Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium-3 as the perfect fuel source.
=========================================================================
By Julie Wakefield
Special to SPACE.com
posted: 05:30 pm ET
30 June 2000
Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, with virtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel of the 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.
Society is straining to keep pace with energy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world population swells toward 12 billion. The moon just may be the answer.
"Helium 3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.
Cash crop of the moon
When the solar wind, the rapid stream of charged particles emitted by the sun, strikes the moon, helium 3 is deposited in the powdery soil. Over billions of years that adds up. Meteorite bombardment disperses the particles throughout the top several meters of the lunar surface.
"Helium 3 could be the cash crop for the moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in thefield, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth."Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil, he estimates. "When the moon becomes an independent country, it will have something to trade."
~
Fusion research began in 1951 in the United States under military auspices. After its declassification in 1957scientists began looking for a candidate fuel source that wouldn't produce neutrons. Although Louie Alvarez and Robert Cornog discovered helium 3in 1939, only a few hundred pounds (kilograms) were known to exist on Earth,most the by-product of nuclear-weapon production.
Apollo astronauts found helium 3 on the moon in 1969, but the link between the isotope and lunar resources was not made until 1986. "It took 15 years for us [lunar geologists and fusion pioneers] to stumble across each other," said Schmitt, the last astronaut to leave footprints on the moon.
For solving long-term energy needs,proponents contend helium 3 is a better choice than first generation nuclear fuels like deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen), which are now being tested on a large scale worldwide in tokamak thermonuclear reactors.Such approaches, which generally use strong magnetic fields to contain the tremendously hot, electrically charged gas or plasma in which fusion occurs, have cost billions and yielded little. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor or ITER tokamak, for example, won't produce a single watt of electricity for several years yet.
Increases production and safety costs
"I don't doubt it will eventually work,"Kulcinski said. "But I have serious doubts it will ever provide an economic power source on Earth or in space." That's because reactors that exploit the fusion of deuterium and tritium release 80 percent of their energy in the form of radioactive neutrons, which exponentially increase production and safety costs.
In contrast, helium 3 fusion would produce little residual radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiar helium used to inflate balloons and blimps, has a nucleus with two proton sand one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 and deuterium, which has a single nuclear proton and neutron, would produce very few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the deuterium-tritium reaction. "You could safely build a helium 3 plant in the middle of a big city," Kulcinski said.
Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for powering spacecraft and interstellar travel. While offering the high performance power of fusion -- "a classic Buck Rogers propulsion system" -- helium3 rockets would require less radioactive shielding, lightening the load,said Robert Frisbee, an advanced propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena California.
Recently Kulcinski's team reports progress toward making helium 3 fusion possible. Inside a lab chamber, the Wisconsin researchers have produced protons from a steady-state deuterium-helium3 plasma at a rate of 2.6 million reactions per second. That's fast enough to produce fusion power but not churn out electricity. "It's proof of principle, but a long way from producing electricity or making a power source out of it," Kulcinski said. He will present the results in Amsterdam in mid July at the Fourth International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon.
Size of a basketball
The chamber, which is roughly the size of a basketball, relies on the electrostatic focusing of ions into a dense core by using a spherical grid, explained Wisconsin colleague John Santarius,a study co-author. With some refinement, such Inertial Electrostatic Confinement(IEC) fusion systems could produce high-energy neutrons and protons useful in industry and medicine. For example, the technology could generate short-lived PET (positron emission tomography) isotopes on site at hospitals, enabling safe brain scans of young children and even pregnant women. Portable IECdevices could bridge the gap between today's science-based research and the ultimate goal of generating electricity, Santarius said.
This fall, the University of Wisconsin team hopes to demonstrate a third-generation fusion reaction between helium3 and helium 3 particles in the lab. The reaction would be completely void of radiation.
"Although helium 3 would be very exciting,"says Bryan Palaszewski, leader of advanced fuels at NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, "first we have to go back to the moon and be capable of doing significant operations there."
Economically unfeasible
Indeed for now, the economics of extracting and transporting helium 3 from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientists solved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible," asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies. "Unless I'm mistaken, you'd have to strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."
While it's true that to produce roughly 70 tons of helium 3, for example, a million tons of lunar soil would need to be heated to 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit (800 degrees Celsius) to liberate the gas, proponents say lunar strip mining is not the goal. "There's enough in the Mare Tranquillitatis alone to last for several hundred years," Schmidt's. The moon would be a stepping stone to other helium 3-rich sources, such as the atmospheres of Saturn and Uranus.
Benson agreed that finding fuel sources in space is the way to go. But for him, H2O and not helium 3 is the ideal fuel source. His personal goal is to create gas stations in space by mining asteroids for water. The water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen or oxygen fuel or used straight as a propellant by superheating with solar arrays. "Water is more practical and believable in the short run," he said.
But proponents believe only helium3 can pay its own way.
