Comments on: Wrong trophic level! http://mindlace.net/2006/02/16/wrong-trophic-level/ a necessary absence Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:03:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: mindlace http://mindlace.net/2006/02/16/wrong-trophic-level/comment-page-1/#comment-251 mindlace Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:25:42 +0000 http://mindlace.net/archives/2006/02/16/wrong-trophic-level/#comment-251 If I succeed in my research agenda, I will be able to provide farmers with a "seed kit" of algae, some long transparent plastic tubes for them to float in and the associated pump miscellany along with "instant ocean: just add salt and water". Using whatever spare sewage they have (pig shit wil be particularly useful) they mix some instant ocean and put the tubes down on a fallow field. I am a few days away from having harder numbers on this, but I believe they will be able to generate the oil they will need to 'operate' 5-10 acres for every acre they devote to these tubes. The tubes will need to be set apart from each other to help keep the average temp of the water around 20ºC during warmer months, and the fact that they will displace 0.5m<sup>2</sup>*length earth in order to maintain their shape, the rows around the crop can be used as decomposition windrows during the winter months to keep the temperature of the water up. The difference between cultivating Anabena and growing soybeans is that with soybeans, as with all plants, a substantial portion of the light energy and nutrient resources the plant utilizes in the construction of its body that is not rendered into the highest margin terminal crop. Anabena requires nothing further than the right pH, the right salinity, enough dissolved CO<sup>2</sup> in the water, and the right temperature. Given those conditions and no predators it <a href="http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextbook/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=10&page=1" rel="nofollow">grows exponentially</a>. We talked, once upon a time, about how <a href="http://www.livingtreepaper.com/about_faq.html" rel="nofollow">going from trees to grass</a> gets you better yield. One factor is that you can harvest hemp two to four times a year, while trees can only be harvested every 25 years. Another is that hemp has less, <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/question463.htm" rel="nofollow">lignin</a> than a tree - precisely because it is smaller, and needs less structural support - and thus a greater proportion of the biomass goes directly to the intended product. Of course, the one other thing you have to assume farmers can operate is a distillery. I think history is on my side on this one. If I succeed in my research agenda, I will be able to provide farmers with a “seed kit” of algae, some long transparent plastic tubes for them to float in and the associated pump miscellany along with “instant ocean: just add salt and water”. Using whatever spare sewage they have (pig shit wil be particularly useful) they mix some instant ocean and put the tubes down on a fallow field.

I am a few days away from having harder numbers on this, but I believe they will be able to generate the oil they will need to ‘operate’ 5-10 acres for every acre they devote to these tubes.

The tubes will need to be set apart from each other to help keep the average temp of the water around 20ºC during warmer months, and the fact that they will displace 0.5m2*length earth in order to maintain their shape, the rows around the crop can be used as decomposition windrows during the winter months to keep the temperature of the water up.

The difference between cultivating Anabena and growing soybeans is that with soybeans, as with all plants, a substantial portion of the light energy and nutrient resources the plant utilizes in the construction of its body that is not rendered into the highest margin terminal crop.

Anabena requires nothing further than the right pH, the right salinity, enough dissolved CO2 in the water, and the right temperature. Given those conditions and no predators it grows exponentially.

We talked, once upon a time, about how going from trees to grass gets you better yield. One factor is that you can harvest hemp two to four times a year, while trees can only be harvested every 25 years. Another is that hemp has less, lignin than a tree – precisely because it is smaller, and needs less structural support – and thus a greater proportion of the biomass goes directly to the intended product.

Of course, the one other thing you have to assume farmers can operate is a distillery. I think history is on my side on this one.

]]> By: Doug http://mindlace.net/2006/02/16/wrong-trophic-level/comment-page-1/#comment-250 Doug Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:53:58 +0000 http://mindlace.net/archives/2006/02/16/wrong-trophic-level/#comment-250 I agree 100% with what you're saying here, Ethan, as far as where we get our fuel-biomass from. However, living in the corn capitol of the world (or is it pork?), I have a newfound 'respect' for the way the infrastructure here is setup. Keep in mind that a percentage of the corn grown here is sold for feed (actually, that's where most of it goes-to feeding animals; yet another inefficient venture). I'd say about 80% of the corn America grows is feed corn, the other 20% is human consumable. Also keep in mind that the majority of farming is privately done; getting these people to switch over to something different is not only expensive for them (a typical combine costs anywhere from 100,000$ to 500,000$), many mid-western folks are just plain stubborn and wouldnt like the idea of changing to something that their daddy, and grand-daddy never had to do. And yes, the entire corn plant is procees-able. Not all of it is as rich in sugars as the kernals are, but the processing places around here use all, or almost all of the plant. Let's not forget soy beans either. :) As with many, many other things I see 'wrong' in this country, until the infrastructure is changed, nothing else will. Sadly, since our country revolves around a short term profit, most people would rather keep going in the 'wrong' direction and make more $$ than spend a little now and have a more viable solution for the long term. I think figuring out how to get around that blockage will be a much bigger solution than where we get our biomass/fuel/etc. But that's just me. I agree 100% with what you’re saying here, Ethan, as far as where we get our fuel-biomass from. However, living in the corn capitol of the world (or is it pork?), I have a newfound ‘respect’ for the way the infrastructure here is setup. Keep in mind that a percentage of the corn grown here is sold for feed (actually, that’s where most of it goes-to feeding animals; yet another inefficient venture). I’d say about 80% of the corn America grows is feed corn, the other 20% is human consumable. Also keep in mind that the majority of farming is privately done; getting these people to switch over to something different is not only expensive for them (a typical combine costs anywhere from 100,000$ to 500,000$), many mid-western folks are just plain stubborn and wouldnt like the idea of changing to something that their daddy, and grand-daddy never had to do.

And yes, the entire corn plant is procees-able. Not all of it is as rich in sugars as the kernals are, but the processing places around here use all, or almost all of the plant.

Let’s not forget soy beans either. :)

As with many, many other things I see ‘wrong’ in this country, until the infrastructure is changed, nothing else will. Sadly, since our country revolves around a short term profit, most people would rather keep going in the ‘wrong’ direction and make more $$ than spend a little now and have a more viable solution for the long term. I think figuring out how to get around that blockage will be a much bigger solution than where we get our biomass/fuel/etc. But that’s just me.

]]>