Biodiesel, soap, and... Hops?

Biodiesel fuel can be a “green” alternative in more ways than one! Not only was our biofuel synthesized from used cooking oil, but the byproducts of this synthesis were used to create soap.

           During the synthesis of biodiesel, two major products are formed – Biodiesel, the fuel we are seeking to create and glycerin. The glycerin in this lab was a dark color and had the consistency of thick syrup. Glycerin is a molecule that has a wide variety of application, however, the most appropriate application of our glycerin was soap due to its low purity.  

            The general scheme of our soap making procedure was to first heat the glycerin to remove any methanol, which is the contaminant we are primarily concerned with in this reaction. Once free of methanol, the warm glycerin was reacted with potassium hydroxide/citric acid solution. At this point, oils and colors could be added to make the soap more pleasant. We decided to add a few grams of ground cascade hops in an attempt to take advantage of the hops’ aroma and antimicrobial properties. Because the hops didn’t make as large of an aromatic impact as we’d hoped, we opted to add some jasmine oil as well to give the soap a more familiar scent. We thought it was appropriate to color the soap green to emphasize the “green” nature of this project.

            After allowing the soap to harden for a week during spring break, we came back to find our soap wasn’t exactly what we had hoped. The soap was unpleasant in color and scent. The jasmine scent did not compliment the earthy scent of the hops and the bright green color we had hoped for was very, very dark. To make matters worse, the soap didn’t lather very well, but it was an excellent learning experience!

Energy in a post-nuclear Southern California

In June of last year, energy company Southern California Edison announced the permanent closure of Southern California’s sole nuclear power plant.  Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, who jointly operate the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, had previously attempted to restart the plant after a small radioactive leak in early 2012.  After numerous setbacks, the companies determined that the plant was no longer economically viable.   The plant began operating in 1968 and had been a major producer of energy for residents of Southern California – accounting for about 20% of the region’s power.  The plant is also somewhat of a local landmark, marking the end (or beginning) of the journey through Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton on I-5.  As a kid during family car trips from San Diego to Orange County, I’d gaze out the window and try to imagine just what was happening inside those two huge round buildings.

 

San Onofre Nuclear Power Generating Station.  Source: WPPilot, Wikimedia

 

Picking up the slack

 

The process of completely shutting down the plant is only in its early stages and will likely take many years.  The effects of its closure, however, are already being felt by the region’s power grid and the environment.  Between 2008 and 2011 when the plant was operating normally, greenhouse gas emissions from California power plants had been steadily declining due to advances in renewable energy.  But between 2011 and 2012 when the plant ceased operations, carbon dioxide emissions from the state’s power plants increased by 35 percent – in part due to other sources of energy being forced to pick up the slack.

Skepticism and criticism of nuclear energy have existed since the technology was developed.  Opponents question the safety of living and working near reactors and argue that radioactive waste is detrimental to the environment.  Proponents maintain the importance of nuclear plants as sustainable, clean alternatives to more traditional sources of energy like the burning of coal, oil or natural gas.  Though accidents involving nuclear plants are always highly publicized, proponents also argue that nuclear energy is as safe, if not safer than other sources of energy production.  In fact, it has a better safety record than the coal industry.  Support for nuclear energy has always polarized the public, but incidents involving nuclear plants always have a sharp, negative impact on public support.

 

Disastrous response

 

In the aftermath of the recent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, it’s clear that one of nuclear energy’s most serious threats to remaining an important source of the world’s energy is its public perception.  The Fukushima incident was relatively mild as far as nuclear disasters go, releasing between 10 and 30 percent of the radiation released by the fire and meltdown in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986.  Don’t get me wrong, the incident, which left 300,000 people displaced is an absolutely awful event, but the World Health Organization has concluded that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectible levels, and so far, no short term radiation deaths have been reported.  It’s incredible that after a tsunami devastated a poorly designed nuclear plant, the outcome has not been worse.  The biggest challenges in the wake of the disaster will be the cleanup of radioactive water at the plant and repairing the reputation of nuclear energy, both of which may be impossible to achieve.  

Response to the Fukushima disaster has been swift and resounding.  Support for nuclear power had been growing in the United States, but after the incident, only 43 percent of those polled in one study supported building new nuclear plants. Another 2011 poll conducted in 24 countries revealed that the percentage of respondents who supported nuclear energy was just 38.  In contrast, support for natural gas and coal as energy sources were at 80 and 48 percent respectively.  One of the most stunning examples of nuclear dismissal is occurring in Germany, catalyzed by the disaster in Japan.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced just eighteen days after the Fukushima disaster that the country would close all seventeen of its nuclear plants by 2022.  So far, eight reactors have been permanently shut down.  In the U.S., the forecast is grim.  The Energy Information Administration predicts that nuclear power has only a 3 percent new capacity for electricity generation through 2040.

