biodiesel
December 11, 2005 12:56 AM Subscribe
Worse than Fossil Fuel. I keep telling people to take note of where their biodiesel comes from....
Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel.
Sometimes the language plays cruel jokes.
posted by HTuttle at 1:21 AM on December 11, 2005
Sometimes the language plays cruel jokes.
posted by HTuttle at 1:21 AM on December 11, 2005
Biodiesel as a primary power source is naturally absurd. However, it is still valid as a secondary one, in that it is a manner of consuming waste oils that would be otherwised disposed of. The world's deep fryers cannot sustain the world's automobiles, but they can run a few metropolitan transit fleets.
As Dukes so succinctly points out, burning organic compounds is simply not sustainable, and anyone with knowledge of basic physics is on some level aware of that.
posted by mek at 2:10 AM on December 11, 2005
As Dukes so succinctly points out, burning organic compounds is simply not sustainable, and anyone with knowledge of basic physics is on some level aware of that.
posted by mek at 2:10 AM on December 11, 2005
The whole point of BioFuels is that they use carbon from the local chain not the suposedly locked reserves in the ground.
It doesn't matter if BioFuel produces more carbon than fossil fuels, because that carbon gets locked back into the plants grown to make the next batch of biofuel.
Maybe it's not sustainable, but in the mean time it's releasing a hell of a lot less carbon than fossil fuels are.
posted by twine42 at 2:42 AM on December 11, 2005
It doesn't matter if BioFuel produces more carbon than fossil fuels, because that carbon gets locked back into the plants grown to make the next batch of biofuel.
Maybe it's not sustainable, but in the mean time it's releasing a hell of a lot less carbon than fossil fuels are.
posted by twine42 at 2:42 AM on December 11, 2005
I don't think anybody ever proposed switching to biodiesel, and only biodiesel.
Biodiesel is part of a larger program moving our energy needs away from fossil fuels and into a myriad of alternatives; not just biodiesel, but wind, solar, hydroelectric, and probably nuclear. Our future energy supplies will be much more fragmented.
One thing the author was right about: conservation and reduction are going to be keys. The energy glut is over.
posted by Jatayu das at 2:50 AM on December 11, 2005
Biodiesel is part of a larger program moving our energy needs away from fossil fuels and into a myriad of alternatives; not just biodiesel, but wind, solar, hydroelectric, and probably nuclear. Our future energy supplies will be much more fragmented.
One thing the author was right about: conservation and reduction are going to be keys. The energy glut is over.
posted by Jatayu das at 2:50 AM on December 11, 2005
Conservation and consumption reduction are and will always be key.
And a fragmented, multi-source energy supply sounds about right. It's how nature does it, and there's always the old adage of not putting your eggs all in one basket.
However, this article specifically addresses palm oil, and seemingly rightly so, as it's the cheapest to produce, therefore the path of least resistance.
And he's not talking just about recycled cooking oil - he acknowledges that oil recycling is a damn good thing.
He's also not just talking about farming and burning palm oil, he's talking about accelerated slash and burn farming, which not only results in a net loss of plants, but a net gain in carbon being released due not only to the burnt up forests (and wasted energy therein) but also due to the loss of peat bogs underlying the slashed and burnt forests cleared to grow palm oil palms.
As much as I hesistate to trot out this old nappy argument, but I'd like to see him do calculations on industrial hemp.
Hemp is insanely high in oils, pun entirely unintended. It grows, well, like a damn weed. It grows in almost any soil, and in many climates, and as a fast growing broad-leafed plant I can only make an educated guess that it's also pretty good at locking up and converting carbon all on it's own.
If the energy efficiencies can be proven to be better, or even close to best, the main problems with it seem to be legality and competition for food farming.
And the "fuel competing with food" issue is an entirely valid argument and concern all on it's own.
posted by loquacious at 3:11 AM on December 11, 2005
And a fragmented, multi-source energy supply sounds about right. It's how nature does it, and there's always the old adage of not putting your eggs all in one basket.
However, this article specifically addresses palm oil, and seemingly rightly so, as it's the cheapest to produce, therefore the path of least resistance.
And he's not talking just about recycled cooking oil - he acknowledges that oil recycling is a damn good thing.
He's also not just talking about farming and burning palm oil, he's talking about accelerated slash and burn farming, which not only results in a net loss of plants, but a net gain in carbon being released due not only to the burnt up forests (and wasted energy therein) but also due to the loss of peat bogs underlying the slashed and burnt forests cleared to grow palm oil palms.
As much as I hesistate to trot out this old nappy argument, but I'd like to see him do calculations on industrial hemp.
Hemp is insanely high in oils, pun entirely unintended. It grows, well, like a damn weed. It grows in almost any soil, and in many climates, and as a fast growing broad-leafed plant I can only make an educated guess that it's also pretty good at locking up and converting carbon all on it's own.
