March 06, 2003

No Oil for Greenpeace

I have been this week on a business trip to Chicago. Yesterday, I ran across a man wearing a "No War" button. Sadly, he turned out to be fairly intelligent, and broke off his conversation with me in less than five minutes.

This afternoon, walking back from work to the hotel, I saw three young men from Greenpeace on the sidewalk on my side of the street. I smiled at my inner thoughts ("And me without a baseball bat...") and I guess that one of the young men took this as a welcoming expression, and asked me to talk to him about energy policy.

Joe, as he turned out to be named, was actually a very nice guy. He explained that they were trying "to raise money to fight Bush's disastrous energy plan." He went on to give a little spiel about what they were trying to do, and asked if I were interested in joining.

I tried to give him an out: "I really don't agree with a lot of Greenpeace's policies, so that would not really be appropriate for me to do."

Joe didn't take the out: "Can you give me an example of something you don't agree with?"

Me: "Well, I can give you several, but I don't have the time to go on at that kind of length. I'll give you one, though. In California, there are windmills all over the hills, but they seldom run. The reason is that these tend to chop up birds in flight, including endangered migratory birds. Greenpeace fought hard to get California to pay for putting in the windmills, and Friends of the Earth, I think it was, fought hard to get California to shut them down. So in the end, all that ended up happening was that California taxpayers spent a lot of money to put a large number of metal poles on their hills. Not really a good use of public funds, I think."

Joe: [blink blink...thinking for a moment] "I see what you mean, but don't you think that we need a cleaner alternative?"

Me: "Alternative to what, exactly?"

Joe: "To fossil fuels, like oil, coal and natural gas. They pollute the environment when we burn them, and Bush's plan increases our dependence on oil, which means that there will be more oil spills like the Prestige, and more strip mining, which destroys the environment. I used to work for a company which made microturbines, but Bush cut funding for alternative energy research and our clients went elsewhere."

Me: "Wasn't the Prestige a Greek ship? And wasn't it taking oil from Russia or Latvia or something like that to Singapore? "

Joe: "ummm..."

Me: "I guess you were just using that as an example, though. I certainly think that it would be nice to have alternatives, but I don't see any, really. None of the clean 'alternative' sources work very well, when you think about it, nuclear isn't politically possible, and none of the really good-looking alternatives will be here for years yet."

Joe: "Well, if Bush hadn't cut funding for alternative..."

Me: "Oh, I don't really think that's a problem. In fact, it's really a good thing, because if the alternatives were feasible, they'd work without the government funding. Funding things through the government just leads people to make bad choices and it's really destructive, ultimately. I'd rather let people make their own choices of alternatives, then have the government choose for all of us."

Joe: "But is that really worth destroying ANWR and killing all that wildlife?"

Me: "Have you been to ANWR?"

Joe: "No, have you??!"

Me: "No, and you know what? We can see more people from where we're standing than have been to ANWR in the last decade or so. It's a wasteland, and if we're going to mess up the environment somewhere, better there or in the Arabian desert than, say, West Texas, which at least makes good farmland. Anyway, they're talking about so few wells over such a large area, the average Caribou - assuming it ever sees a well - will be displaced by a couple of hundred feet. I think I can live with drilling in ANWR, really."

Joe: "Wouldn't you rather have some clean source of energy that doesn't do any damage, like solar or wind power?"

Me: "Well, really, that's not viable. You can only get solar and wind in low densities, and in a few places. The cells are pretty inefficient, and you have to ship the energy a long distance - which is pretty inefficient - and store it - which is pretty inefficient. I'm not convinced that a solar plant would generate more usable energy than it consumes to build and maintain the plant and the storage and transmission infrastructure for it. Wind's got the same problem, plus the birds, and both solar and wind energy can't be easily shipped around to where they're needed. Oil you put in a truck and put it where you need it. "

Joe: [blink blink]

Me: "There are some alternatives I'd like to see, though."

Joe: [brightening up considerably] "Like..."

Me: "Well, like fusion. That's been 15 to 20 years off for a long time now, but maybe they'll get it soon. It's theoretically possible, but frankly I don't think that they'll be able to do it with the tokamak designs. They'll need something new. Microwave power satellites would be a good choice, if you could solve a few engineering problems first, like how to build and maintain a structure like that in space, and how to get the power to the ground without having fires catch if the beam goes off target. What I'd really like to see, that is practical and available now, is to reduce the economic and regulatory burdens on nuclear fission plants. France and Japan, for instance, generate most of their electrical power from this source and have done it safely for decades."

