Re: terrifying
- From: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:52:22 +0100
John Fields wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:56:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:58:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:05:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Then he'd have to give credits for plants that people have because they absorb CO2.
That would of course make perfect sense.
Why? Most plants are just temporary repositories for carbon.
And then you plant some more. You need to do something sensible with the captured carbon
of course.
But what?
Biomass burns well as a fuel. You can synthesise petroleum like products from it etc. You can
compost it to organic 'fertiliser'. Whatever you like really.
---
Guess what you get when you burn it?
The carbon that was locked up in it back in the atmosphere, duh...
That's the general idea. It's called a carbon cycle. It's 'carbon neutral' overall. Got any better
ideas ?
Graham
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: terrifying
- From: John Larkin
- Re: terrifying
- From: martin griffith
- Re: terrifying
- References:
- terrifying
- From: John Larkin
- Re: terrifying
- From: Joerg
- Re: terrifying
- From: Eeyore
- Re: terrifying
- From: John Larkin
- Re: terrifying
- From: Eeyore
- Re: terrifying
- From: John Larkin
- Re: terrifying
- From: Eeyore
- Re: terrifying
- From: John Fields
- terrifying
- Prev by Date: Re: Driving 20 LEDs from uC
- Next by Date: Re: Copper theft
- Previous by thread: Re: terrifying
- Next by thread: Re: terrifying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|