If the energy efficiencies can be proven to be better, or even close to best, the main problems with it seem to be legality and competition for food farming.
And the "fuel competing with food" issue is an entirely valid argument and concern all on it's own.
posted by loquacious at 3:11 AM on December 11, 2005
The energy glut is over.
But when will the energy hogs of this world understand this?
posted by sour cream at 3:12 AM on December 11, 2005
But when will the energy hogs of this world understand this?
posted by sour cream at 3:12 AM on December 11, 2005
I don't think anybody ever proposed switching to biodiesel, and only biodiesel.
Maybe no one knowledgeable. But I have met many people who get obsessed with one energy source as a silver bullet. It's most annoying when this source is "fuel cells"—where's the elemental hydrogen supposed to come from?
posted by grouse at 3:13 AM on December 11, 2005
Maybe no one knowledgeable. But I have met many people who get obsessed with one energy source as a silver bullet. It's most annoying when this source is "fuel cells"—where's the elemental hydrogen supposed to come from?
posted by grouse at 3:13 AM on December 11, 2005
Another hilarious side-effect of farming plants to be made into biofuels is that modern farming generally requires the use of massive quantities of fertilizer.
Fertilizer refined from petroleum.
posted by blasdelf at 4:11 AM on December 11, 2005
Fertilizer refined from petroleum.
posted by blasdelf at 4:11 AM on December 11, 2005
Thank god; another solution to the imminent demise of life as we know it has been proven evil and part and parcel of the demise itself.
The energy glut will be something very hard to rid ourselves off: nobody is that progressive as to foreswear visiting other continents by plane. Etc. etc.
posted by jouke at 4:40 AM on December 11, 2005
The energy glut will be something very hard to rid ourselves off: nobody is that progressive as to foreswear visiting other continents by plane. Etc. etc.
posted by jouke at 4:40 AM on December 11, 2005
Maybe so, jouke, but there are schemes where you can pay for your plane fuel emissions in tree planting. They're not widely available, but there was one for the earth summit in S.Africa a few years ago.
posted by scruss at 5:18 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by scruss at 5:18 AM on December 11, 2005
The author assumes this slash and burn of the rain forest wouldn't occur if there was no demand for biodiesel. This of course is ridiculous. These people don't see some huge ecological treasure, they see it as a bunch of weeds and trees which don't help them feed their families. If they aren't going to use it to create biodiesel, they'll find something else to use it for.
If this is his strongest argument against it, he's got a lot more work to do.
posted by inthe80s at 6:13 AM on December 11, 2005
If this is his strongest argument against it, he's got a lot more work to do.
posted by inthe80s at 6:13 AM on December 11, 2005
These people don't see some huge ecological treasure, they see it as a bunch of weeds and trees which don't help them feed their families.
Just who are "these people"? The indigenous people of Borneo and Sumatra? Or the businessmen whose corporations are cutting down the rainforests? If you're referring to the former, then I don't think they view their forest homes as a collection of weeds. And the latter aren't usually faced with the choice of felling trees on a distant island or feeding their families.
posted by soiled cowboy at 7:18 AM on December 11, 2005
Just who are "these people"? The indigenous people of Borneo and Sumatra? Or the businessmen whose corporations are cutting down the rainforests? If you're referring to the former, then I don't think they view their forest homes as a collection of weeds. And the latter aren't usually faced with the choice of felling trees on a distant island or feeding their families.
posted by soiled cowboy at 7:18 AM on December 11, 2005
I heat my home with wood pellets. They are made from sawdust. Supposedly, from the waste of sawmills. It sounded like a good idea. This year the price of pellets almost doubled and Im told they still have double the amount of orders that can be filled -- that when they run out of sawdust, they'll start cutting down trees to make more. The trees are in my regional area. This is disconcerting. Will we cut down the forests to heat our homes? Woodpellets are made from hardwood, the older and denser the better.
posted by stbalbach at 7:43 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by stbalbach at 7:43 AM on December 11, 2005
another argument in favor of nuclear power.
Riiight. Do be sure to let us know when you nuke advocates solve that pesky waste problem, 'k? A mix of strategies, including reductions in our insanely wasteful consumption, is more than enough to keep us away from the idiocy of dumping radioactive waste on our descendents for centuries to come.
This new "Yay! Nukes!" push would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.
posted by mediareport at 8:05 AM on December 11, 2005
Riiight. Do be sure to let us know when you nuke advocates solve that pesky waste problem, 'k? A mix of strategies, including reductions in our insanely wasteful consumption, is more than enough to keep us away from the idiocy of dumping radioactive waste on our descendents for centuries to come.
This new "Yay! Nukes!" push would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.
posted by mediareport at 8:05 AM on December 11, 2005
This is interesting, but I'm not sure it negate the value of frenchfryfuel.