 

Our energy future 

 

It’s my fear that in order to cope with the increasing demand for electricity coupled with the possible decline of nuclear energy, less environmentally-friendly alternatives will be used as stopgaps.  In the U.S., natural gas production has increased dramatically in the past half-decade.  It’s cheap and abundant and burns about 29 percent more cleanly than oil.  However, it still produces carbon dioxide when burned and makes up a significant percentage of human carbon emissions.  It’s also non-renewable and some estimates predict that the earth contains only about a 250 year supply of the gas. 

However, if nuclear energy does decline in the future, its absence could also help spur the adoption of more truly renewable energy sources.  In Southern California, it’s unlikely that a new nuclear plant will be produced in the near future, but solar and wind power are popular and have been growing significantly in the past ten years.  If this trend continues and is stimulated by decreasing nuclear contributions, it could have a positive effect on the implementation and further development of renewable energy in California and the U.S.

A 2013 billboard in San Diego opposing the reopening of the San Onofre Plant. Source: Dave_Rice, San Diego Reader

Public education regarding nuclear energy is essential to combat ad campaigns like a 2013 billboard in San Diego which urged people through fear to oppose the reopening of the San Onofre nuclear plant.  Everyone needs to be made aware of the environmental implications that result from losing a large, sustainable portion of our power supply. If nuclear energy is truly on a dwindling trajectory, we have an important decision to make about how we will meet our energy needs in a post-nuclear age.  I hope we make the right one.

Produce & Pesticides: An Apple a Day to Keep the Doctor Away?

Humans need food; many of us like it very much.  We often hear advice to eat healthy and "watch what we eat"- to avoid excess sugar, salt, etc.  How about pesticides?

Recently, I stumbled across the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) 2013 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce.  Rankings of 48 popular fruits and vegetables are listed by levels of pesticide residue present.  This list was based on data collected from tests carried out by the USDA Testing Program and the Food and Drug Administration.  The EWG studies the data compiled from these tests and then ranks produce based on factors like the average number of pesticides found in each sample and the percentage of samples that had detectable pesticides.  The top 3 worst produce items were apples, strawberries, and grapes.  The best 3 produce items were corn, onions, and pineapples.

Pesticides are used to kill unwanted pests.  Insecticides kill insects; herbicides kill weeds; fungicides get rid of fungi.  The problem with pesticides is that they could pose serious health risks.  Pesticides have the potential to cause serious health problems like skin, eye and lung irritations, even cancer.  To think that any combination of these chemicals could be sprayed over our favorite produce items is something that might not usually cross our mind.  After learning about apples and strawberries I am very shocked.  My favorite apple snack is sprinkling Tajin chili seasoning over apple slices.  Now I know I will look at apples and strawberry ice cream in a different way.  

However, after thinking it over it makes some sense to me that apples would require more pesticides.  I remember when my grandpa planted an apple tree, and wow!! That poor tree took FOREVER to bear edible apples because it kept getting sick.  I remember wondering if my grandpa had accidentally purchased a reject.  He has always grown and cared for a number of plants since I was born (and that's 2.3 decades), and never had I seen him struggle with one plant more than that darn apple tree.  I guess apples are just more sensitive.  

Onions I can believe would have some of the lowest levels of pesticide residue; onion lovers sure are hard to find in this world.

Nuclear Energy in the Future

Since it's discovery, nuclear energy has been a hot-button issue all over the world. There has been much controversy about its' development in third world and Middle Eastern countries (i.e. Iran). Aside from the political hooplah behind nuclear energy, there are environmental benefits and setbacks caused by nuclear energy. As discussed yesterday in class, the disposal of the fuel rods is of main concern. As of now, the rods are allowed to decay in what are called "spent fuel pools" which are pools of water. These rods can be submerged for up to 20 years and then are encased and stored deep underground to prevent penetration to the earth's surface which could cause harm to humans.

But after years of no new construction of nuclear facilities, the Obama administration and the US Energy Department recently approved financing - 6.5 billion dollars - for 2 new nuclear plants to be built in Georgia. This comes after years of the Obama administration saying that it would support the development and spreading of alternative energy throughout the country. The benefit of nuclear energy in particular is it's virtually non-existent CO2 emissions.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/21/energy-dept-backs-new-nuke-plants-but-nuclear-future-still-decades-away

The world is in need of better alternatives to fossil fuels, especially in our day and age when developing countries such as India and China are greatly increasing their use of fossil fuels, particularly coal. Though the complete switch to nuclear energy may seem unlikely, it is a great bridge that could help keep the world moving in an environmentally friendly way until more long-term energy sources can be developed. However, the economics and more importantly, the waste disposal, of these plants make many people hesitant to continue funding for nuclear energy. After the melt down in Fukushima, there were people who were demanding the shut down of power plants here in the States. In order to ensure  the advancement and sustainment of the human race through long-term energy sources, the ones we use as temporary solutions, most likely nuclear energy, need to be able to stand up to environmental disasters and extreme weather conditions, all of which are caused by the increase of greenhouse gases that perpetuate climate change - something that can be prevented through the development of alternative fuel sources such as nuclear energy.

