We should work towards a hydrogen energy solution, as this would not only provide electricity but combustion for our cars, all without any air pollution. Actually also adding oxygen to our environment, now deprived by conventional combustion. Even a small car uses as much oxygen as about 2000 people.

The largest challenge to our biosphere is nutrient enrichment as our present regulations ignore all pollution caused by nitrogenous waste (urine, proteins etc.) and allows our rivers still to be used as giant urinals by cities.

Nutrient enrichment already is killing reefs and causes dead zones in open waters and on land it causes wild fires, as the result of Green Rain.

Let's use common sense, not waste any more time and public funds and focus on a real solution.

AND let's use food production to feed those who now are starving.


If fish only could talk!

The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid
consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that
involve massive taxpayer funded subsidies to large environmentally
destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well
meaning but misguided groups and individuals.

Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans, and other crops are not only
environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without
massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally
viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind
and solar energy.

Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:

*  The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it
produces.

*  The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air
pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution,
erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides,
fertilizers and harm to animals.

*  Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly
destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.

*  Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in
phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed
river systems.

*  Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop
production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.

The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more
corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the
environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as
conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems,
increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food
farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.

Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten
environmental destruction.

We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more
destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on
more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.

The hard decisions can no longer be avoided.  There must be a massive
shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption.

The biofuels scam must be stopped in its' tracks. If it proceeds, we'll
plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and
send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.      

If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network FACT SHEET
 (http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html), Feeding Cars Not People
 (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/) and
Worse Than Fossil Fuel (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/ )

Environmental issues are complicated and individuals that try to discuss them are often considered 'Chicken Little'.  Unfortunately many also have used environmental issues to promote their own 'green goals' (green not the color of trees but that of money).

The issue however is not so difficult to understand, provided you keep it simple.  Look at life as if it is a large box full of Lego blocks.  Actually much simpler than my kid's box, since this box of life only has mainly four different blocks: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and 'reactive nitrogen'.  

There is plenty of nitrogen in the air (78%), but that form of nitrogen cannot be used as a building block. Up until the start of the last century, the naturally formed 'reactive nitrogen' blocks were the limiting factor for life on earth and basically established the balance and biodiversity in our biosphere, as we know and like it.  

However, by introducing manmade 'reactive nitrogen' blocks (fertilizer) we have created much more life and we obviously have disturbed this balance.  It is estimated that 25% of the `reactive nitrogen' in the proteins of human bodies, now originates from the fertilizer industries.

It is obvious that we cannot stop using fertilizers to grow our food, but we should become aware of what happens with the 'reactive nitrogen' during and after we have used it, since most of it eventually will end up in our environment.  

The impact of  'reactive nitrogen' on our environment is mostly ignored, partly because of lack of understanding, partly because it affects different turfs of interest (agencies in government and faculties in our educational system) and possible also because nitric oxide (as a result of burning air) also a form of 'reactive nitrogen' comes from the tail pipes of our cars.

This anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of the earth's biosphere has enormous consequences, which not only impacts the atmosphere (global warming, destruction of the ozone layer), but also our open waterways (eutrophication, i.e. the 8000 square miles `dead zone' in the Golf of Mexico, red tides, destruction of coral reefs and pfiesteria in estuaries) and, due to `green rain' (rain containing `reactive nitrogen'), stimulates vegetation, which in turn, during droughts, provides the extra fuel for wild fires.

Many of these anthropogenic  `reactive nitrogen' sources will be difficult to control, but where they could have been controlled in sewage (human waste), it was omitted mainly due to an incorrectly applied water pollution test.

The Clean Water Act, now 31 years old, still allows cities to use rivers as giant urinals.
In 1972 it all seemed so easy, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act and Senator Muskie stated on the Senate floor: "This Act simply means, that we can not use our rivers any longer to treat our sewage".

Even tough many claim that this second largest federal public works program has been successful; neither of the Act's goals -- swimmable and fishable waters by 1983 and elimination of all water pollution by 1985 -- have been achieved.  

Neither can they ever be achieved, because the regulations implementing the Act ignore 40% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and all the pollution caused by urine waste in sewage.  Sadly this is the result of an incorrectly applied pollution tests.

This pollution test is called the BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) test, which measures the oxygen used by bacteria that feed on the organic matter in sewage. Sewage contains carbonaceous matter (fecal), which is used by heterotrphic bacteria and nitrogenous matter (urine and proteins), which is used by autotrophic bacteria.  