Here's a question: will McDonalds start promoting itself of a "green" company because it gives away its oil? Ick!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:08 AM on December 11, 2005
Here's a question: will McDonalds start promoting itself of a "green" company because it gives away its oil? Ick!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:08 AM on December 11, 2005
I say make Humvees hybrids: frenchfryfuel and nukular. That pesky nuke waste can be recycled to power military satellites. Let's paint the Republican elephant green!
posted by davy at 8:19 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by davy at 8:19 AM on December 11, 2005
Hey loquacious, don't forget that "hemp oil" is another name for "hashish"; that's second-hand smoke I'd be happy to inhale!
posted by davy at 8:21 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by davy at 8:21 AM on December 11, 2005
While one always is a little dubious about the hemp boosters, in the context of biodiesel, they're certainly correct in principal: you need plants that grow and are harvested easily and cheaply to make biodiesel at any kind of scale with any kind of economic efficiency and net carbon neutrality.
posted by MattD at 8:34 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by MattD at 8:34 AM on December 11, 2005
And in closing (maybe I should have waited for my caffeine to kick in and typed all these suggestions into one comment), one source of power we will literally never run out of is fecal matter. Seriously, we should look into burning recycled shit, not only from humans but from food and pet animals too. We've got to get rid of it somehow anyway, and while it might not work to fuel automobiles it can be used to produce electricity, steam and "natural gas".
posted by davy at 8:36 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by davy at 8:36 AM on December 11, 2005
Will we cut down the forests to heat our homes?
Why yes, we will. Those of us who live somewhere near forests, anyway. At this very moment I'm looking at a big pile of sliced-up trees, which will soon be burned to heat my home. Works pretty well. In my opinion, the fact that there isn't even close to enough wood to go around for everyone to do this is a clear and obvious sign that the human population is much too large to be sustainable with current (and foreseeable future) technology. Unless some sort of miracle happens, it's going to get smaller over the next few centuries. Seems inevitable if that "400 times the net primary productivity of the planet" number is anywhere near correct. Sure, we can cut back on energy usage, but think how much change it's going to take to cut back to somewhat less than 0.25% of current levels.
posted by sfenders at 8:50 AM on December 11, 2005
Why yes, we will. Those of us who live somewhere near forests, anyway. At this very moment I'm looking at a big pile of sliced-up trees, which will soon be burned to heat my home. Works pretty well. In my opinion, the fact that there isn't even close to enough wood to go around for everyone to do this is a clear and obvious sign that the human population is much too large to be sustainable with current (and foreseeable future) technology. Unless some sort of miracle happens, it's going to get smaller over the next few centuries. Seems inevitable if that "400 times the net primary productivity of the planet" number is anywhere near correct. Sure, we can cut back on energy usage, but think how much change it's going to take to cut back to somewhat less than 0.25% of current levels.
posted by sfenders at 8:50 AM on December 11, 2005
It's most annoying when this source is "fuel cells"—where's the elemental hydrogen supposed to come from?
We're working on it.
posted by Wingy at 8:52 AM on December 11, 2005
We're working on it.
posted by Wingy at 8:52 AM on December 11, 2005
> Conservation and consumption reduction are and will always be key.
Era of shrinking energy supplies, meet the A380 Airbus.
> Will we cut down the forests to heat our homes?
Yep. And then when all the trees are gone you'll burn cow patties or camel cakes. This is a safe prediction, there are plenty of precedents.
posted by jfuller at 8:59 AM on December 11, 2005
Era of shrinking energy supplies, meet the A380 Airbus.
> Will we cut down the forests to heat our homes?
Yep. And then when all the trees are gone you'll burn cow patties or camel cakes. This is a safe prediction, there are plenty of precedents.
posted by jfuller at 8:59 AM on December 11, 2005
> Era of shrinking energy supplies, meet the A380 Airbus.
Isn't it more efficient than flying the same number of passengers in seperate trips? I thought that was the point.
posted by rubin at 9:23 AM on December 11, 2005
Isn't it more efficient than flying the same number of passengers in seperate trips? I thought that was the point.
posted by rubin at 9:23 AM on December 11, 2005
Some striking photos of this morning's oil refinery blast at Hemel Hempstead (north of London) are up on Flickr (bluebus's photos in particular). It's thought to be an accident, and injuries are relatively light, but it has been called the largest incident of its sort in peace-time Europe, but whether that means fire, explosion, or oil-refinery-explosion-between-the-hours-of-six-and-seven-am, I don't know.
Independent article.
I shudder to think of the degree of pollution occurring at the one time, here. I'm trying to track down satellite images that give an idea of the scale of the resulting cloud. They've shown some on television. Apparently the blast could be heard as far away as Holland, but it didn't wake me from my sleep in London; though my girlfriend woke at about that time, but isn't sure why.
posted by nthdegx at 9:25 AM on December 11, 2005
Independent article.