"Water just isn't that valuable," Schmitt said. Besides the helium, a mining process would produce water and oxygen as by-products, he says.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Warming the world to dry our socks
=====================================
Originally posted in:
http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/07/08/40eda337a2dcd
Warming the world to dry our socks
Bill McKibben
story image 1
Released July 8, 2004
Once, visiting a friend, I helped wash the dinner dishes. I soaped the plates and cups, and she rinsed them and stacked them in a dish rack. When we were finished, I asked where the dish towel was so I could dry. "Oh, don't bother with that," she said. "That's air's job."
This brings me to a very modest proposal, perfectly suited to summer. If you're wondering what (prior to Nov. 2) you can do about our deadly dependence on foreign energy, or about ever-rising utility bills, or about the flood of carbon into the atmosphere that's steadily raising temperatures, here's one answer: Let air and sun and wind do their job.
To be specific, buy 50 feet of clothesline and a $3 bag of clothespins and become a solar energy pioneer.
The average American family devotes 5 to 6 percent of its annual electric budget to the motor and heating coils inside its clothes dryer. Undampening your socks ties you into the vast world energy grid, with its legacy of mountaintop-removal coal mining, terrorist-vulnerable natural gas pipelines and all the rest. Which is OK—right?—because we all need dry socks.
But in fact we all had dry socks long before the invention of the clothes dryer. As late as 1960, according to Northwest Environment Watch, fewer than 20 percent of American households had automatic dryers.
And perhaps you've noticed that lint in your dryer trap. That's your clothes disintegrating from the endless tumbling. You won't find a small drift of lint under your clothesline.
Some people don't use clotheslines because they can't. According to the crusaders at a group called Project Laundry List, thousands of homeowners associations, condominium complexes and even whole suburbs ban clotheslines because they believe that clothes on the line are ugly. "It's akin to graffiti in your neighborhood," the president of the California Association of Homeowners Associations told reporters a few years ago. Property values could drop 15 percent, he estimated, if clotheslines flourished. Violators can be sued.
But even people who could hang out their laundry often hesitate. I was standing with another friend on the back porch in a pricy suburb not long ago. She had a perfect angle from deck to tree for a line, and I was all set to install it. "But everyone would be able to see our underwear," she said.
True enough. But drop by any mall: The average American teen-age boy is fully devoted to displaying as much of his underwear as possible, simply by failing to wear a belt and buying jeans two sizes too large. MTV might as well call itself The Underwear Channel. Our grandparents may have been prudes by contrast, but when it came to their laundry, they let it all hang out.
There are a few signs that we're beginning to regain our courage. Fort Lauderdale recently passed a resolution designating a National Hanging Out Day, noting in its official proclamation: "For many people hanging out clothes is therapeutic work. It is the only time during the week that some folks can slow down to feel the wind and listen to the birds."
Some people think that clotheslines are simply old-fashioned—too low-tech. Like President Bush, they're waiting for something like a hydrogen car before they get around to saving energy. But say you dubbed it something sexier: a Solar Activated Linear Evaporation System, perhaps—maybe that would spur SALES.
Whatever you call it, the clothesline is the most elegant solution to the problem of drying clothes in good weather. And if it storms? Just leave them up until they dry again—you'll be able to boast about rain-washed clothes.
If we all used clotheslines, we could save 30 million tons of coal a year, or shut down 15 nuclear power plants. And you don't have to wait to start. Yours could be up by this afternoon.
—Bill McKibben is the author of many books on environmental issues, including Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and a member of the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
This essay is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Land Institute.
PRESIDENT'S NOTE:
Get involved if your HOA bans clotheslines at
http://www.laundrylist.org/
=====================================
Originally posted in:
http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/07/08/40eda337a2dcd
Warming the world to dry our socks
Bill McKibben
story image 1
Released July 8, 2004
Once, visiting a friend, I helped wash the dinner dishes. I soaped the plates and cups, and she rinsed them and stacked them in a dish rack. When we were finished, I asked where the dish towel was so I could dry. "Oh, don't bother with that," she said. "That's air's job."
This brings me to a very modest proposal, perfectly suited to summer. If you're wondering what (prior to Nov. 2) you can do about our deadly dependence on foreign energy, or about ever-rising utility bills, or about the flood of carbon into the atmosphere that's steadily raising temperatures, here's one answer: Let air and sun and wind do their job.
To be specific, buy 50 feet of clothesline and a $3 bag of clothespins and become a solar energy pioneer.
The average American family devotes 5 to 6 percent of its annual electric budget to the motor and heating coils inside its clothes dryer. Undampening your socks ties you into the vast world energy grid, with its legacy of mountaintop-removal coal mining, terrorist-vulnerable natural gas pipelines and all the rest. Which is OK—right?—because we all need dry socks.
But in fact we all had dry socks long before the invention of the clothes dryer. As late as 1960, according to Northwest Environment Watch, fewer than 20 percent of American households had automatic dryers.
