Either your responses are wilfully ignorant or deliberately obtuse because I have twice explained to you on WUWT that your suggestion is technically impossible for reasons that have been demonstrated by many trials in many countries. The most recent of my explanations is above at January 7, 2011 at 1:39 am and I say there;
“Controlled gasification is extremely difficult when conducting underground gasification. An excess of oxygen needs to be provided to ensure Stage 2 is sustained (otherwise the gasification stops) and this produces a gas that provides little heat when burned (i.e. the gas has low calorific value). Also, the interaction of the oxygen supply and the coal surface varies as the coal seam is gasified so the calorific value of the gas varies.”
Thus, underground coal gasification provides a product gas with low and variable calorific value. Such a gas has little use.”
The product gas is not suitable for use as fuel for power generation and, therefore, its best use is a fuel for direct heating. Natural gas is a cheaper fuel for such heating even if it has to be supplied as liquid natural gas (LNG). And natural gas provides less CO2 for each unit of heat (although I think that should not be thought a problem).
So, the only real use for the product gas is as a source for the CO2 you want to supply to greenhouses. But that CO2 requires capital and operating costs to obtain. You could get a similar but cleaner supply of CO2 for free by tapping it from the flue of a coal-fired power station.
Richard
Gary Pearse says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:18 am
“Many pooh pooh the idea and there is always room for pooh poohing when a presenter uses broad brush strokes. Bulletin for Ira and you naysayers – Greenhouse growing (using CO2 and waste heat) is already a big deal – but outside of US.”
Outside the US isn’t inside the US.
Please name a single location outside the US where coal can be mined profitably for $12/ton.
By Ira’s own admittance the plan requires deep coal mines.
That is not the majority of US coal mines. 60% of US coal mines are surface mines.
On capital costs alone, Coal with carbon capture isn’t any cheaper then nuclear.
Coal with carbon capture might be something that one could sell in an area adamantly opposed to nuclear, I personally doubt it . The environmentalists will still see it as ‘dirty coal’ and others will look at the price tag and say ‘why not just build a nuclear plant’.
The Chinese might have have a use for it as they have a lot of deep mines.
I have been harping on the theme that CO2 is not only plant food, it is also useful in stimulating animal respiration and is probably behind the 20th century increase in human longevity.
CO2 at double or triple ambient is good for you (I think) but there is an exception to the CO2-is-good rule, and that is when you bottle the stuff or ferment too much of it (beer-making, for instance). Then it become possible to go over 40% CO2 and pass out or even die. There are whole companies that specialize in CO2 mitigation (google it if you like). Bottling the CO2 to transport it to the greenhouse is better than burying all that plant food, but not as safe as just releasing it to the atmosphere.
According to the “2. Elevated CO2 greenhouse” link in my original posting above, there is an optimum CO2 level for many food crops, and it is between 1000 and 1400 ppm. So, Ferd Berple, you are correct. The fact that there is an optimum, and it is way higher than historical (~280 ppm) and way higher than current, supposedly dangerously high, levels (~390 ppm), proves that it is evolutionary. In other words, we know that plants evolved and adapted during times when CO2 was 1000 to 1400 ppm, or more! Great point! Thanks Ferd.
THANKS for the link. Wow, looks like the guys at MIT “stole” my brilliant idea – even before I had it :^) – so I take my hat off to them and recommend WUWT readers click the link. They show a neat artist’s rendering of a greenhouse farm adjacent to a power plant utilizing both the warmth and the CO2 content of the products of combustion that would otherwise be wasted by spewing into the atmosphere and water.
My idea would not utilize a fixed greenhouse complex, but rather trailer truck-sized hydroponic containers with plastic caps that would be loaded with plantlets in a factory-type building and then transported outside and hooked up to fixed plumbing to provide conditioned, metered, recycled CO2/air and water/fertilizer. When crops were mature, the containers would be transported to the factory-type building and the crops harvested, then the containers would be reloaded and so on, with assembly-line efficiency. With no direct exposure to the weather and sometimes dirty atmosphere, these crops would be cleaner, and they would be more uniform, with higher yields and quality.