I shudder to think of the degree of pollution occurring at the one time, here. I'm trying to track down satellite images that give an idea of the scale of the resulting cloud. They've shown some on television. Apparently the blast could be heard as far away as Holland, but it didn't wake me from my sleep in London; though my girlfriend woke at about that time, but isn't sure why.
posted by nthdegx at 9:25 AM on December 11, 2005
i'm mostly worried about this "rapeseed oil" he was talking about.
posted by nola at 9:37 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by nola at 9:37 AM on December 11, 2005
The universe is chock-full of all sorts of energy, and the only difficulty we currently have is how to get it locally in an effective and efficient matter. We've got incredible power available from the sun, yet solar panels that can only grab a very small area of it at very poor efficiency at very high cost. That will change, if people work at it, but perhaps not enough money or effort is being made to do so.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:08 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:08 AM on December 11, 2005
nola -- rapeseed oil is also known in supermarkets by the name "Canola oil". There is no canola plant. They just thought that might sell better than "rapeseed."
posted by rusty at 10:14 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by rusty at 10:14 AM on December 11, 2005
Kickstart is exactly right, there are many promising clean energies available on the near horizon. Efficient solar, two forms of non-tokamak fusion, just to name a few. I imagine if our governemnt took all of those oil industry subsidies and "incentives" and put them towards clean energy research, we'd have something tangible now. And just in case anyone is still confused about it, those record petroleum profits that were such big news last quarter... our government GAVE it to them. How'd they make so much money? Price gouging sure, but collecting a few billion from Uncle Sam doesn't hurt. As one of the most profitable industries on the planet, does someone want to tell me why they need subsidies or incentives at all? And does someone want to explain to me why people simply didn't notice that the gongressional hearing about those pfrofits was a total sham and absolutely nothing was done. I just saw Syriana and I WANT to think that it's a wild exageration, but when our government continues to show us that they are only interested in, to quote the film, "the illusion of due diligence" I am left with little recourse.
P.S. To those opponents of nuclear energy, I think you guys seriously miss the point. Obviously the waste from nuclear power is extremely dangerous, but it is also extremely small and easy to deal with. Nuclear isn't a perfect solution, or even a particularly good one. But I for one would rather have the waste of our energy neatly locked away with it's toxic nature sealed off from human contact than what we have now where the poison is simply pumped into the air, killing us slowly with every breath and warming the planet. The waste from nuclear isn't necessarily more dangerous than from other energy sources, just more concentrated.
posted by Farengast at 10:22 AM on December 11, 2005
P.S. To those opponents of nuclear energy, I think you guys seriously miss the point. Obviously the waste from nuclear power is extremely dangerous, but it is also extremely small and easy to deal with. Nuclear isn't a perfect solution, or even a particularly good one. But I for one would rather have the waste of our energy neatly locked away with it's toxic nature sealed off from human contact than what we have now where the poison is simply pumped into the air, killing us slowly with every breath and warming the planet. The waste from nuclear isn't necessarily more dangerous than from other energy sources, just more concentrated.
posted by Farengast at 10:22 AM on December 11, 2005
What about the deceased fuel gap? You know - rendering all the fat from our dead to drive our hummers to the funerals.
Instead of a tiger in your tank, you could be driving on the power of grandma.
People! Biodiesel is People!
posted by isopraxis at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2005
Instead of a tiger in your tank, you could be driving on the power of grandma.
People! Biodiesel is People!
posted by isopraxis at 10:33 AM on December 11, 2005
Seriously, we should look into burning recycled shit
Sure, but exhaust gases would prove to be more of a problem, I'm sure...
posted by clevershark at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2005
Sure, but exhaust gases would prove to be more of a problem, I'm sure...
posted by clevershark at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2005
But I for one would rather have the waste of our energy neatly locked away with it's toxic nature sealed off from human contact than what we have now where the poison is simply pumped into the ai
I think most people have problems with your "neatly locked away" assertion.
posted by clevershark at 10:42 AM on December 11, 2005
I think most people have problems with your "neatly locked away" assertion.
posted by clevershark at 10:42 AM on December 11, 2005
Well it's certianly much easier to lock away some spent fuel rods than it is to lock away all the gas produced as waste when fossil fuels are burned. I would trade the slight possibility of a radiation leak at the bottom of the ocean to be rid of global warming, acid rain, smog, and toxic fumes in the air.
posted by Farengast at 10:45 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by Farengast at 10:45 AM on December 11, 2005
Seriously, we should look into burning recycled shit...
If you burn manure for fuel, you'll have to use more chemical fertilizers, and you'll have to find something else to feed the livestock. It would require an analysis I'm not qualified to guess at to detemine if that's a net win, but I'd guess not. And I doubt the quantities of manure produced by humans and pets amounts to much, compared to what livestock farming produces.