And perhaps you've noticed that lint in your dryer trap. That's your clothes disintegrating from the endless tumbling. You won't find a small drift of lint under your clothesline.
Some people don't use clotheslines because they can't. According to the crusaders at a group called Project Laundry List, thousands of homeowners associations, condominium complexes and even whole suburbs ban clotheslines because they believe that clothes on the line are ugly. "It's akin to graffiti in your neighborhood," the president of the California Association of Homeowners Associations told reporters a few years ago. Property values could drop 15 percent, he estimated, if clotheslines flourished. Violators can be sued.
But even people who could hang out their laundry often hesitate. I was standing with another friend on the back porch in a pricy suburb not long ago. She had a perfect angle from deck to tree for a line, and I was all set to install it. "But everyone would be able to see our underwear," she said.
True enough. But drop by any mall: The average American teen-age boy is fully devoted to displaying as much of his underwear as possible, simply by failing to wear a belt and buying jeans two sizes too large. MTV might as well call itself The Underwear Channel. Our grandparents may have been prudes by contrast, but when it came to their laundry, they let it all hang out.
There are a few signs that we're beginning to regain our courage. Fort Lauderdale recently passed a resolution designating a National Hanging Out Day, noting in its official proclamation: "For many people hanging out clothes is therapeutic work. It is the only time during the week that some folks can slow down to feel the wind and listen to the birds."
Some people think that clotheslines are simply old-fashioned—too low-tech. Like President Bush, they're waiting for something like a hydrogen car before they get around to saving energy. But say you dubbed it something sexier: a Solar Activated Linear Evaporation System, perhaps—maybe that would spur SALES.
Whatever you call it, the clothesline is the most elegant solution to the problem of drying clothes in good weather. And if it storms? Just leave them up until they dry again—you'll be able to boast about rain-washed clothes.
If we all used clotheslines, we could save 30 million tons of coal a year, or shut down 15 nuclear power plants. And you don't have to wait to start. Yours could be up by this afternoon.
—Bill McKibben is the author of many books on environmental issues, including Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College and a member of the Land Institute's Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
This essay is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Land Institute.
PRESIDENT'S NOTE:
Get involved if your HOA bans clotheslines at
http://www.laundrylist.org/
Genetically Engineered Trees for Paper
=======================================
Originally posted at http://www.conservatree.org/paperlisteningstudy/Forests/question70.html
Are genetically engineered trees appropriate for papermaking?
GMOs are plants, animals, bacteria or other living organisms that have been genetically engineered by the insertion of a foreign gene. For centuries, farmers and plant breeders have improved crops and livestock, and to a lesser extent trees, by isolating and selecting for breeding the individuals with the most desirable traits. Everything has hinged on sexual reproduction: only by breeding within the same genus have advances been made. Genetic engineering has changed all this. It has enabled scientists to dispense with sex and cross the genus barrier. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Most responses state that the use of genetically engineered trees for papermaking must be investigated further before this technology is applied.
The jury is still out. - Frank Locantore, Co-op America
Stora Enso has decided to refrain from any commercial use of controversial genetic engineering techniques on trees or any other organisms. Nevertheless, Stora Enso will continue to take part in basic research in this area in order to keep up to date with developments. This research will not lead to any commercial applications, however. - Stora Enso
Boise believes that the careful use of genetically modified trees should be scientifically investigated. We believe that genetically modified trees may help meet the growing demand for wood and paper products worldwide, may effectively compete in the marketplace, and help sustain the world's forest resources. If new varieties of trees are developed for commercial use, precautions should be taken to assure public confidence. At the same time, any regulations or oversight must be prudent and thoughtful and must not impose unreasonable barriers, unnecessarily impede field trial investigation or interfere with timely operational applications. - Boise Cascade
A World Wildlife Fund scoping study surmises that the main impact of transgenic trees might not be genetic pollution, or the creation of super weeds, but 'the contribution that [genetic engineering] might make to unsustainable land use.' The study suggests that trees engineered for enhanced growth will generally be voracious consumers of water and nutrients, and thus will have the potential to degrade land. However, similar objections could be raised for the non-GMO eucalypt clones, raised through tissue culture, which are delivering astonishingly high yields, most famously in the Aracruz plantations of eastern Brazil. Nevertheless, it is true that genetically improved or genetically modified trees will fulfill their true potential only when the right growing conditions are provided. They must be planted in suitable climates with adequate water and they will nearly always require the use of fertilizers. They may also demand relative freedom from weed competition when young, and this means that herbicides must be used. Current objections to GMOs, like the defense of GMOs, are based on scientific theory. We lack empirical evidence. The jury is out still. - Cossalter 2003
Attackers Fell Finland's Only GM Tree Study: Attackers have torn up 400 genetically modified birch trees in Finland, wrecking the nation's only research into the environmental impact of biotechnology on forests. . . . The trees were chopped down or torn up by their roots at the weekend on the fenced but unguarded 2,000-square-metre site. Some environmental groups fear genetically modified trees might irreversibly "contaminate" food crops and wild species, an issue the study aimed to investigate.