When the test was developed in England, around 1920, it was found that completing the test would take 30 days, but when applied on raw sewage, the autotrophic bacteria only contributed to the oxygen consumption after 6 to 10days. During the first 5 days, the test only measured the oxygen demand of the heterotrophic bacteria, called BOD5, while the proper name is C-BOD5.

The oxygen usage by autotrophic bacteria (N-BOD) also could be measured with another nitrogen test and the BOD5 test became a timesaver, but always intended to be used together with the nitrogen test.  When the BOD5 in sewage is measured 200, the total C-BOD is 300 and the N-BOD 200.

Although all this is well described in the old literature, it became common engineering practice worldwide, to solely use the BOD5 test value and consider this value to represent all the organic waste in sewage.

While writing the CWA in 1972, Congress was told that eliminating all water pollution was not possible, but that demanding "secondary treatment" -- considered 85% treatment-- would be a good step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, when EPA applied the 85% treatment requirement for its NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permits, EPA applied this requirement on the BOD5 test, which, as explained earlier, only measures 60% of the pollution caused by fecal waste and not any of the pollution caused by urine waste.

Since the BOD5 test does not distinguishes between C-BOD and N-BOD, it is not possible to evaluate the treatment efficiency of a sewage treatment plant, neither is it possible to establish a waste load on receiving water bodies.  Last but not least, since this test value-- still assumed to be C-BOD5-- is used for the design of a treatment facility, plants are designed to treat the wrong waste.  

The results of one day proper testing in 1984, discarded an approved plan to expand Salt Lake City's sewage treatment plant which would have cost the city 135 million dollar.

Autotrophic bacteria -essential in the nitrogen cycle--will be present in sewers and sewage treatment plants and will exert a N-BOD when effluents of plants are tested. This will raise its BOD5 value, often higher than the 30 (85% of 200) as was required for the discharge permit and causing such plants to be out of compliance.

Not only that many cities and industries were fined, thus penalized for treating their wastewater better then was required, legal enforcement of the NPDES program was impossible.

EPA acknowledged the problems in 1984, but instead of correcting the test procedures, EPA allowed also the use of the C-BOD5 test, which is similar to the BOD5 test, except that a special chemical is added to kill the autotrophic bacteria.  Many sewage treatment plants, prior to 1984 out of compliance, got into compliance by adding this chemical to their test.

EPA, by administrative ruling, lowered the goals of the CWA from 100% treatment to a mere 40% treatment, without asking or informing Congress.  

Although aware, several members of Congress do not want to take action, because they are told that demanding better sewage treatment is not necessary and would be very costly.  Reality is that sewage treatment technology already was available in 1972, which achieves 95% treatment of both C-BOD and N-BOD and is less expensive to build and operate than conventional sewage treatment, which actually was developed solely to control odors.

Although it will be difficult for everybody directly and indirectly involved in the implementation of the CWA, the Act should be implemented as it was intended and promised to the American public.  Only then, with better knowledge and understanding, would we be able to reduce this eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of our biosphere, which may not affect our environment tomorrow, but certainly decades from now.

While natural eutrophication of lakes, according to EPA's National Water Quality Inventory 1992 Report to Congress, would take thousands of years, man-induced eutrophication is occurring in decades.

If fish only could talk!

And what is your solution for fuel usage? Most Americans and world inhabitants will not give up cars without a major battle.

I think that biofuels are an excellent idea, however clearly not all the kinks have been worked out. For example corn is not the answer, I am not sure that switchgrass is either (although I have not read anything about it), but there are potential biofuel crops out there that are, for example willows. Also low-value wood that is predominant in forest management is another one that could be an important driver. Humans used biofuels ever since we became Homo sapiens at the latest, maybe even before that, not an expert in this field. So I am not sure that it is such a bad idea, all you technocrats out there notwithstanding.

Tertiary treatment mostly refers to removal of phosphorus, although some may also include de-nitrification, but then what type of treatment is called nitrification?

There were much more problems with this incorrect use of the test and although EPA officially acknowledged the problems in 1984, in stead of correcting the test procedure, it allowed an alternative test, which solely measure part of the fecal waste. By administrative rule, EPA not only lowered the goals of the CWA from elimination of all pollution to a measly 35% treatment, but also still did not correct all the problems in the field that still assume that sewage has the same composition as was measured back in 1920, when the specific test was developed.

It is quite possible that many sewage treatment plants are designed to treat the wrong waste, simple because the raw sewage is not correctly tested. This is also the reason why nobody wants to perform the correct testing, as this may very well show up.