I'm not an expert at all, but many of the biomass energy ideas sound to me like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Whereas reducing consumption, increasing efficiency, and developing genuinely new sources of energy (solar, wind, fission-breeder, fusion) sound like strategies that will pay big dividends forever.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2005
If you burn manure for fuel, you'll have to use more chemical fertilizers, and you'll have to find something else to feed the livestock. It would require an analysis I'm not qualified to guess at to detemine if that's a net win, but I'd guess not. And I doubt the quantities of manure produced by humans and pets amounts to much, compared to what livestock farming produces.
I'm not an expert at all, but many of the biomass energy ideas sound to me like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Whereas reducing consumption, increasing efficiency, and developing genuinely new sources of energy (solar, wind, fission-breeder, fusion) sound like strategies that will pay big dividends forever.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2005
Yep. Cutting down rainforests for biodiesel is a bad idea. Other than that this guy is full of it.
First probably the best source of increased biodiesel production (in quantities potentially sufficient enough to power a significant portion of the world if we tried hard enough) is from algae.
This method does not take arable land but instead uses desert ponds or more recently from exhaust gas stacks.
posted by aaronscool at 11:43 AM on December 11, 2005
First probably the best source of increased biodiesel production (in quantities potentially sufficient enough to power a significant portion of the world if we tried hard enough) is from algae.
This method does not take arable land but instead uses desert ponds or more recently from exhaust gas stacks.
posted by aaronscool at 11:43 AM on December 11, 2005
Heating with dried coffee grounds.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2005
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2005
NUKES
Pretty soon all the babyboomers with their irrational nuke fear will be dead or whatever, and we'll be able to enter our nuclear utopia with utmost haste.
posted by delmoi at 1:08 PM on December 11, 2005
Pretty soon all the babyboomers with their irrational nuke fear will be dead or whatever, and we'll be able to enter our nuclear utopia with utmost haste.
posted by delmoi at 1:08 PM on December 11, 2005
aaronscool: Did you read the whole article? The guy mentioned that, and said that palm oil production was still cheaper
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM on December 11, 2005
Riiight. Do be sure to let us know when you nuke advocates solve that pesky waste problem, 'k
Fear of nuclear waste is far in excess of the actual danger of nuclear waste. Anyway, here's an article you can read about disposal if you want.
posted by delmoi at 1:17 PM on December 11, 2005
Fear of nuclear waste is far in excess of the actual danger of nuclear waste. Anyway, here's an article you can read about disposal if you want.
posted by delmoi at 1:17 PM on December 11, 2005
Fear of nuclear waste
It's not fear, delmoi, but thanks for guessing. It's a moral and scientific aversion to dumping our wasteful energy issues on future generations. The most compelling argument for me is that nuclear energy is simply not needed. Unless, of course, you think our current level of wasteful consumption of many, many kinds of energy is impossible to reduce without seriously impacting the potential of the human race to create and excel.
I don't.
posted by mediareport at 2:53 PM on December 11, 2005
It's not fear, delmoi, but thanks for guessing. It's a moral and scientific aversion to dumping our wasteful energy issues on future generations. The most compelling argument for me is that nuclear energy is simply not needed. Unless, of course, you think our current level of wasteful consumption of many, many kinds of energy is impossible to reduce without seriously impacting the potential of the human race to create and excel.
I don't.
posted by mediareport at 2:53 PM on December 11, 2005
I did not just use "impact" as a verb, btw.
*hates self*
posted by mediareport at 2:54 PM on December 11, 2005
*hates self*
posted by mediareport at 2:54 PM on December 11, 2005
davy scribbled "we should look into burning recycled shit, not only from humans but from food and pet animals too."
Lots of research has been done in India on Biogas reactors.
" i'm mostly worried about this 'rapeseed oil"
Also known as canola oil, you can understand why the marketing board changed it's name at the first opportunity. Rape/Canola seed (yellow) along side Flax (purple) makes for a really colourful landscape.
rusty scribbled "There is no canola plant."
Actually there is, Canola is an engineered plant originally developed in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 3:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Lots of research has been done in India on Biogas reactors.
" i'm mostly worried about this 'rapeseed oil"
Also known as canola oil, you can understand why the marketing board changed it's name at the first opportunity. Rape/Canola seed (yellow) along side Flax (purple) makes for a really colourful landscape.
rusty scribbled "There is no canola plant."
Actually there is, Canola is an engineered plant originally developed in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 3:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Nuclear energy is not a necessity yet, but it soon will be. Hey, at least it's better than burning coal.
