ACS Green Chemistry Institute Oilfield Chemistry Roundtable [View all]

[NNadir]

I am a member, for decades, of the American Chemical Society, an organization I value highly.

But sometimes...

I am a regular reader of the journal Energy and Fuels, which is a journal which is largely devoted to the chemistry of dangerous fossil fuels, all of which I oppose.

The journal however does cover a fair amount of interesting papers on making "renewable biofuels" safe - something which as currently utilized they are not - and, in fairness, a number of papers on the topic of carbon capture, something which will be critical for future generations even in the absence of dangerous fossil fuel utilization, since they will need to clean up the waste my generation dumped on them in expressions of contempt.

Anyway here is the paper that led me to a deep sigh of grief, in the current issue of Energy and Fuels:

Grand Challenges and Opportunities for Greener Chemical Alternatives in Hydraulic Fracturing: A Perspective from the ACS Green Chemistry Institute Oilfield Chemistry Roundtable (David Harry, David Horton, Danny Durham, David J. C. Constable*, Simon Gaffney, Joseph Moore, Bridget Todd, and Isamir Martinez, Energy & Fuels 2020, 34, 7, 7837-7846 (Review))

Um...um...um...

One hears quite a bit from dumb shit anti-nukes raising the point about nuclear energy that "nobody knows what to do with the (so called) "waste," which they claim will last "thousands" or "millions" or "billions" of years depending on exactly how scientifically illiterate they are.

Since I have actually studied, for decades, the chemistry of used nuclear fuel, I can say that I personally know exactly what to do with every component of used nuclear fuel, all of which are in any case valuable, but in the minds of these people I am clearly "no one."

The number of these same people who raise the same point of whether anyone knows to do with dangerous fossil fuel waste is vanishingly close to zero.

In any case the difference between so called "nuclear waste" and dangerous fossil fuel waste is that dangerous fossil fuel waste kills people, millions of people per year and so called "nuclear waste," um, doesn't.

Whatever.

I am not going to dignify this paper with a reading. There is no such thing as "green" oil fields, or gas fields or coal fields, just there is no such thing as green so called "renewable energy," since the issue of electronic waste and heavy metal waste is challenging (for solar) and mining tailings, in particular coal mine tailings, represent intractable problems for the wind industry, which is 100% dependent on steel, and thus on coal, as well as copper and lanthanide mining.

The point I'm raising is the abuse of the word "green."

The last issue of Energy and Fuels featured a graphic of a wind turbine - which the public routinely in a completely rote manner calls "green," - even though wind energy is no such thing, and functions merely as a cloak for the gas industry. (The journal as far as I recall from going through it featured no articles on wind energy, which is just as well, unless it was raised obliquely with some silly reference to wind based hydrogen.)

The point is that we all abuse language, even members of the American Chemical Society, the professional organization of which I am a member, almost all members being scientists.

And when we abuse language, we abuse the future.

A word of warning.

I hope you're safe and well in these tragic times, and I wish you any small pleasures available to you.