BioDiesel: A Not So Green Alternative

Oil prices are through the roof and the planet is getting hotter. We are facing an energy crisis and many truckers, and other professional drivers, have been forced to stay parked until the prices come down.

With no relief in sight a lot of “green” advocates are jumping on the biodiesel bandwagon. After all it’s a cheaper, cleaner burning fuel and most diesel engines need little or no modifications to start using it*. However, recent studies suggest that biodiesel might not be the “green” solution many are hoping for.

Biodiesel is heralded as an alternative, cleaner burning cousin to diesel. It’s made through the processing of various forms of vegetable oil. It is then blended with conventional diesel or used alone. Biodiesel can be manufactured using waste vegetable oils, like those thrown out by fast-food restaurants. However, a rising demand has lead to the cultivation of farmland for the sole purpose of growing crops for the manufacture of biodiesel fuel.

Approved and toted as a “clean air” fuel, even a 20% biodiesel mix creates a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. The way biodiesel burns is not a point of concern. The way that it is currently being produced, may raise an environmentalist eyebrow or two.

The well respected Science magazine released two reports this year calling attention to the destruction of essential rain forest and other vital natural habitats and eco-systems due to the increased demand for palm, soy and other vegetable oils for bio-diesel production. (Report 1) (Report 2)

These studies warn that biodiesel may not be as green as it seems here’s why:

More Green House Gases
According to the studies the process of clearing grasslands, rain forests, and other land for farming actually releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than would be saved by the fuel that the land produces. Not to mention the natural CO2 absorption that is stopped when this dense growth is destroyed. Considering farm land absorbs less CO2 and produces less oxygen than the rain forest or other growth it replaces, the farming and production of oils for bio-fuel arguably does more to harm the environment than to help it.

Of course this “clearing” of farmland for bio-fuels also lends to other problems:

Killing Endangered Species
In Borneo, by 2020 most of the rain forest will be gone. It is home to thousands of unique species of insect and animals, including the endangered Sumatra and Borneo Orangutan, the Sumatra Tiger, Asian Elephant and Sumatran Rhinoceros. In fact the conditions are so dire in Indonesia and Borneo it is estimated that if we continue at the current rate of destruction, the Orangutan will be extinct in 10 years. (www.redape.org)

Creating Dead Zones In the Gulf of Mexico
A “Dead Zone” is an oxygen starved patch in the ocean. These “Dead Zones” occur all around the world and are caused by decomposing algae which depletes the oxygen and suffocates marine life. According to the June edition of National Geographic, the main cause of the rise in “Dead Zones” in the Gulf of Mexico is runoff of fertilizer that comes down the Mississippi. With farmers growing more corn for biodiesel, more fertilizer is being used resulting in the death of marine life.

The World Food Crisis
The world is already experiencing a global food shortage. The price of wheat has doubled in the last year, and palm, soy, and other food prices are rising across the board. If more crops are grown for fuel less will be grown for food. Tearing down the rain forest for farmland is bad enough, millions of starving people is even worse.

By the end of this year, Europe wants all diesel fuel to contain 5% biodiesel. By 2012 20% of all diesel fuel must be biodiesel. The only way the world’s farmers can keep up with rising demands is to clear more land for farming.

The allure of cheaper, cleaner burning fuels can cause many uninformed “greenies” to applaud the advantages of biodiesel fuel; however there is one buzzword that must be remembered in any conversation about new energy: sustainability.

The facts are clear. We cannot continue to abuse the ecosystem to support our accustomed lifestyle. Fortunately, world leadership is starting to take notice, and people are finally starting to look for new sustainable energy answers. Unfortunately, however, bio-diesel may not be the perfect solution everyone was hoping for.

—

(*Note: bio-diesel is a solvent and will eat your rubber fuel lines and seals, older vehicles are more susceptible to this possibility. Make sure your fuel lines are non-rubber if you plan to use biodiesel.)

Original here

Is The Colorado River Becoming Radioactive from Upstream Uranium Mines?

It All Depends On Who You Ask

Las Vegas Water Offical Warns Radioactive Levels Rising

Sunday’s news was a bit disconcerting, when I read a small story at Tri-State Online. Pat Mulroy, head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority was quoted as saying measurable quantities of uranium are showing up in Colorado River water, something difficult and expensive to remove before passing it on to consumers in Las Vegas.

She blames upstream uranium mining, especially in the Moab, Utah area, so I decided to take a look and see what’s happening up there.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no operating uranium mines in or near Moab, UT, or anywhere in the state of Utah. So, I felt Ms. Mulroy was referring to the uranium mill tailings just outside Moab, where they’ve been for decades after the failure of the Atlas Minerals Corporation mill.