Nuclear waste: "if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity."
posted by sfenders at 3:49 PM on December 11, 2005
Nuclear waste: "if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity."
posted by sfenders at 3:49 PM on December 11, 2005
Bernard Cohen, sfenders? Isn't he the one who used to offer to drink plutonium? Did he ever actually do it? I've always been curious if anyone ever took him up on that one, and if he ever really followed through.
posted by mediareport at 4:42 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by mediareport at 4:42 PM on December 11, 2005
Ah, yes. From a rebuttal to a PBS Frontline episode that featured Dr. Cohen:
Frontline: Nuclear power does not pose a radiation health threat to the public because it creates far less exposure than such natural "background" sources as cosmic rays and radon.
Response: The question is not how much background radiation exists, or how much higher it is than normal nuclear power plant emissions, but how dangerous is the additional man-made exposure above background. There is a scientific consensus, reflected in international radiation guidelines, that the danger from low-level radiation is linear: each additional exposure creates a proportionally increased risk of cancer, and small increases in risk to individuals can accumulate to large increases for the total population. Frontline's logical fallacy should be obvious: the fact that indoor radon and cosmic radiation can be dangerous does not mean that nuclear-power-related radiation is not. In fact, by causing exposures above those already caused by radon and other background sources, nuclear power does put the general population at greater risk. [...]
Frontline: Plutonium is not "the most toxic substance known to man." A piece of paper can stop its radiation, and ingesting small amounts poses little danger.
Response: Plutonium is highly carcinogenic, and debates about whether it is the most carcinogenic or toxic man-made substance miss the point. It is surely among the deadliest, on a par with the military nerve gas, sarin. The greatest health risk from plutonium is not external exposure, but inhalation. Deposited in the lungs, even a few micrograms (millionths of a gram) of plutonium are sufficient to cause cancer. The nuclear-power industry in Europe and Japan processes plutonium by the ton. How can a sheet of paper stop a microscopic plutonium particle from irradiating lung tissue? Ingesting plutonium is also dangerous because lethal quantities will migrate to bone marrow and cause cancer. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible. Perhaps that is why Professor Bernard Cohen did not offer on Frontline, as he has done in past public appearances, to drink plutonium to prove it is safe. Someone might actually take him up on his offer.
Anyway, I encourage folks interested in sorting these issues out to dig deeper than either of the links presented by sfenders or myself, and to be particularly skeptical of claims from *any* politically motivated scientist without examining the evidence directly for yourself. It's just to easy to distort good science with facile observations that sound good.
posted by mediareport at 5:00 PM on December 11, 2005
Frontline: Nuclear power does not pose a radiation health threat to the public because it creates far less exposure than such natural "background" sources as cosmic rays and radon.
Response: The question is not how much background radiation exists, or how much higher it is than normal nuclear power plant emissions, but how dangerous is the additional man-made exposure above background. There is a scientific consensus, reflected in international radiation guidelines, that the danger from low-level radiation is linear: each additional exposure creates a proportionally increased risk of cancer, and small increases in risk to individuals can accumulate to large increases for the total population. Frontline's logical fallacy should be obvious: the fact that indoor radon and cosmic radiation can be dangerous does not mean that nuclear-power-related radiation is not. In fact, by causing exposures above those already caused by radon and other background sources, nuclear power does put the general population at greater risk. [...]
Frontline: Plutonium is not "the most toxic substance known to man." A piece of paper can stop its radiation, and ingesting small amounts poses little danger.
Response: Plutonium is highly carcinogenic, and debates about whether it is the most carcinogenic or toxic man-made substance miss the point. It is surely among the deadliest, on a par with the military nerve gas, sarin. The greatest health risk from plutonium is not external exposure, but inhalation. Deposited in the lungs, even a few micrograms (millionths of a gram) of plutonium are sufficient to cause cancer. The nuclear-power industry in Europe and Japan processes plutonium by the ton. How can a sheet of paper stop a microscopic plutonium particle from irradiating lung tissue? Ingesting plutonium is also dangerous because lethal quantities will migrate to bone marrow and cause cancer. To suggest otherwise is irresponsible. Perhaps that is why Professor Bernard Cohen did not offer on Frontline, as he has done in past public appearances, to drink plutonium to prove it is safe. Someone might actually take him up on his offer.
Anyway, I encourage folks interested in sorting these issues out to dig deeper than either of the links presented by sfenders or myself, and to be particularly skeptical of claims from *any* politically motivated scientist without examining the evidence directly for yourself. It's just to easy to distort good science with facile observations that sound good.
posted by mediareport at 5:00 PM on December 11, 2005
Really I know very little about nuclear fission, but so far I think my link was a whole lot more convincing than yours. At least I find it very unlikely that anyone will be able to make a convincing argument that it's more harmful than coal-fired power plants.
posted by sfenders at 6:09 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by sfenders at 6:09 PM on December 11, 2005
On searching for such an argument, I found this: Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger, which claims that the typical coal-buring generating station (as of 1993) emits more radiocative waste in its smoke than an ideal nuclear plant requires as input to produce the same amount of power.
posted by sfenders at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by sfenders at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2005
Nuclear Fusion people!