EPA claims that nitrogenous waste (urine and protein) is not organic and therefore Congress never intended it to be treated. But since bacteria will use ammonia (urine hydrolyses into ammonia) as an energy source and thereby uses oxygen, this is an equal source of oxygen demanding pollution as fecal waste, while it in all its forms also is a nutrient for aquatic plant growth (algae).

Yes you can design a treatment process that contains bacteria for both carbonaceous food and nitrogenous food (called nitrification) and you can create conditions to force bacteria to use the oxygen in the nitrates to oxidize carbonaceous food (called denitrification), but that is only possible if you also maintain the nitrification process, which is not required.

The Clean Water Act represents the second largest federally funded public works program and it simply failed because of lack of understanding and a faulty applied pollution test.  Sadly biological treatment processes were already available in the forties which maintained all the processes earlier mentioned at half the cost what communities now have to pay for an odor control facility.

2.    Hydrogen.

The highest priority for any energy solution should be NO air combustion as this causes CO2 and more important Nitrous oxides, both causing global warming while the second one causes nutrient enrichment, among others Green rain (rain with fertilizer).
Global warming is important, but nutrient enrichment of our biosphere is equally detrimental.  We also should look at the usage of oxygen. Even a small car will use as much as 2000 people. One third of the oxygen is presently generated in the oceans by phytoplankton and two third on land by vegetation. Loosing the rain forest will eventually also impacts the production of oxygen and since hydrogen is generated by splitting water, you also will generate oxygen.  This knife cuts on both sides.

In addition, electricity is very convenient, but also very wasteful, as only part of the electricity generated will be used and the rest results in heat lost in the atmosphere. The company has to deliver electricity for peak demand, which only occurs during a few hours of the day, so most of the electricity generated will be lost in heat.
How much? Who knows, only the power company can tell you, but they probably won't.

All and all if you priorities all alternatives, the clear winner is hydrogen, as it is storable (in tanks) and thus can be used in engines to energize cars and other transportation. All by converting hydrogen with oxygen into water. Some will say that energy is required to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water and that is of course true, BUT now you can use any alternative energy sources (like for example tidal energy) to generate the electricity to split the hydrogen and then transport the hydrogen to the users. N Most tidal locations are so remote from populated areas that by the time the electricity generated arrives at location where it is used, the electricity is gone due to resistance (heating).
If hydrogen becomes the source of energy you will also see the development of using temperature difference to generate energy, like now done in Iceland using geothermal energy.

May be our grand children will live in communities, whereby the only utilities they will have will be water & sewage and a hydrogen gas supply line. They will have their own hydrogen cells to generate their own electricity, while hydrogen is also used for heating and cooling.  Cars will run on hydrogen and stations will provide the high pressured hydrogen required to get any distance on a tank load.  We probably can simply use our present natural gas lines and replace the natural gas with hydrogen. Year ago, when natural gas was proposed to replace gasoline in cars, objections were raised that you would be driving around with a bomb in your trunk.  This problem clearly has been resolved and we now have large city busses driving on natural gas.

There certainly will be problems, but the largest problem will be a political problem as many with a self interest in some form of alternative energy will lobby Congress for funding and use their influence to criticize any real solution.  We clearly are already witnessing this now and as a result are losing important time.
If you like to contact me personally my email address is pmaier@erda.net.

You mentioned that we have used biofuel for ages, and we still our bodies still do, but they use a very ingenious form of energy production, but still using oxygen. The process is called biochemical oxidation, similar as how bacteria generate energy and in the process break down organic matter, what we call sewage treatment.

If fish only could talk!

So, while I am not arguing that more research should be put into hydrogen, why aren't we putting more research into cold fusion? You know? At the same time while you are saying that special interests for individual energy sources are trying for a piece of the market, isn't hydrogen a special interest source just like the rest of them? I think that the future is in diversification of energy sources, not specialization, because not one of them can solve the problem when it will become one (real soon).

The generated compressed hydrogen can be transported to the nearest point of a gas pipeline, from where it is delivered to the users.

Although there are already sources available, you will see other systems develop, for example using the temperature differences in oceans or lakes or ground and possible even biological system, as the present energy in biological cells comes from splitting hydrocarbons (glucose) and the electron carrying hydrogen now is neutralized by oxygen and also forms water.

Who knows somebody may come up with a process to capture the electron carrying hydrogen, before they are neutralized by oxygen.

Will this ever happen? Not likely as it, like the industrialization process will cause unemployment and you can already see how the coal industries and agriculture are pushing their solutions and are using their influence in Washington to get to the taxpayers wallets.

Again, we should eliminate the use of air for combustion to generate energy. Imagine what will happen if you would do away with the power companies that now sell electricity?


If fish only could talk!