Again, this e-mail does not respond to the original question. Sorry for
that. But I feel that I have to reply.
I am not sure, if Dr. Bowyer comments are of a sort of British humour
that I do not understand. If so, please forget the following. The
strategy of genetically manipulating pine trees (as mentioned in another
mail) in order to produce plastics that should than be stored in
landfills to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is absurd and cannot be
serious, can it?
Starting with genetic engineering is a rather technocratic and brute
force approach, assuming that there can be one solution for the problem.
I think such things never worked/work. Moreover, why would we store
plastics on the one hand and on the other hand prospect every little
amount of coal and oil?
This is not enlightening at all!
Yours,
Manfred Drack
Adrian Bowyer schrieb:
> Vik Olliver wrote:
>
>> some compost, but the practice of putting charcoal in the soil improves
>> it in many ways and acts as a formidable carbon sink.
>
> Of course, if you put the carbon in the soil as a non-bio-degradable
> polymer, it'll probably lock it up for even longer (amber, anyone?).
> So, let's make lots of plastic junk from plant-sourced thermoset resins,
> then throw it in landfills.
>
> True, you don't get the charcoal soil conditioning, but the carbon is
> gone for a lot longer. Indeed, in two-hundred years when the ice-age
> threatens because we've depleted the natural greenhouse so much, we can
> strip-mine the landfills for our emergency resin-burning power stations.
>
> We should exploit the most powerful force on Earth to save it: human
> greed and stupidity.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Adrian
>
> Dr Adrian Bowyer
> http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensab
> http://reprap.org
>
>
|