We are extremely pleased with the initial results of the feasibility study, which show strong promise for integration into our product lines. Looking ahead, we anticipate that the availability of a high performance polymer, manufactured economically from renewable sources would considerably increase the bioplastic market.
Industrial biotechnology, the use of biological materials to make industrial products, is recognised by the UK government as a promising means of developing less carbon intensive products and processes, with an estimated value to the UK of between £4bn and £12bn by 2025."
Go to: http://www.biomebioplastics.com/research-confirms-next-generation-bioplastics-could-be-made-from-trees/
Marchwood Southampton I know the area (should do went over the fence at "Re-Chem" -as was-), we took pictures of low level radio-active waste containers waiting for their contents to be INCINERATED!
YUP! Incinerated kiddos; take a relatively harmless (at least "more easily safely disposable" go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/toxic-clean-ups-radiation-and-project.html re: "Project "Abaris"" -rocket-to-Sun method of captured & "stored" radio-active waste disposal achieves super-symmetry in hyper-time re: "Astrotometry"), substance, burn it until it particulates and then disperse it in the atmosphere (at relatively low levels too).
Remember also guys that the sort of dioxins and furans that are (ONLY), produced in the flues of waste incinerators are both carcinogenic and mutagenic and effective at any dose above absolute zero (as is? PLUTONIUM -closest chemical analogues-).."
The following are questions and responses from my "MediaLens" message board thread:
Quote: "Gerard - this research should be seen in the context of Wood Alcohol (aka Methanol) having first been commercially traded in Britain around 1690. Some here may be unaware that the last UK Coppice-to-Methanol plant (near Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean) was finally closed in the 1970s due to cheaper production from NS gas. Methanol is not only an exceptionally clean-burning liquid fuel [CH3OH] it also has outstanding combustion characteristics, which for decades meant it was the only fuel used in the Nazcar races.
Methanol is arguably the most versatile of chemicals as it can form the feedstock for over 95% of the industry's products. And that includes almost the full range of plastics.
Quote: "Living in "Hemp-shire" I of-course also wonder how much of a contribution hemp (and one can perhaps imagine a gradation of hemp-cannabis with an ever more volatile content), might make to the plastics (and various other polymers), industry. Plastics but not fuels, land-based bio-fuels are a ridiculously inefficient use of land as (except in the case of very specialised fuels etc.), is fresh water production a waste. We need clean seas (go to:
http://www.titan-oceanus.com/the-problem.html ), to produce the fuels we need not just chemically and biologically but radiologically too!"
which we shall be getting without having to do a single thing about it,
over the next few decades. Just as well, since we're clearly incapable -
like yeast - of doing anything about it voluntarily.
Since we first started using fire, wood has been the premier, abundant, self-renewing fuel. It can do all those other things too, as chemical feedstock, as structural material, and on. Hemp can do lots of them also. All of this without any ecological insult - so long as human numbers, and human demand, are proportionate.
And as for 'ridiculously inefficient': check out the crucial opposition between - always fatally brittle - efficiency and resilience. Resilience is the essential item. The 'ridiculously inefficient' solar energy capture by photosynthesis - about 2 to 3 percent, I seem to recall, without being arsed to look it up - has proven effectual and very-long-term ecologically sustainable and benign. Where do we imagine all the sequestered fossil hydrocarbons that we're so hooked on (briefly, for the transient duration of the 'Single Giant Pulse Event' of industrial civilisation) came from in the first place...? So don't knock it. Those of our descendants who manage to get through the now-begun era of the Long Descent are going to be vitally dependent on the re-grown forests, as we always have been - even during the SGPE, actually.
This fuel-gift is besides all the other vital ecological, practical and spiritual gifts that forests give us, free, gratis, and for nothing. If there's one form of geo-engineering that we laughably-presumptuous humankind could undertake with real, high-likelihood chances of success, it's assisting - just assisting! - Gaia to re-forest her planet; mainly by just stopping our hindrances of her permanent, relentless drive to reforest anyway everywhere that trees can grow, if they're just left to get on with it. That's all it needs from us: designate areas, plant some useful (to us!) species initially, perhaps; but after that, just leave it alone; or at most, do forest-permaculture, with the bedrock commitment of all tailored-to-place permacultural methods to ecological responsibility as a prime directive. But beyond that, we really need to get rid of the indescribably foolish idea that we know best, and we're in charge. We don't, and we ain't"
Quote: "It must be said however that B.P are totally responsible for the actual accident (within the parameters of previously current* -and recently passed-, U.S industry practices, legislation and standards), however the responsibility for the ethos of expoitative and "fast-buck" practices is the industry's. I'm not an expert but wasn't/isn't (?) America the most influential oil producing/exploiting nation on the planet? The fact that following the accident B.P were attempting to "cobble together" a deep-water salvage/repair unit out of a couple of rusty bath-tubs on "Uncle Tom's" Louisiana dockside is the whole industry's responsiblity. The British Governmnent should make clear on B.P's behalf that whilst B.P accepts responsibility for the accident and it's aftermath it cannot accept sole responsibility for the "climate of exploitation" which has been engendered in the industry as a whole. There should be a limit to the financial burden placed on B.P and responsibilty for the rest of the environmental and social consequences of the disaster should be born by the industry (including the national governments of countries which profit from the presence of major private oil-companies on their soil ).
*You know like The Gulf Stream.
(Edit 04/01/11 ....we should offer to do as much as we possibly can to clean up what is undoubtedly our own mess and help to ensure that such a ridiculous disparity between the preparedness for disaster and the risks involved in the off-shore oil industry does not occur again.)
Economists note: If we did prepare properly for all possible eventualities within the oil industry (in terms of possible disaster scenarious involving all activities from oil-well to consumption), how much would it affect the profit margins?
Also, if the possible economic consequences of continuing to expoit this resource are so serious and the possibility of disaster so real, do we not conclude that we require far more investment in sustainable above ground (but not above water), fuel production methods?"
Go to: "Aunt Sally whipping the Boy" http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/aunt-sally-whipping-boy.html