Also: this article was shite.
posted by destro at 7:50 PM on December 11, 2005
Also: this article was shite.
posted by destro at 7:50 PM on December 11, 2005
At least I find it very unlikely that anyone will be able to make a convincing argument that it's more harmful than coal-fired power plants.
I'm a wind and solar man myself, actually, so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one. All I know is this: if we directed one-tenth of the government money we've poured into subsidizing the nuclear power industry over the past 50 years into solar, wind, geothermal and efficiency research, we wouldn't need folks like Bernard L. Cohen to tell us how delicious and nutricious plutonium is.
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm a wind and solar man myself, actually, so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one. All I know is this: if we directed one-tenth of the government money we've poured into subsidizing the nuclear power industry over the past 50 years into solar, wind, geothermal and efficiency research, we wouldn't need folks like Bernard L. Cohen to tell us how delicious and nutricious plutonium is.
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on December 11, 2005
Actually, I think the recent global growth in wind power is a good example of what can be done. There has been no shortage of money going into that lately, including a little of mine. Something like 50GW of installed capacity in the world, and it's increasing at a rapid pace. It's somewhat encouraging.
posted by sfenders at 9:19 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by sfenders at 9:19 PM on December 11, 2005
delmoi: I did read the whole article and a few others that have come out recently exactly like it, did you read mine? After re-reading it I still don't see where he says palm oil is cheaper than algae. This article is like many others of its kind which is this:
1. Say something outrageously extreme like Biodiesel is worse than crude oil.
2. Gloss over some of the key parts of Biodiesel that hold the most promise like algae production in non-arable land areas
3. Launch into a tirade against palm oil/rainforest destruction/biodiesel competing with agriculture.
posted by aaronscool at 10:38 PM on December 11, 2005
1. Say something outrageously extreme like Biodiesel is worse than crude oil.
2. Gloss over some of the key parts of Biodiesel that hold the most promise like algae production in non-arable land areas
3. Launch into a tirade against palm oil/rainforest destruction/biodiesel competing with agriculture.
posted by aaronscool at 10:38 PM on December 11, 2005
this article is dumb. this has nothing to do with biodiesel it is an attack on palm tree farming. biodiesel can be made from many many things like jatropha trees for example that grow on non-arable land or even algae in the desert. instead why not write an article called "other sources of biodiesel are better than palm trees". although i do think its funny that biodiesel supporters are writing him angry emails.
posted by tranceformer at 5:16 AM on December 12, 2005
posted by tranceformer at 5:16 AM on December 12, 2005
I still don't see where he says palm oil is cheaper than algae.
I imagine he just assumes that as obvious, like most of us would. Palm oil is easy to make, while as far as I know, fuel from algae is still just a clever idea with many problems to be solved before it can be put into production. Can you point us to some operating industrial-scale algae farms? Far as I know there aren't any, which would make the stuff rather hard to find compared to ordinary vegetable oils.
posted by sfenders at 6:09 AM on December 12, 2005
I imagine he just assumes that as obvious, like most of us would. Palm oil is easy to make, while as far as I know, fuel from algae is still just a clever idea with many problems to be solved before it can be put into production. Can you point us to some operating industrial-scale algae farms? Far as I know there aren't any, which would make the stuff rather hard to find compared to ordinary vegetable oils.
posted by sfenders at 6:09 AM on December 12, 2005
...claims that the typical coal-buring generating station (as of 1993) emits more radiocative waste in its smoke than an ideal nuclear plant requires as input to produce the same amount of power.
I think the claim is actually that the waste from the coal plants could in theory be bred to produce sufficient nuclear fuel to produce the more power through fission than the coal produced. Which is very different. His points about the nuclear exposure through coal combustion are very worrying, but this particular point about how much fuel could potentially be bred from coal ash is an irrelevant sidenote. If we are to hypothesize a large-scale system of power-producing, economically-viable breeder reactors, fuel supply is irrelevant anyway.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:42 AM on December 12, 2005
I think the claim is actually that the waste from the coal plants could in theory be bred to produce sufficient nuclear fuel to produce the more power through fission than the coal produced. Which is very different. His points about the nuclear exposure through coal combustion are very worrying, but this particular point about how much fuel could potentially be bred from coal ash is an irrelevant sidenote. If we are to hypothesize a large-scale system of power-producing, economically-viable breeder reactors, fuel supply is irrelevant anyway.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:42 AM on December 12, 2005
Hey everybody, or everybody who still checks in on this thread. I noticed quite a few people misunderstading my intention with posting this link. I've said it before, some biodiesel is great for the environment (waste cooking oil) some of it is terrible for the environment (palm oil) and the jury is still out for the most part on the others. My point isn't to bash biodiesel, but just to bash the idea that it's a perfect solution. That "biodiesel" means clean, because it doesn't always. The point is that "you need to take note of where your biodiesel comes from" just like it says in the original post.