Renewable Energy Sources and the end to fossil fuels

Climate change and carbon emissions, along with the inevitable fact that fossil fuels cannot provide the world’s energy forever has driven the search for renewable energy sources. Depending on the location and resources, hydroelectric, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidal, or solar could be used as a source of energy. Although no single renewable energy source is the key solution, a transition to renewable energy is necessary. Each form has its advantages and disadvantages, but it seems well known and agreed upon that fossil fuels cannot last forever so other options are needed. What I find most interesting is how individual countries have answered the challenge of renewable energy.

This link proves very interesting in how countries responded.http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/05/insight-progress-fossil-fuel-transition/

The article and the above picture show how countries are facing the challenge of moving away from fossil fuels and how some have even achieved 100% of their energy coming from renewable energy sources.  I find it inspiring that some countries are independent of fossil fuels, which seems like an incredible feat knowing that these renewables have a large energy potential but storage seems difficult. I would like to have seen the percentages of other countries, like the United States, because it seems like most of the countries on this map are smaller countries. I wonder if the larger “power-house” countries could learn from the actions of these countries that have achieved success with renewable energy sources. Instead of only having a portfolio standard for change, I wonder how long it will take to implement change in more populated countries. It would also be interesting to see how long this independence from fossil fuels can last because of energy storage. My chief question is: how sustainable can renewable energy be without better forms of energy storage being implemented and commercialized?

California's cap-and-trade emissions program

California has adopted the most aggressive cap-and-trade scheme in the United States. Called the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), the policy aims to lower emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In this program, each has an annual emissions cap. In order to emit one metric ton of CO2 (or the equivalent of another greenhouse gas), each entity is required to have an emissions allowance or else they are dealt a fine. These allowances can be issued by the government, bought at auction, or traded amongst entities. This policy attempts to regulate pollution by providing economic incentives for reducing emissions. However, recent senate activity has sought to delay the cap-and-trade regulations in exchange for gasoline and other transportation taxes.

California’s attempts to strengthen emission regulations are a positive step forward. Using economic pressure by cap-and-trade to enforce environmental change seems like an effective method to inhibit emissions. However, I am disappointed that the state senate has suggested delaying the cap-and-trade measures and increasing gas and transportation costs as a stopgap. Recent research suggests that higher transportation costs affect the poor much more than other groups. In a time when income inequality is greater than ever, this hardly seems like an acceptable compromise. It is frustrating to see corporations getting preferential treatment over lower-income households.

The Fossil Fuel Debate

To be frank, I never truly understood what "fossil fuel" meant. I knew what they were (coal, oil, and the like), but I didn't understand why they were called that. Now, I do. Fossil fuels were formed after millions and millions of years of decomposition of organisms and plant material. The uses for these fuels seem endless, but their supply is not. We've burned through millions of years of fossil fuel production in about 200 years. Pretty incredible, you have to admit. To get a sense of just how reliant we are on fossil fuels, check out this video by Post Carbon Institute:

 As a global community, we use 85 million barrels of oil A DAY. The oil companies' agenda to keep drilling is also quite remarkable. "There's plenty of oil, we just need to know where and how to get at it." Their campaign against using corn for ethanol production was really quite something as well.. But even better is the coal's argument that there is such thing as "clean coal" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmVDu_gIpc4). Ok, so there are ways to capture the carbon so as to not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But to what end? The byproducts and their health and environmental effects of "clean coal" are far worse (these include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter). So really, is this better? I don't think so, but the coal industry sure does.

There ARE ways to produce environmentally friendly alternative energy sources, but the costs of transitioning over and the opposition to them are impossible to ignore. What, then, is our next step? The Kyoto protocol has expired and we're living in a world where people just can't seem to wake up to the fact that our planet is DYING. We are robbing the earth of it's natural resources all for what? To get the next iPhone? Couldn't we all agree that the world doesn't need another iPhone that looks exactly the same as the last? I will admit that I myself would have a hard time letting go of some of these luxuries, but if it meant being able to know that my grandchildren could live in a world that was on a better path to self-sufficiency and renewability, I'd do it. To believe in fossil fuels as a sustainable energy source is just ridiculous.