"The research investigated the possible environmental effects of doing field studies using genetically modified materials. It would have been extremely important to find out about these issues," said research station head Juhani Haggman.
The 400 birches were part of Finland's only field study on genetically modified trees. The forestry industry hopes genetic modification could cut paper-making costs and improve products by producing trees with suitable traits. "We lack research on how genes work," Haggman said. Researchers on the government-funded Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) project were working on the felled trees to collect any data that remained, Haggman said. The study was due for completion at the end of 2005. - Reuters, reported on Paperloop.com, June 23, 2004
LISTENING STUDY: Other responses indicate that genetically engineered trees should not be used for papermaking.
No. With some very limited exceptions, there is no real need for genetically engineered trees. Meanwhile, the risks are far too high that pollen and seed from genetically engineered trees will mix with natural forests, and permanently alter those forests. Existing federal, state, and international safeguards for genetically modified organisms are considered highly inadequate by many scientists and conservation organizations. - Daniel Hall, Forest Biodiversity Program Director, American Lands Alliance
The problem with genetically engineered trees is that generally (almost always in the US and Canada) the engineered trees are planted in an area where native forests of the same species are present. This means cross-pollination will likely occur with native forest trees, which is totally unacceptable. If it can be shown that a genetically modified trait cannot be transferred through pollen, then this risk would appear to be eliminated. - Robert R. Bryan, Forest Ecologist, Maine Audubon
Should we oppose genetic "improvements" to trees on public lands? Sierra Club believes that we can't allow the industry to be judged by its hype and that patented genes are not an improvement over nature. We also must avoid only judging what one gene may do, because once hundreds of different fragments of hacked, patented genetic code are allowed access to public lands, the consequences of unintended combinations will be unpredictable. GE trees will also be a danger in other nations, particularly in the underdeveloped world where conditions for effective regulation often don't exist.
We would also point out that the United States is using twice as much paper per capita as other highly civilized nations (Europe, Japan). Let us not ask genetic engineering to do what could be accomplished by lower-tech means like putting a surcharge on junk mail. - Sierra Club
Bioengineered Trees Stir Debate - Sierra Club, Fearful of Projects Going Awry, Seeks Moratorum:
Scientists are planting genetically engineered trees in dozens of research projects across the country, ignoring the pleas of environmentalists who fear dangerous, unintended consequences.
"It won't be as widespread as agricultural biotechnology, but it could be much more destructive," said Jim Diamond, chairman of the Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. "Trees are what's left of our natural environment and home to endangered species." The Sierra Club wants a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered trees outdoors until the science is better understood. But like a tree falling deep in the forest, its call has gone unheeded.
The tree researchers say their critics are missing all the ways that science can give Mother Nature a fighting chance against ravages natural and manmade. Biotechnology, they say, may provide just what's needed to help reverse global deforestation and industrial pollution while satisfying increased demands for wood and paper products. . . .
"There is a lot of value in genetic engineering," said Oregon State University researcher Steven Strauss, who tends to a few thousand engineered trees. Some researchers are infusing trees with genetic material taken from viruses and bacteria that helps them row faster and fatter and yield better wood. Others are splicing mercury-gobbling bacteria genes into trees, enlisting nature to help clean polluted soil. Still others are inserting foreign genes that might reduce the amount of toxic chemicals needed to process trees into paper. . . .
But could biotech trees cross-breed with their natural brethren and ruin forests' genetic diversity? The Sierra Club fears that, among other ecological consequences. Researchers hope to placate critics by engineering sterility into their designer trees, so their impact on the environment can be contained. But that technology remains elusive.
Many field trials are backed by paper and timber concerns hoping to design trees that yield more wood and paper. . . . Most explore ways to streamline timber and pulp production, said [ArborGen LLC] Chief Technology Officer Maud Hinchee. She said the company's work could reduce reliance on national forests, with faster growing trees growing on industry plantations. . . . Numerous projects are aimed at growing more wood on less land or making it cheaper and less environmentally harmful to process trees in mills. . . .
Oregon State's Strauss says the protesters legitimate concerns are virtually identical to those of scientists. - Paul Elias, Associated Press, reported in the Marin Independent Journal, Business section, August 1, 2003
Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which have long expressed their fears about GMOs in agriculture, have been joined in their campaigns against 'Frankentrees' by groups like the Native Forest Network, which claims that 'native forests ... are threatened worldwide by genetically engineered tree plantations.' - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
Environmentalists have also suggested that genetic engineering of trees for reduced lignin content and for insect resistance might not prove to be as beneficial as the biotechnologists hope. Take, for example, lignin, which confers physical strength on trees and constitutes part of their defence mechanism against pests. Reducing lignin content could make trees more susceptible to pest attacks, and consequently more pesticides would be required in plantations. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Some are positive.
