# would you put it in your car?



## hopewrites (Sep 3, 2012)

read this article and thought "yeah, what a good idea. it's got all sorts of benefits. recycling at it's best" but I couldn't quite decide if I could bring my self to look at exhaust the same way if i knew that was what all the cars were burning.

http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2012/08/from-poop-to-pump/


----------



## Abernovo (Sep 3, 2012)

Not a problem as far as I can see. Anyway, the exhaust would only be excreting by-products of waste product. 

I've worked with reed bed sewage treatments in the past, providing clean water from domestic waste water. It's all about recycling and conserving energy resources.


----------



## Alex The G and T (Sep 3, 2012)

Reminds me of  particular *Pogo*  comic:  "Politics is poopadoodle.   Poopadoodle is horse exhaust."

The article indicates a perfect circle.  How could sludge be any worse that what's currently being  exhausted?  (Alex has just returned from a road trip involving a bit of gridlock traffic in the San Francisco Bay area.  Alex would have enjoyed a more organic quality of exhaust.)


----------



## Dave (Sep 3, 2012)

Alex said:


> The article indicates a perfect circle.  How could sludge be any worse that what's currently being exhausted?



Or indeed, any worse than any urban street up until about 100 years ago. 

We'd have to employ Crossing Sweepers again, so solving the problem of unemployment. 

But seriously, I can't see a problem either. Sewage Sludge is not Raw Sewage. 

It is still burning Carbon though. For a really radical idea we need to start running vehicles on all the hot air spoken by politicians.


----------



## Gary Compton (Sep 3, 2012)

hopewrites said:


> read this article and thought "yeah, what a good idea. it's got all sorts of benefits. recycling at it's best" but I couldn't quite decide if I could bring my self to look at exhaust the same way if i knew that was what all the cars were burning.
> 
> http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2012/08/from-poop-to-pump/



I think it's a crap idea

But that's me


----------



## hopewrites (Sep 3, 2012)

I like the idea, its just that every time I go to say id get behind it, the preteen in me giggles and starts making fart jokes. And the child in me puts on a sage-face to ask how I would feel if cars were blowing that kind of exhaust in my face, would I be more or less offended.
At which point I tell them they're both ridiculous and go back to thinking its the best biodiesel option I've heard yet. Then I try not to wonder about the sort of diet people would have to maintain to keep feceal-lipid numbers that high or imagine a sci-fi world where humans are forced into unhealthy living conditions just to keep up with fule demands.


----------



## Bowler1 (Sep 10, 2012)

hopewrites said:


> Then I try not to wonder about the sort of diet people would have to maintain to keep feceal-lipid numbers that high or imagine a sci-fi world where humans are forced into unhealthy living conditions just to keep up with fule demands.


 
This is an Idea for a little story as far as I'm concerned!

The fuel would come from the bacteria munching on the poo, so I happliy drive my car on poo. It would put a new meaning on renewable! 

I wonder how many miles a Ford Mondeo could get per poo?

Terrible, but all poo jokes are...


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 10, 2012)

Dave said:


> It is still burning Carbon though. For a really radical idea we need to start running vehicles on all the hot air spoken by politicians.




If only we could, Dave. I bet that solution would run every motorized vehicle on the planet indefinitely. 


In all seriousness, though, I honestly don't think there could ever be a way of producing motorized vehicles that doesn't involve the burning of carbon. The closest you could get, I think, could be electric with power gained from the cleanest energy retrieval possible, such as wind or solar. Still, both wind and solar power need to use a lot of land to be effective, and that raises the problem of habitat destruction, destruction of potential farmland, housing, this, that, the Cat in the Hat...I wonder what would happen if ever ever did come up with a successful, efficient fusion power reactor...?


----------



## Abernovo (Sep 10, 2012)

Apologies for going off topic slightly, but I don't think solar or wind power needs significant land to work, Karn. I believe the reason for vast areas being used for wind and photo-voltaic farms is because they are being used poorly and a lack of imagination by planners and politicians (what's new there?).

If solar panels were mounted on the roofs of houses (and office buildings) - lots of them - they would have the same area as the solar farms, if not more, without taking up tracts of land. There is a potential problem with the idea: a lack of money going into the pockets of the utility companies and the politicians. Why? Because individual homeowners would be effectively selling power to the grid when they weren't needing it and their overall bills would be lower. The same for wind turbines, where a small personal use turbine attached to the house would probably produce more benefits for the individuals than big power companies.

There is the potential for affordable renewable power, but as usual, a total lack of political will.

Apologies for the rant.  The environment, you know.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 10, 2012)

Maybe so, Aber, but you also have to remember that as far as solar goes, there are a few problems wrong with putting them so high up as skyscrapers. I don't know how fragile they are, but the potential risk of lightning storms and high winds two thousand feet up can bring a bit of a problem, can it not?


And you also have to remember that most people live in large cities, where there's no room for wind turbines, and attaching them onto the roofs of high skyscrapers are again, a bad idea. Besides, I think any building would look ridiculous with a turbine rising out of it, whether it be single story or 200. Both ideas are fine out in suburban or mostly-undeveloped land, but can you imagine personal wind turbines in, say, Manhattan? I sure couldn't. I couldn't imagine them here in Portland, and it's far smaller and far less compressed than New York, or other major cities across the country.


----------



## Abernovo (Sep 10, 2012)

The personal wind power generators I'm thinking of are about a metre high. There's also a new type being developed in the US, specifically for city roofs, where the blades form a dome shape on top of the roof, with the turbine shaft going down into the building. Initial tests have so far been positive, I believe.

As to solar, they can also be mounted on the sides of buildings. I agree with what you say, Karn, but I still feel that much of the problem is a lack of will on the part of politicians and energy companies who want to keep the status quo. Feel free to pm me. I don't want to get shouted at for hijacking.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 10, 2012)

No no, I agree with you on how big of jackasses politicians and many architects are. And we do need some innovation around the world, in all kinds of areas.

But again, even alongside buildings, there can still be certain risks that I don't think would be taken, as far as solar paneling goes. Smaller wind turbines on city rooftops would indeed help matters, but I would still be worried about high-altitude weather. Even a thousand feet up can change things significantly. It certainly could enough in, say, winter, that gears could freeze, with wind chill.


----------



## hopewrites (Sep 11, 2012)

I'm not going to cry hijack. Were still talking about environmentally responsible energy options that aren't getting utilized for one reason or another. 

I happen to agree with Abernovo that its politics and conglomerates holding down clean power. Even if they aren't going to up the regulation standards, politicians could offer tax breaks for those willing to have clean energy production equipment installed. With a one time tax break and lower power bills I could see lots of people jumping on the energy - environmental responsibility band wagon, if only because of the fiscal responsibllity of it.


I don't know that getting away from carbon burning resources is the only answer for planetary responsibility. I think its got to be a balance of resource management and efficiency. Wind and solar power are not without their own environmental drawbacks and damages, I can't think of a single thing that is, they have their place certainly, and I'm not about to say we could do with less of them at this point. 

Responsible forethoughtfull resource utilization is what I advocate.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Sep 11, 2012)

Actually, Hope, if you remember early in Obama's presidency, he did offer tax relief to those who switched to solar power. I believe he made it a tax write-off or something to those who installed solar panels on their houses. He also initiated the Cash for Clunkers program where dealerships were supposed to pay top dollar for older vehicles that had horrible fuel efficiency to be traded for vehicles that had far better.


----------