Some wise person said “the opera is not over until the fat lady sings”. The MIT paper you linked to was written in 2007 and it is now 2011. At the rate large-scale industrial technology moves, we are still in the overture. It will be decades before “the fat lady sings”. Be patient.
[quote]Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
* 1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
* At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
* The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
* Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
* If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
* Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
* Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. (At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.)[/quote]
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
If 1% (10,000 PPM) presents a possible problem, the current CO2 of around 390 PPM is a long way off from bad. This would require a 25 fold increase in CO2 to be near 1%.
However, with the increased CO2, the plants would grow more and remove more CO2 from our air.
Sorry, Richard that I have not replied more directly. I did answer indirectly, saying: [emphasis added]
I do not claim anywhere that underground gasification is the answer, but neither will I dismiss out-of-hand (as you seem to) a technique that some experts in the field say holds promise.
Are they wrong, or worse, corrupt? Well, perhaps it is all a conspiracy and they really know the products of underground gasification are, as you conclude, of “little use”, and they are just after research grants. Possibly. But where is the proof, or even any evidence?
I do not believe, on the basis of failed experiments decades ago that the science is settled. Yes, remotely controlling an incomplete combustion process in a very deep mine is a difficult problem, but that is what computer-based automation and remote sensors and actuators are for. (That happens to be my field and I have seen and been personally involved in solving tough automation tasks for military aircraft, sometimes after experienced pilots said it was impossible.)
I’ll readily admit to being “ignorant” and “obtuse” at times, but not willfully so. In any case, you may turn out to be correct, and my elevated CO2 farming scheme may be limited to CO2 and waste heat from conventional coal-fired power plants. Or both of my ideas may turn out to be worthless. We will not know for sure for decades, if ever.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of this technology area which is clearly greater than mine.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 7, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Gaia screwed up, all the co2 was getting locked up. She experimented with low carbon grasses but still the co2 declined. The planet was heading for extinction. Oh what to do. So she invented humans, gave them the brains to unlock the carbon And low and behold the planet began to green again.
INTERESTING!
But suppose the opposite is true …
Gaia was incredibly wise. The sun was gradually warming up. Left unchecked, the world would become too hot to support life. The planet was headed for extinction. So she took massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere by burying tons and tons of uneaten, undecayed plants deep in the ground. And lo and behold the planet began to cool and thrive again.
And then along came man ….
So hard to know what Gaia might have had in mind!
The sun will not start expanding toward red giant for at least a couple of billion years, possibly more. Your Gaia picture is wrong.
Have a read of this interesting (if slightly gloomy) paper posted here some months back by Leif Svalgaard, on the total history (past and future) of life on this planet:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/75/42/PDF/bg-3-85-2006.pdf
Causes and timing of future biosphere extinctions. S. Franck, C. Bounama, W. von Bloh, Biogeosciences 3: 85–92, 2006.
Hve a look for instance at fig 6 and the conclusions. It is CO2 starvation – not solar heating – that lead to biosphere extinction.
Ira,
I’m retired from the energy industry and spent the last decade of my career considering emergent technology applications for primary production of fossil fuels, energy and also CO2 emission reduction.
Pamela and others with simiar comments are right regards the CO2/Bio loop you propose. I suggest you consider attempting a very high level mass and energy balance on your concept.
There have been other studies, more recent than the MIT one quoted in this thread, unfortunately they are just not in the public domain. (Typically an academic study on topics like thise will be based on data that is about 10 years old or will be constrained in what it can publish regards information on commercially sensitive data that may have been supplied to them.
I agree with you that the fat lady has not sung I doubt she ever will in my lifetime.