Well, the 16 million tons of radioactive dirt is still there, but according to Moab Mayor David Sakrison, they are no danger to the community or the river.

In a phone interview, the mayor said the federal government has done an exemplary job of mitigating dust and water runoff that would contaminate the Colorado. Sakrison did say, however, this has been the case for the past eight years, and before that, Colorado River water was indeed being polluted.

Had the tailings pile presented a health risk to his community, especially through it’s drinking water? “No”, said the mayor, “our aquifer is on the other side of the Colorado and our water supply is not contaminated.”

It was in 2000 that then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promised to relocate the tailings pile, and Congress had given the Department of Energy authority to begin cleanup. President Bush, however, included NO money in his 2000 budget for the removal project.

Cleanup About To Begin at Moab

Donald Metzler, Federal Project Director for the Moab cleanup, told me everything is in place to begin transporting the contaminated soil to a storage area at Crescent Junction, Utah. The site is about 30 miles north of Moab, and is in a formation called Mancos Shale bedrock, a hard, almost impenetrable formation that will isolate the site from any aquifer. After all the tailings have been removed from the Moab site and placed in storage, it will be capped and should be safe for at least 1000 years.

I asked Mr. Metzler about the possibility that the tailings were still polluting the river, and he assured me there is absolutely no contamination. He said tests from a few hundred feet south of the Ajax site showed no increase in radiation other than background, caused by nature.

Taking my query a bit further, some 500 miles, I spoke with Mitch Basefsky, PIO for the Tucson Water District, and he assured me they are monitoring the level of radiation in water coming into the area from the Colorado River via the Central Arizona Project. Basefsky said they have not seen a change in water radioactivity over the years, but remain concerned that eventually, if nothing is done to stem the release of radioactive materials into the river, it will become a problem here.

So, Where’s The Radiation Coming From?

Southern Nevada’s Mulroy has supposedly written federal Interior Secretary Dick Kempthorne, asking him to “carefully evaluate” further uranium mining along the Colorado to determine the risk of further contamination of the river.

I’ve tried for days to get someone in her office to talk with me about her statement and what they’re finding in the water near Las Vegas, but no one has been forthcoming, and I can find nothing on the SNWA website concerning the issue.

There are no operating uranium mines in Utah, and according to Mayor Sakrison, most of the abandoned sites have been cleaned up, and clean water is leaving the Moab area. What’s the problem?

Grand Canyon Exploration and Possible Uranium Mining

While writing this story, word came to me from the Sierra Club, stating the House Natural Resources Committee has ordered the Bush administration to immediately stop mining claims on public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. Good news, because of fears that pollution from uranium mines could threaten the drinking water for more than 25 million people living in the southwest, and just the idea that mining operations are going on within three miles of the canyon is unthinkable.

Until I hear something concrete from the folks in Nevada, there appears little or no danger at this time from uranium-polluted Colorado River water.

Stay tuned.

original here

Block a burn bleach a reef?

Photo by: Bradley Cornelius Groot

The bleaching of the world’s coral reefs has been an increasingly concerning mystery in recent years. Healthy corals harbor a host of zooxanthelae, colorful algae that live symbiotically within the coral tissue providing energy to the coral. The coral in turn provides shelter, plenty of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, nutrients, and protection. When the corals are “bleached” these necessary algae are expelled leaving only the shell of the coral, its white, bleached skeleton. Scientists for years have struggled trying to identify a cause for this. Climate change is still a major contender but National Geographic just came out with an article that suggests something else, sunscreen.

“Four commonly found sunscreen ingredients can awaken dormant viruses in the symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae that live inside reef-building coral species.

The chemicals cause the viruses to replicate until their algae hosts explode, spilling viruses into the surrounding seawater, where they can infect neighboring coral communities. “

Those four ingredients are as follows:

1. Parabens
2. Cinnamate
3. Benzophenone
4. “A camphor derivative” (likely methylbenzylidene camphor)

Parabens in particular are in all sorts of other products, even our food. If they are the culprits in this fiasco we have a lot more to worry about other than just sunscreens. With growing concern around them I suggest reading all of your product labels and seeking out companies that are paraben-free. Even some main stream companies are transitioning over to paraben-free now so it should be getting easier in the near future.

The study is not the end all be all, it is just a step in the direction of possibly understanding this phenomena. It isn’t that hard to find a sunscreen that is made with physical sunblock rather than chemical sunblocks. Look for titanium dioxide or zinc oxide on the ingredient list and avoid the ingredients listed above. If all else fails put on a long sleeved white shirt and a giant hat.. you may look silly but you won’t get burned and you just might make a difference.