The Biology Blogger

I seem to be doing a lot of environmental posts recently, but it is definitely something I am passionate about so I guess it makes sense for me to write about it.  A recent study conducted by scientists suggests there is a way for us to cut back on CO2 in the atmosphere by adding lime to sea water.  Before you get excited, I don’t mean lime as in the fruit you may cut up and put in a Corona.  I mean lime as in calcium oxide (CaO).  Scientists have found that when you add CaO to water, it increases the alkalinity which allows the water to increase its CO2 in take. But not only can the water take in more CO2, it also releases a lot less because of the increased alkalinity.

The downfall, though, for some time was how to get the CaO in high levels.  It was argued for some time that it was too expensive to get that much limestone (where CaO comes from) and that the amount of CO2 that is released into the air from the process was too much to bother trying.  However, scientists now have the hope that if they do use this technique, it could help get rid of double the amount of CO2 that it takes to make the CaO; therefore, it’s a negative CO2 release.

In essence, if 1G of CO2 is released because of the extraction of limestone, then that lime that is used in the water will remove 2G of CO2 from the atmosphere, thus removing a total of 1G from the atmosphere after the release of the limestone.  In other words…It’s good!  Already the ocean absorbs 2bn tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere.  Just imagine if a lot of lime was added and just a few percent was increased in the amount of absorbtion in the ocean.  Imagine how much CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere.

This idea really is a fantastic one and one that I support completely.  If scientists can remove the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it can definitely decrease global warming which is incredibly important.  Using nature to try and clean up the world is a great technique, but it can be very costly.  I see this as being a very good way of cleaning up the atmosphere.  Add in Gore’s plan to decrease our carbon-foot print and we can definitely have a very clean environment.  What do you think?  A good idea.

Source.

On Thursday, Al Gore stepped before a group of people and made the argument that we, as a nation, need to be carbon-free in ten years.  He said that this was possible and that if we wanted it enough, we could have it.  We put a man on the moon less than a decade after John F. Kennedy said he wanted to see that happen.  Yet, this is causing an uproar amongst different political groups and it interests me.  But, aside from politics, what’s the biology behind it and can it really work?

To really understand if it can or cannot work, we need to step in and observe the details of what Al Gore was talking about.  He mentioned three things to try and eliminate our carbon usage.  The first was solar power, the second was geothermal energy, and the third was wind power.  All three are great, but which one is the greatest?  Well…Let’s first glance at what they do.

Solar:

By using the power of the sun, we can take the energy and convert it into electricity.  It’s great because it is free energy without any output.  The sun hits the Earth anyways so we might as well use it.  The downfall I see is that if it’s a cloudy or rainy day, you don’t get any energy.  Sure, you get a little bit, but not nearly as much as you would with a sunny day.  This requires batteries to be charged in case of this.

Geothermal

This is using the heat from the Earth.  Simply put, the heat deep in the Earth is collected and then it is used to turn a turbine which therefore generates electricity.  The downfall is you have to dig to get to the heat.  It can expensive digging quite so much and more importantly, where do you put it?  How much land would be required to have a very efficient plant?

Wind Power

If it’s a windy day, it’s perfect to use.  The wind turns the turbines and this provides electricity.  It’s great; however, scientists have found that it can disrupt bird navigation patterns.  So, while we get our electricity, we’re also being forced to disrupt nature which can have catastrophic responses.

So…Which one is the best one to use?  Personally, I feel that we should use solar.  Solar is a great thing and it doesn’t require huge fields like wind power.  People can get rebates, buy the solar panels, put them on their roof or in their back yard and only use the electricity that they need.  And, if they have more, they can sell it back to the electric companies.

Unfortunately, this is not happening as much as it should.  I am a firm believer in trying to eliminate our carbon footprint.  I would love if we could get electricity without having to use coal or anything like that.  But, who is going to pay it?  T. Boone Pickens is working on a huge wind farm, but is it going to work?

If we try and actually work on effectively getting off carbon, I think we can.  But it’s not going to be pure government funded.  Sure, the government needs to help and I agree with Al Gore.  Private markets need to get involved as well like Pickens is doing.  The more that the private sector gets involved, the faster it’ll happen.  I’d put solar panels on my house if I owned a house.