I make that statement regards gasification technology. First. some of the information in this thread regards gasification is not current. The major existing technology providers will do their best to tell you to build an oxygen blown plant not an air blown plant. It is cheaper, more efficient and produces a more “usable” product. The reason for the cost advantage relates to the relative cost of modern air separation facilities for the production of oxygen versus the cost implied by the size of the balance of equipment plus the need for more gas separation steps due to Nitrogen. There is also an energy integration potential between an air separation plant and the gasifier itself. Google IGCC studies for more information.
I believe the best potential for future application of gasification for fungible energy and chemical feedstocks is with the emergent technologies. Google the hydro-gasification approach by Great-Point Energy and, believe it or not the application of rocket science to an advanced gasification reactor by the Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne division.
I’m personally strongly opposed to any geological sequestration, broadly stated it is an energy waste to solve a non-problem and robs future generations of fossil fuels. It’s application would shorten the life span of available fossil fuel reserves. How much depends on how and where it is applied. Retrofitted to an existing 10+ year old conventional rankin cycle power plant it would increase specifc energy input for a given output by as much as 40%. Capturing existing high purity sources such as those from an older steam methane hydrogen reformer that uses a wet chemistry CO2 scrubber on the backend would be more efficient, approximately a 10-15% energy hit. (Newer steam methane hydrogen reformers are not as suitable a candidate, they have a different approach using a membrane technology for product gas separation and do not produce a high purity CO2 waste stream). Needless to say the amount of CO2 produced from steam methane reformers is minute when compared to that from power generation. It is also better used for greenhouse atmosphere enrichment, and carbonation, this is already done.
Google CO2 capture and sequestration.
Mike
Pamela Gray it is so refreshing to see you bring a bit of practical experience and common sense to this discussion.
Unfortunately, the same ‘blue sky” ridiculous ideas are used to justify wind farms and solar power.
Those with experience already know that pigs can’t fly.
If there was more common sense around then we would never have endured the CAGW scare at all.
The sun will not start expanding toward red giant for at least a couple of billion years, possibly more. Your Gaia picture is wrong.
The picture of Gaia might well be wrong, but my picture of the sun is not. Stars evolve even while on the main sequence. The sun has been gradually increasing in luminosity since it formed. That has amounted to an increase of around 20% change, or a change in insolation of around 200 W/m^2 over the last 4.5 Billion years. People get concerned over forcing changes of 1 or 2 W/m^2. Imaging a forcing change of 100-200 W/m^2!
Somehow Gaia has INDEED compensated for the increasing energy, maintaining a habitable temperature for billions of years. And if you look at CO2, you will see that it has indeed been decreasing. I would not be at all surprised that life has engineered GHGs like CO2 to keep the earth in a zone where life is possible. (I would also not be surprised by other mechanism like changes in the water cycle playing a major role as well.
How much land would need to be covered physically to keep the CO2 levels high enough for crops? What additional molecules will be needed to complete the equation? CO2 is plant food, and we all love the natural environment, so why would we want to keep all this CO2 only for ourselves, and not let it out into the environment where it can have other beneficial effects, such as increasing vegetation the world over, reducing desert land areas, and so forth.
Coming up with expensive and complicated answers for non-problems seems to be a hobby for regressives. Is this author a regressive? I would wager that he is, at least on this topic. He advocates something for nothing from much, and as is typical, it is not his much that is going to be the source.
For those wondering about toxicity from CO2 at PPM levels,
“At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.”
Only some people are effected at 10,000 ppm, so 3,000 ppm would likely be a totally safe level for all but the most sensitive to CO2 people in the world.
Douglas
You need to research Real Foods and Modern Organic farming practices. They are more efficient than big factory farms, more economic and much more resilient.
You also need to research bio-engineering, where an industrial revolution in reverse is taking place. Indeed it is reverse engineering the industrial revolution. Indeed as Ira says, you need to keep an open mind and look at the potential.