Biotechnologists are also looking for genes that code for the enzyme that breaks down lignin. Up to a third of a tree's dry weight is lignin, which must be removed at considerable cost when pulpwood is turned into paper. Plantations of low-lignin trees could help reduce pulping costs. It is claimed that this would also be good for the environment, as lignin removal is an environmentally hazardous process. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Other responses:
How do you define genetically engineered trees? I think the larger question is more important: can paper be made effectively (quality, cost) from fibers other than that from trees? - Susan Hammond, Executive Director, Silva Forest Foundation
There is no reason to believe that genetically engineered trees would be inappropriate for papermaking. There may be distinct advantages to raising genetically modified trees for making paper that range from greater disease resistance to less need for fertilizers. - International Paper
=======================================
Originally posted at http://www.conservatree.org/paperlisteningstudy/Forests/question70.html
Are genetically engineered trees appropriate for papermaking?
GMOs are plants, animals, bacteria or other living organisms that have been genetically engineered by the insertion of a foreign gene. For centuries, farmers and plant breeders have improved crops and livestock, and to a lesser extent trees, by isolating and selecting for breeding the individuals with the most desirable traits. Everything has hinged on sexual reproduction: only by breeding within the same genus have advances been made. Genetic engineering has changed all this. It has enabled scientists to dispense with sex and cross the genus barrier. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Most responses state that the use of genetically engineered trees for papermaking must be investigated further before this technology is applied.
The jury is still out. - Frank Locantore, Co-op America
Stora Enso has decided to refrain from any commercial use of controversial genetic engineering techniques on trees or any other organisms. Nevertheless, Stora Enso will continue to take part in basic research in this area in order to keep up to date with developments. This research will not lead to any commercial applications, however. - Stora Enso
Boise believes that the careful use of genetically modified trees should be scientifically investigated. We believe that genetically modified trees may help meet the growing demand for wood and paper products worldwide, may effectively compete in the marketplace, and help sustain the world's forest resources. If new varieties of trees are developed for commercial use, precautions should be taken to assure public confidence. At the same time, any regulations or oversight must be prudent and thoughtful and must not impose unreasonable barriers, unnecessarily impede field trial investigation or interfere with timely operational applications. - Boise Cascade
A World Wildlife Fund scoping study surmises that the main impact of transgenic trees might not be genetic pollution, or the creation of super weeds, but 'the contribution that [genetic engineering] might make to unsustainable land use.' The study suggests that trees engineered for enhanced growth will generally be voracious consumers of water and nutrients, and thus will have the potential to degrade land. However, similar objections could be raised for the non-GMO eucalypt clones, raised through tissue culture, which are delivering astonishingly high yields, most famously in the Aracruz plantations of eastern Brazil. Nevertheless, it is true that genetically improved or genetically modified trees will fulfill their true potential only when the right growing conditions are provided. They must be planted in suitable climates with adequate water and they will nearly always require the use of fertilizers. They may also demand relative freedom from weed competition when young, and this means that herbicides must be used. Current objections to GMOs, like the defense of GMOs, are based on scientific theory. We lack empirical evidence. The jury is out still. - Cossalter 2003
Attackers Fell Finland's Only GM Tree Study: Attackers have torn up 400 genetically modified birch trees in Finland, wrecking the nation's only research into the environmental impact of biotechnology on forests. . . . The trees were chopped down or torn up by their roots at the weekend on the fenced but unguarded 2,000-square-metre site. Some environmental groups fear genetically modified trees might irreversibly "contaminate" food crops and wild species, an issue the study aimed to investigate.
"The research investigated the possible environmental effects of doing field studies using genetically modified materials. It would have been extremely important to find out about these issues," said research station head Juhani Haggman.
The 400 birches were part of Finland's only field study on genetically modified trees. The forestry industry hopes genetic modification could cut paper-making costs and improve products by producing trees with suitable traits. "We lack research on how genes work," Haggman said. Researchers on the government-funded Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) project were working on the felled trees to collect any data that remained, Haggman said. The study was due for completion at the end of 2005. - Reuters, reported on Paperloop.com, June 23, 2004
LISTENING STUDY: Other responses indicate that genetically engineered trees should not be used for papermaking.