What do you think?  Leave a comment telling which of the three you think is the best for us to use.  Solar, Wind, Geothermal; which is the best?  And…Do you think Al Gore is right?  Can we get off of carbon for good?

Alright, this is a topic that is a bit of a passion for me because I used to have ferrets as a kid.  I can remember when I was around the age of eight, I saved up my twenty five dollars and I adopted one of the few ferrets that were left.  The Black-Footed Ferret is quickly moving towards extinction.  Scientists say that a colony that currently has half of America’s population of Black-Footed Ferrets was recently hit back the Plague (the same as the Black plague) and a third of these 300 ferrets have died already from it.  This is scary, especially because of this…

In the 1970s, there were only 18 left in this area.  However, with the careful work of scientists and the contributions from different people, they were able to increase that population.  Three hundred might not seem like a lot, but when you only have eighteen to create that population, it’s a really great number.

The problem comes in, though, when the Plague hits again.  We can fight the Plague off like its no big deal.  A little antibiotics and we’re done.  For ferrets, if they get the Plague, they’re dead.  Simple as that, bada bing, bada boom, they’re gone.  No sickness, just death.  Because of this, if an outbreak happens in a ferret colony, a lot of them can die.

So, why should we care?  The ferrets are another species on this planet.  Although we have little interaction with them, they are an important part of the ecosystem.  If the ferret population was high, ranchers in the area would not need to worry about prairie dogs eating all the grass that their herds need for grazing.  A single ferret can eat 150 prairie dogs in one year.  Sure, that’s not an overly abundant amount.  But, 300 ferrets eating 150 prairie dogs is a bit more.

Scientists are finding ways to try and help the ferrets.  They have developed a vaccine to really fight against it, but the truth is, it’s a very time costly job.  Travis Livieri is doing everything in his power to try and save them.  He wants the colony to grow again because they’ve been using the offspring from this colony to start other colonies.  There aren’t many ferrets left.  It’s unfortunate and there’s little people can do.  But…There is something you can.  Stop by the Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Program.  Learn about it and if you can, donate.  The population is dying because of this Plague and if we can help, I say we do it.

When one species dies, it can have catastrophic consequences for the overall ecosystem.  Prairie dogs need their predator.  The Black-Footed Ferret can be saved; however, it does take some work.  This is just another example of how species are dying out and an example of the need for human intervention.

When I heard (or read) that there was suggestion of farms in Manhattan, I had to question it.  Is there room?  Of course not.  Unless you want to use Central Park, there’s no place to put farms and even then, being a New York myself, I love Central Park the way it is.  So, I naturally had to dwell deeper.  How the heck could we put farms in Manhattan?  Or any other city for that?  Then I saw it…Vertical Farms.  Now, this has been discussed for quite some time, but I had to write about it.

In theory, what they are hoping is that they can do the one thing that is expected in Manhattan: build up.  Skyscrapers can be built and people feel that some of these could be used for farms.  It’s a nice idea in theory, but there are issues to it.  Before I talk about the issues, though, let’s look at some of the really great things that could come from this.  First, take a look at this picture that I have provided and tell me what you think about.

As you can see, the building would be used with many floors to grow food.  According to an article in the New York Times, one thirty story skyscraper with pure farms on it could make enough food to feed 50,000 people.  That’s a lot of people and that could definitely do some good in lowering the cost of food if there were numerous of them.  But, then we need to look at some issues that come along with it.

It will cost hundreds of millions to make one of these towers.  How much money can the food that is made here make a year?  If it can make a lot, then perhaps the investment would be a good move.  But, the issue that I think a lot of people have (including me) is this: is this the most effective way to increase food production?  And more so than that…Why would someone with a skyscraper want to do this over renting it out to someone?  Which will pay more?

I propose something to those that want to do this.  I am all for the skyscrapers, but why does an entire building need to be a farm?  What if only a certain number of floors on numerous skyscrapers were converted into farms?  It’s not uncommon to see the roof of a building housing a garden.  What if you used this technique, but on a smaller scale?  Why does it need to be 30 stories and a new building?  Can’t it just be an addition to an already built skyscraper and fewer floors?

Until we know just how successful this is going to be, we need to keep in perspective that this is very expensive.  If this is the best way to increase our production for food, then great.  But, there are other ways.  I like the idea, but I wonder if it will work.  What about all you?  Think it’ll work?