Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (73414)	7/17/2006 6:14:02 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361072

I basically meant.. Its not a fossil fuel.. we need the air car theaircar.com and lots of Wind Machines for power the plant kingdom Cannot draw in CO2 IF its too hot,.. the stomata on the leaves close up in high temps.. we are really on thin ice.......

To: TigerPaw who wrote (73414)	7/17/2006 6:26:47 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361072

- "Oh, I see what you mean by carbon-neutral. You mean it draws in CO2 from the air and releases the same back. I suppose that's true, but it doesn't really matter. Some other plant would draw it in and perhaps not release it back as quickly." Well, yeah, any plant not be used by us would retain it longer, but when it decomposes, would give that CO2 back again, with a tad bit being tied up as humus. Longer term would be trees. Even they eventually give it back unless we do something creative like bury them in the ocean. Which is precisely what the Japanese were doing with Cal. redwoods at one point, although not to save CO2. Other than that, it will eventually get back to the atmosphere; fire burning wooden homes, , whatever. "The net result of burning hydrocarbons is that there is still a concentration of CO2 in the air." Well, yeah, but there is no additional load of CO2. Whereas burning fossil fuels releases an additional CO2 load which has been stored for a number of years.