No. With some very limited exceptions, there is no real need for genetically engineered trees. Meanwhile, the risks are far too high that pollen and seed from genetically engineered trees will mix with natural forests, and permanently alter those forests. Existing federal, state, and international safeguards for genetically modified organisms are considered highly inadequate by many scientists and conservation organizations. - Daniel Hall, Forest Biodiversity Program Director, American Lands Alliance
The problem with genetically engineered trees is that generally (almost always in the US and Canada) the engineered trees are planted in an area where native forests of the same species are present. This means cross-pollination will likely occur with native forest trees, which is totally unacceptable. If it can be shown that a genetically modified trait cannot be transferred through pollen, then this risk would appear to be eliminated. - Robert R. Bryan, Forest Ecologist, Maine Audubon
Should we oppose genetic "improvements" to trees on public lands? Sierra Club believes that we can't allow the industry to be judged by its hype and that patented genes are not an improvement over nature. We also must avoid only judging what one gene may do, because once hundreds of different fragments of hacked, patented genetic code are allowed access to public lands, the consequences of unintended combinations will be unpredictable. GE trees will also be a danger in other nations, particularly in the underdeveloped world where conditions for effective regulation often don't exist.
We would also point out that the United States is using twice as much paper per capita as other highly civilized nations (Europe, Japan). Let us not ask genetic engineering to do what could be accomplished by lower-tech means like putting a surcharge on junk mail. - Sierra Club
Bioengineered Trees Stir Debate - Sierra Club, Fearful of Projects Going Awry, Seeks Moratorum:
Scientists are planting genetically engineered trees in dozens of research projects across the country, ignoring the pleas of environmentalists who fear dangerous, unintended consequences.
"It won't be as widespread as agricultural biotechnology, but it could be much more destructive," said Jim Diamond, chairman of the Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. "Trees are what's left of our natural environment and home to endangered species." The Sierra Club wants a moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered trees outdoors until the science is better understood. But like a tree falling deep in the forest, its call has gone unheeded.
The tree researchers say their critics are missing all the ways that science can give Mother Nature a fighting chance against ravages natural and manmade. Biotechnology, they say, may provide just what's needed to help reverse global deforestation and industrial pollution while satisfying increased demands for wood and paper products. . . .
"There is a lot of value in genetic engineering," said Oregon State University researcher Steven Strauss, who tends to a few thousand engineered trees. Some researchers are infusing trees with genetic material taken from viruses and bacteria that helps them row faster and fatter and yield better wood. Others are splicing mercury-gobbling bacteria genes into trees, enlisting nature to help clean polluted soil. Still others are inserting foreign genes that might reduce the amount of toxic chemicals needed to process trees into paper. . . .
But could biotech trees cross-breed with their natural brethren and ruin forests' genetic diversity? The Sierra Club fears that, among other ecological consequences. Researchers hope to placate critics by engineering sterility into their designer trees, so their impact on the environment can be contained. But that technology remains elusive.
Many field trials are backed by paper and timber concerns hoping to design trees that yield more wood and paper. . . . Most explore ways to streamline timber and pulp production, said [ArborGen LLC] Chief Technology Officer Maud Hinchee. She said the company's work could reduce reliance on national forests, with faster growing trees growing on industry plantations. . . . Numerous projects are aimed at growing more wood on less land or making it cheaper and less environmentally harmful to process trees in mills. . . .
Oregon State's Strauss says the protesters legitimate concerns are virtually identical to those of scientists. - Paul Elias, Associated Press, reported in the Marin Independent Journal, Business section, August 1, 2003
Organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which have long expressed their fears about GMOs in agriculture, have been joined in their campaigns against 'Frankentrees' by groups like the Native Forest Network, which claims that 'native forests ... are threatened worldwide by genetically engineered tree plantations.' - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
Environmentalists have also suggested that genetic engineering of trees for reduced lignin content and for insect resistance might not prove to be as beneficial as the biotechnologists hope. Take, for example, lignin, which confers physical strength on trees and constitutes part of their defence mechanism against pests. Reducing lignin content could make trees more susceptible to pest attacks, and consequently more pesticides would be required in plantations. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Some are positive.
Biotechnologists are also looking for genes that code for the enzyme that breaks down lignin. Up to a third of a tree's dry weight is lignin, which must be removed at considerable cost when pulpwood is turned into paper. Plantations of low-lignin trees could help reduce pulping costs. It is claimed that this would also be good for the environment, as lignin removal is an environmentally hazardous process. - Fast-Wood Plantations . . .
LISTENING STUDY: Other responses:
How do you define genetically engineered trees? I think the larger question is more important: can paper be made effectively (quality, cost) from fibers other than that from trees? - Susan Hammond, Executive Director, Silva Forest Foundation
There is no reason to believe that genetically engineered trees would be inappropriate for papermaking. There may be distinct advantages to raising genetically modified trees for making paper that range from greater disease resistance to less need for fertilizers. - International Paper
Renewable Energy Resources
==========================
Originally offered at http://www.karensmontgomery.org/renewable.html
Renewable Energy
Renewable energies have a low accident potential; they are resistant to terrorism and sabotage, have international acceptability and are resistant to policy crises. They are also financially productive as products and expertise move up in the marketplace. In 2005, renewable energy efforts in Germany produced 170,000 new jobs. Job production is especially valuable as other manufacturing jobs and the automotive industries are declining, just as they are in the U.S.