posted by Farengast at 4:09 PM on December 12, 2005
posted by Farengast at 4:09 PM on December 12, 2005
Oh, and nuclear power plants use fission not fusion. Sfenders was correct. Fission means splitting a heavy nucleus into smaller nuclei, as in uranium or plutoneum into.... Well lots of things along the way but it ends up as lead. Versus fusing, fusing small nuclei into larger, as in hydrogen or duterium into helium. Fusion as a power source is still in the works.
posted by Farengast at 4:20 PM on December 12, 2005
posted by Farengast at 4:20 PM on December 12, 2005
Y'know, I'm gonna step out on a limb here and say that we'd probably have lots more energy to use for important things if we didn't spend so much of it making gigatons of consumer crap (and its attendant packaging) which gets used only for a little while and then thrown away.
I know that goes under "conservation, etc.," but it's something most of us Westerners seem to have as a blind spot.
Just a thought.
For instance, the other day I wondered why laundry detergent couldn't be packaged in the same 2- and 3-liter bottles we use for soda - of course, with child-resistant caps - instead of each manufacturer using different and obviously more expensive custom "disposable" plastic containers with disposable measuring cup in cap.
I wondered this because instead of hauling that whole monster 8-liter Tide bottle to the laundromat (since usually I only take one basket full), I pour it into a 1-liter soda bottle and, wonder of wonders, take a nice plastic measuring cup that I use over and over again. Much easier to carry.
I guess people who have their laundry machines at home want the megajug, as opposed to just buying 2 or maybe 3 bottles of detergent.
I suppose we'll go back to reusable glass bottles for things like beer and milk when plastic gets too expensive for those purposes.
Sorry, rambling. Meanwhile, I agree with the folks who say we should diversify and localize our energy generation, and used cooking oil is a decent start at that. I also think we're going to need fission as a stopgap while we develop other things, although I'm as uncomfortable with that as anyone.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:01 PM on December 12, 2005
I know that goes under "conservation, etc.," but it's something most of us Westerners seem to have as a blind spot.
Just a thought.
For instance, the other day I wondered why laundry detergent couldn't be packaged in the same 2- and 3-liter bottles we use for soda - of course, with child-resistant caps - instead of each manufacturer using different and obviously more expensive custom "disposable" plastic containers with disposable measuring cup in cap.
I wondered this because instead of hauling that whole monster 8-liter Tide bottle to the laundromat (since usually I only take one basket full), I pour it into a 1-liter soda bottle and, wonder of wonders, take a nice plastic measuring cup that I use over and over again. Much easier to carry.
I guess people who have their laundry machines at home want the megajug, as opposed to just buying 2 or maybe 3 bottles of detergent.
I suppose we'll go back to reusable glass bottles for things like beer and milk when plastic gets too expensive for those purposes.
Sorry, rambling. Meanwhile, I agree with the folks who say we should diversify and localize our energy generation, and used cooking oil is a decent start at that. I also think we're going to need fission as a stopgap while we develop other things, although I'm as uncomfortable with that as anyone.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:01 PM on December 12, 2005
My point and many other biodiesel proponents is that other than straight solar/PV there is not another more promising system around.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells are really just an elaborate battery since there is no natural hydrogen supply anywhere and you have to spend energy to get it.
More fossil fuels? Well we know where that is heading...
Wind is a component but it doesn't power cars yet.
Conservation is great and also a big part but this too won't get you where you need to go even though you conserve the trips and energy you use to get there.
posted by aaronscool at 8:17 PM on December 12, 2005
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells are really just an elaborate battery since there is no natural hydrogen supply anywhere and you have to spend energy to get it.
More fossil fuels? Well we know where that is heading...
Wind is a component but it doesn't power cars yet.
Conservation is great and also a big part but this too won't get you where you need to go even though you conserve the trips and energy you use to get there.
posted by aaronscool at 8:17 PM on December 12, 2005
Ignore the overwhelming consensus of earth scientists that global warming is real, find a dissenting voice, claim the issue is therefore unsettled and then claim it is just a plot to disadvantage the greatest country the world has ever known, and you get a "good" anti-global warming piece. I guess it all depends upon what the meaning of the word "good" is.
posted by caddis at 7:33 AM on December 14, 2005
posted by caddis at 7:33 AM on December 14, 2005
« Older Will you be checking that today? | A House full of insults: an informal look at the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(i'm serious)
posted by Hat Maui at 1:06 AM on December 11, 2005