Joe: "What about the nuclear waste?"

Me: "In comparison to coal slag and oil spills? I'll take it. Besides, we can seal it in glass, put the glass in containers, and put those in deep salt mines where they'll be safe for tens of thousands of years. Or, we could take those containers, and drop them into subduction zones in the ocean and let the waste be recycled in the molten rock it came from. Well, that would probably require us to actually drill in the subduction zones to get through the silt, so it might not be economically viable. Besides, like I said, it's not really politically viable. I suppose there is one way I'd support getting rid of the fossil fuel economy now, though."

Joe: [brightening again] "What's that?"

Me: "The population of the world prior to the industrial era was, I think, about 250 million. If I could administer the tests to see who lives, I'd consider it."

Joe: [dispiritedly] "I think I'd better go talk to some more people now."

No voices were ever raised, and we parted with a handshake. Given the rate at which Joe's compatriots were stopping people, I figure I kept three or four people from talking to Joe. Since none of them seemed to be signing up, though, I probably didn't lose them any money. Shame, that.

Posted by Jeff at March 6, 2003 05:05 PM | Link Cosmos
Comments

wish I had been there to see THAT! way too funny

Posted by: Brian on March 7, 2003 12:54 AM

Shame on you for going after an unarmed Liberal like that :)

Posted by: Mark L. on March 7, 2003 09:45 PM

Uhm, yeah...

Posted by: Jeremy on May 22, 2003 01:16 AM

How can greenpeace stop global warming simply by keeping their big mouths shut and stopping all that HOT AIR

Posted by: Lonesome Loon on November 17, 2003 08:46 PM

Actually, California's wind energy program is still alive. While the amount is still relatively small, (only enough to power a San Francisco-size city), costs have decreased four times since 1980, additionally many individuals utilize wind turbines for their own needs. New wind maps have also been produced that will lead to increases in efficiency.
Other alternative means are also becoming more viable, such as hydrogen fuel cells. We have the technology and the brains to make alternative energy sources more economically and logistically viable. Greenpeace is not totally out to lunch. It is a FACT that fossil fuels increase greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. I would rather use my brain to prevent potential problems before they become real problems.
Tony

Posted by: Tony on May 9, 2004 02:53 PM

There are some new energy technologies. For example, newly developed Thermo-Depolymerization Technology (which converts carbon-rich garbage into crude oil). The conversion process doesn't create any harmful pollutants and use of the new form of oil actually releases less greenhouse gases than would be released by the natural decay process if the material had been stored in a landfill - in the case of naturally decaying material. The process can also be used to convert plastics and other non-decaying material.

'Turkey waste turned into oil' - New York Newsday - New TDP plant generating a positive cash flow while selling crude oil converted from garbage at a price 10% less than equivalent oil produced at a conventional refinery.
http://www.nynewsday.com/technology/ny-liturk073836915jun07,0,1109501.story?coll=ny-technology-headlines

'Missouri plant begins making oil from farm waste’ – Waste News - Crude oil No. 4, produced from agricultural waste products, put on the market.
http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1085160729

'Turkey Fuel? Factory to Turn Guts into Crude Oil' - National Geographic - Details how a Carthage plant is converting turkey waste into crude oil and its potential to solve many of America's waste disposal problems while making us less dependant on foreign oil.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

'Researchers turn manure into crude oil' - MSNBC News - Researcher Yanhui Zhang of the University of Illinois has successfully converted pig manure into oil in small batches. He uses a similar process to the one already being used by a plant in Carthage, Mo., that converts tons of waste material, such as feathers and entrails, from a nearby Butterball Turkey plant into light crude oil.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4732398/

Successful Result of a California Pilot Thermo-Depolymerization Plant in the Philadelphia Navy Yard on the California Energy Commission's government website
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/indust/descriptions/100_98_003_3.html

And on the hydrogen frontier, there was a recent breakthrough in an ethanol-to-hydrogen reactor that will make hydrogen much more competitive as an energy source. The new reactor eliminates the need for large expensive facilities to produce hydrogen - being small and cheap enough for home and car use.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Mark Harm
Candidate for State Representative - Michigan
http://www.markharm.com


Posted by: Mark Harm on June 18, 2004 10:12 AM
Post a comment