Other positive outcomes from renewable energy production are:
* cleaner air and water
* changing of the norms of ideas of energy sources
* new educational fields
* reduced energy dependence on foreign sources
* possible influence on climate change
Implications for the United States
We are behind the EU and the United Kingdom in developing renewable energies. The EU and especially Germany have invested billions of euros, created University Departments and research institutions dedicated to renewable energy fields and have established vocational schools to teach the new technologies. Those investments are now reaping financial rewards internationally.
There will have to be an acceptance of changes by both the public and industry in the United States. Sources of initial and sustained funding to jump start renewable industries must be found. The public may have some taxes and charges, but will benefit from more jobs and a healthier environment. Industry will see some new charges and possible taxes, but will benefit from the production of new industries and products.
Rural and farming areas will benefit from sales of sustainable energy generated from wind and biomass, while more urban areas will focus on solar energy production. Much of this energy production will require acceptance of locally produced energy into the electrical grid, involving payments and charges to the producers.
All of this -and more- must be done—and soon. If the United States is to compete globally, to become less dependent on depleatable fossil fuels, to create new industries, to clean up its environment and regain its leadership position in the world, we must put a major effort into renewable energy. NOW!
These ideas are important to you and to me. As most of you are aware, conservation of the energy we have now, through buying energy efficient appliances and doing such simple things as turning off lights and other equipment, are the first steps towards a cleaner, more energy efficient world.
To find out more, explore these links:
World Council for Renewable Energy
http://www.wcre.de/en/index.php
Renewable Engery Policy Network
http://www.ren21.net/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000405/index.html
World Wind Energy Institute
http://www.wwei.nu/
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
www.acore.org
European Association for Renewable Energy (EUROSOLAR)
www.eurosolar.org
Renewable Energy Foundation – WCRE Australia/Pacific
www.solarcity.org
==========================
Originally offered at http://www.karensmontgomery.org/renewable.html
Renewable Energy
Renewable energies have a low accident potential; they are resistant to terrorism and sabotage, have international acceptability and are resistant to policy crises. They are also financially productive as products and expertise move up in the marketplace. In 2005, renewable energy efforts in Germany produced 170,000 new jobs. Job production is especially valuable as other manufacturing jobs and the automotive industries are declining, just as they are in the U.S.
Other positive outcomes from renewable energy production are:
* cleaner air and water
* changing of the norms of ideas of energy sources
* new educational fields
* reduced energy dependence on foreign sources
* possible influence on climate change
Implications for the United States
We are behind the EU and the United Kingdom in developing renewable energies. The EU and especially Germany have invested billions of euros, created University Departments and research institutions dedicated to renewable energy fields and have established vocational schools to teach the new technologies. Those investments are now reaping financial rewards internationally.
There will have to be an acceptance of changes by both the public and industry in the United States. Sources of initial and sustained funding to jump start renewable industries must be found. The public may have some taxes and charges, but will benefit from more jobs and a healthier environment. Industry will see some new charges and possible taxes, but will benefit from the production of new industries and products.
Rural and farming areas will benefit from sales of sustainable energy generated from wind and biomass, while more urban areas will focus on solar energy production. Much of this energy production will require acceptance of locally produced energy into the electrical grid, involving payments and charges to the producers.
All of this -and more- must be done—and soon. If the United States is to compete globally, to become less dependent on depleatable fossil fuels, to create new industries, to clean up its environment and regain its leadership position in the world, we must put a major effort into renewable energy. NOW!
These ideas are important to you and to me. As most of you are aware, conservation of the energy we have now, through buying energy efficient appliances and doing such simple things as turning off lights and other equipment, are the first steps towards a cleaner, more energy efficient world.
To find out more, explore these links:
World Council for Renewable Energy
http://www.wcre.de/en/index.php
Renewable Engery Policy Network
http://www.ren21.net/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000405/index.html
World Wind Energy Institute
http://www.wwei.nu/
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
www.acore.org
European Association for Renewable Energy (EUROSOLAR)
www.eurosolar.org
Renewable Energy Foundation – WCRE Australia/Pacific
www.solarcity.org
Mini-cars fall short in crash tests
===================================
Originally posted at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crash19dec19,1,7681416.story?coll=la-headlines-business
Mini-cars fall short in crash tests
===================================
Originally posted at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crash19dec19,1,7681416.story?coll=la-headlines-business
Mini-cars fall short in crash tests
By John O'Dell, Times Staff Writer
December 19, 2006
Toyota Motor Corp., whose cars and trucks have helped set industry standards for affordable safety, had two of the worst performers in crash tests of the new subcompact sedans that are growing in popularity as motorists seek better gas mileage.
The 2007 models of Toyota's basic Yaris sedan and its boxy Scion xB wagon received the lowest scores as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for the first time rated so-called mini-cars from five automakers.