Looks to me like a lot of naysayers just push the corporate agenda, they find its not “economic” but do not use the full range of boundary limits.
Rule one, is that if it works, it works, matters not what the experts say.
As his blessed lordship Monckton would say, “sources?” I don’t see nary a one…
We can’t even pipe water to farms, so why do we think we can do it with CO2?
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~sleavitt/MaricopaFACE.htm
When A Big Tree Grows in Brooklyn you can blame ozone pollution for dwarfing rural trees:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/tech/main562379.shtml
Not a single mention of carbon dioxide in the report, because it’s not good for plants.
If CO2 did make plants grow faster—and it doesn’t—it would also make them grow more toxic, since CO2 is clearly toxic.
There are no sarc tags in Australia because we don’t need them. Forgive me!
The best way to recycle CO2 is to vent it.
Stuart;
I think it’s more like 30,000 ppm, or 3%. Even then, it’s not tissue-toxic; it interferes with proper respiration, though.
Grey Lensman says: January 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Looks to me like a lot of naysayers just push the corporate agenda, they find its not “economic” but do not use the full range of boundary limits.
Rule one, is that if it works, it works, matters not what the experts say.
————————————————————————–
Well Grey organically grown food accounts for about 1 percent of the world’s food production. Try feeding the other 99% of the world’s population on ‘organically’ grown food – and see how the economics pan out. You have a long way to go.
For starters, in the U.S., organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products. According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004 thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries by about $135 to $539 per year ($11 to $45 per month).
Maybe it’s O.K. if you live in an affluent society and can afford it but most of us don’t live in an affluent society and can’t indulge ourselves in this way. Moreover, people are deluded into thinking that ‘organically’ grown food is more nutritious than conventionally grown food but this is not proven.
Douglas
Ira Glickstein:
At January 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm you say to me:
“I do not claim anywhere that underground gasification is the answer, but neither will I dismiss out-of-hand (as you seem to) a technique that some experts in the field say holds promise.
Are they wrong, or worse, corrupt? Well, perhaps it is all a conspiracy and they really know the products of underground gasification are, as you conclude, of “little use”, and they are just after research grants. Possibly. But where is the proof, or even any evidence?”
Say what!?
Trials and developments at many places and in many countries conducted almost continuously for nearly a century are not “proof” or “evidence” that those who keep gulling governments to pay for yet more trials and developments are not doing it to get the research funds?
The trials prove that underground gasification does not work, and nobody has suggested a method that would make it work.
There is no suggested improvement to the problems of underground coal gasification at present; none, zilch, nada. And arm-waving about undefined robotics and computing does not change that.
If you really believe what you write then I have another proposal for you. You see, I know this bridge that you may want to buy …
Richard
******
ferd berple says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:33 am
If plants grow faster with CO2 it means that they have evolved in an atmosphere that typically had more CO2 than at present. Otherwise, those species that grow better with less CO2 would have out-competed those species that require more CO2 and taken over the land.
******
Grasses. I think they evolved ~5 myr ago, and developed a new, more efficient chlorophyll, C4, that can live w/less than 150 ppm CO2. Since then, they have indeed taken over large stretches of land previously inhabited by C3 chlorophyll trees & shrubs — they regrow from fire/predation much quicker in relatively dry climates. But they don’t dominate C3 plants in habitats w/more than adequate precipitation.
C4 grasses do in fact benefit from more CO2, just not as much.
Richard wrote: “If you really believe what you write then I have another proposal for you. You see, I know this bridge that you may want to buy …”
As it happens, I am originally from Brooklyn, and the high school I went to, Brooklyn Tech, is in the shadow of the Brooklyn Bridge. I sold that bridge several times :^).
Seriously though, Albert Einstein said: “If at first, an idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” The really great (and really stupid) ideas always appear absurd when first floated. It usually takes a while to determine if they are breakthroughs or boners.
Thanks for your opinions on my ideas. You may well be right. Time will tell.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9950023.htm