The crash tests by the nonprofit insurance institute are more rigorous than federal tests and are more respected by consumer groups. Insurers created the institute decades ago and its crash tests have become the industry's big stick for pressuring automakers into building safer vehicles.
Nissan Motor Co.'s subcompact Versa received the insurance institute's top rating, but institute President Adrian Lund said none of the cars tested provided stellar protection when hit by larger vehicles.
"Tests like these are going to set small cars back a half-decade," said industry analyst Eric Noble of CarLab. The Orange firm specializes in product testing and development consulting for automakers.
"Toyota doesn't usually make mistakes," Noble said, "but it was foolish of them to bring over small cars designed for the Japanese market," where cars and trucks are much smaller than those in the U.S.
The crash test results, to be released by the Virginia-based insurance institute today, found the Versa best among 2007-model mini-cars in protecting occupants in front-, rear- and side-impact collisions. It received "good" ratings, the institute's top score, in all three tests.
The Nissan subcompact was designed for the European and North American markets and is longer, wider and heavier than other cars in what the insurance institute calls the mini-car class, or those that weigh less than 2,500 pounds.
Honda Motor Co.'s Fit subcompact was rated "good" in the 40-mpg front and 31-mph side crashes, but inadequate seats and head restraints earned it a "poor," the institute's worst score, in protecting occupants from injury in a 20-mph rear-end collision.
Both the Versa and the Fit are sold with side-curtain air bags as standard equipment. The bags pop out from above the vehicles' side windows to provide protection against head and torso injuries in side crashes.
Although most Toyota vehicles do well in such tests, both its Scion xB wagon, which doesn't offer side air bags, and its Yaris sedan, when unequipped with optional side air bags, did poorly in the side test. That test simulates being hit from the side by a full-size pickup truck or SUV.
A Yaris equipped with side air bags, a $650 option on the basic $12,545 car, fared far better, with a "good" rating in the side crash and a "marginal" in the rear crash test.
In a statement Monday, Toyota said the company's cars "meet the safety requirements of the federal government and NHTSA," the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Hyundai Motor Co.'s Accent, which comes with side air bags as standard equipment, also got a "poor" in the side crash test. The Rio, from Hyundai subsidiary Kia Motors Corp., wasn't tested but shares the same platform and basic structure as the Accent and was rated the same.
General Motors Corp.'s Korean-built Chevrolet Aveo, equipped with standard side air bags, got a "marginal" rating in the side crash, a "poor" in the rear collision and an "acceptable" in the front crash test.
Side air bags in both the Accent and the Aveo did "pretty good" in protecting occupants' from head injury in the side crash tests, the insurance institute's Lund said. But the Accent's body structure lacked the strength to protect against torso injury and the Aveo's air bags were insufficient for preventing chest and torso injury.
BMW's 2006 Mini Cooper, which was previously tested by the insurance institute, is being included in today's mini-car ratings. It received a "good" score for front-crash protection, an "acceptable" in the side-impact test and a "marginal" for rear-impact protection. The institute said it would issue a new test report when the redesigned 2007 model Mini is available next year.
The institute, which receives all of its is financial support from the insurance industry, publicizes its crash tests in an effort to push automakers to improve safety by offering cars with equipment such as side curtain air bags, head restraints that help prevent whiplash and strengthened side structures
Such improvements not only reduce injuries and deaths, they help keep insurers' costs down by holding down medical treatment and death benefit costs.
"Any car that's small and light isn't the best choice in terms of safety," Lund said. "The laws of physics dictate" that small cars will come out losers in collisions with larger and heavier vehicles, he said.
Although he disagreed with analyst Noble's verdict that the test results would be a major blow to sales of small cars, Lund said they were intended to show people that there is a safety trade-off to be made when shopping for a mini-car to get better fuel economy.
Lund said he hoped that the tests would encourage small-car makers to move quickly to offer more safety equipment as standard rather than optional features. Death rates for mini-car drivers are higher than in any other vehicle category, Lund said.
_____
john.odell@latimes.com
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
--
Crash tests
--
Crash test results for subcompact cars:
--
G = Good; A = Acceptable; M = Marginal;P = Poor
--
Car Front Side Rear
Nissan Versa G G G
(standard side airbags:
curtains for head protection
plus torso bags
in front seats)
Toyota Yaris G G M
(with optional side airbags:
curtains for head protection
plus torso
bags in front seats)
Honda Fit G G P
(standard side airbags:
curtains for head protection
plus torso bags
in front seats)
Mini Cooper* G A M
(standard side airbags:
tubular for head protection
plus torso bags in
front seats)
Chevrolet Aveo A M P
(standard side airbags:
combination head/torso bags
in front seats)
Scion xB G P M
(side airbags unavailable)
Toyota Yaris G P M
(without optional side airbags)
Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio A P P
(standard side airbags: curtains for
head protection plus torso bags
in front seats)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)