With our fast-paced world, commodities are being manufactured at an equally fast pace. To shorten time spent on preparing various products while reaching standards and satisfying the consumers, industries have invested in different techniques and the creation and development of new raw materials. In the case of the food industry, traditional farming practices have been modified to sustain the growing population of the world, while increasing its quality and battling the obstacles that are inherent to this industry. The now conventional farming methods are employing pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals to. Some companies are also delving into the use of GMOs (genetically modified organism) that are resistant to certain diseases and conditions, and with added properties depending on the demand of the market (e.g. Vitamin A in rice, seedless fruits, hybrid species of plants). Despite the vast improvement in the overall quality of food and the undeniable massive rate of production, the rekindling of the traditional method, or organic farming, is being promoted by different groups for different reasons. Some say that organic products are healthier, others say that it is friendlier to the environment, but this are more expensive products thus, the market for organic food are sometimes limited to those who could afford it. But is the claim to fame of organic foods going to be enough for the future population? We cannot help but wonder if the additional cost for these products can be considered a sound investment for the future or if it is just an unnecessary burden to the consumers.

In the US, the term “organic” may only be used on products that have at least 95 percent organic. The “100 percent organic” seal is used for products that are “completely organic or made of all organic ingredients (Mayo Clinic).” Organic farming, according to (Mayo Clinic), “refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to encourage soil and water conservation and reduce pollution.” The methods of organic farming remove the use of artificial fertilizers, artificial pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, bioengineering, and other artificial chemicals and methods.

Advantages of organic products over those that are harvested through conventional methods are minimal to no pesticide residue, absence of additives, and least impact to the environment. Pesticide use in the conventional method may have diminished the pest, and subsequently, increased the output greatly, but then insects and weeds are becoming resistant to these through the years. Although meant to improve the quality of food products (through artificial preservatives, flavorings, etc.), additives may also be used to meet cheat/pass standards. An example is the addition of melamine in protein-deficient milk in China to be able to pass quality tests in 2008.  The synthetic additives are also under fire due to some research findings that these are actually bad for the health. Organic farming is also supposed to be better for the environment, as it eliminates the introduction of non-natural chemicals to the environment, reduces pollution, and conserves water and soil. The downsides? Its cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and “authenticity”. The conventional method ensure a high harvest yield while maintaining uniformity in the products, while organic farming cannot promise consistency as the produce are dependent only to soil and water only. Natural fertilizers and pesticides are not as efficient compared to its artificial counterpart (Mayo Clinic). The truth whether organic products are really environmentally friendly is also questioned. It has been noted by (Zelman) that the variable quantity and quality of organic products may be problematic as this may also need more land area, just to meet similar quantities with the conventional method. Subsequently, more resources (e.g. water, natural fertilizers, and natural pesticides) would also be required.

To give us an idea on the current studies on evaluating the sustainability of organic farming, different life cycle assessments are going to be cited.  From the journal article “Comparing of Twelve Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: A Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective” by Kumar Venkat, twelve distinct crop products are used, namely: blueberries, two apples, two wine grapes, raisin grapes, strawberries, alfalfa for hay, almonds, walnuts, broccoli, and lettuce. A comparison of the cradle-to-farm gate greenhouse gas emission per kilogram of each crop production was used. The conclusion of the study states that only five out of the twelve crops has lower emissions using the organic farming method, while the conventional has seven out of twelve crops with lower emissions. The study has stated the following possible reasons: “lower yields and higher on-farm energy use in organic farming, the production and delivery of large quantities of compost in some organic systems, and the fact that emissions from the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used in conventional farming are not large enough to offset the additional emissions in organic farming.” Although it was noted that the transitional phase from conventional to organic farming had seven out of twelve lower cases, the organic farming failed to prove that its greenhouse gas emissions is lower, thus a better alternative to conventional farming procedures.

However, the article of Meier, Stoessel and Jungbluth concludes that they were not able to consolidate the thirty four reviewed LCA studies to create a comparison on the general environmental performance of the two farming systems. It said that there were no distinction on what is organic and conventional farming on the inventory level. Some assumptions were also simplified but became invalid due to the effect of the adjusted parameters.

Another study, done by the group of Thomassen, Calker and Smits, assessed the conventional and organic milk production in Netherlands. The general observation in the study was that the organic farming fared better with the given parameters. There were ten conventional farms and 11 organic farms in the study that were compared in terms of energy use and eutrophication potential per kilogram of milk, and in both cases, the organic farming system showed lower results. However, more ammonia, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions were observed per kilogram organic milk than for conventional mil. Land use was also efficient for conventional farming system. No significant difference were seen between the two methods for the total acidification potential and global warming potential per kilogram milk.

To sum it all up, there are many parameters that are needed to be considered before one can conclude which method is better in terms of environmental impact. More LCA and a concentrated topic should also be ensured to minimize discrepancies in the studies. So for now, there is not enough unity in the LCAs available to conclude that the organic farming system is indeed the better alternative for sustainability. For unsure consumers, Zelman suggests that a combination of the products of the two types should be bought, as long as the products are in season and are grown locally, to at least minimize carbon footprint brought by the transport.

References

Mayo Clinic. Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? 9 June 2014. Report. 28 April 2015. <http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880?pg=1&gt;.

Meier, Matthias S., et al. “Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products – Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment?” Journal of Environmental Management (2015): 193-209. Web.

Thomassen, M.A., et al. “Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands.” Agricultural Systems (2007): 95-107. Web.

Venkat, Kumar. “Comparison of Twelve Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: A Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture (2012): 620-649. Web.

Zelman, Kathleen M. Organic Food – Is ‘Natural’ Worth The Cost? 10 August 2007. Report. 28 April 2015. <http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/organic-food-is-natural-worth-the-extra-cost?page=1&gt;.

Nuclear power is the production of energy and electricity from radioactive elements such as uranium. Nuclear power is a product of war. In the 1940’s, warring nations had developed nuclear weapons just for the sake of ultimate destruction to their enemy. This is demonstrated when the US, having finished their Manhattan Project, bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki using uranium and plutonium bombs. After that, nations such as the US and the Soviet Union agreed that nuclear energy would be used for peaceful purposes and as a justification for government defense spending. This was emphasized in Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech at the UN and from then on reactor technology was declassified from the US government.

Fig 1. Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant in France

From 300 GW of nuclear energy capacity in the mid 1980’s, nuclear energy production slowed down to just 375 GW in the early 2010’s. The stagnation of nuclear energy is brought by:

• high capital costs which would amount to 74% of the leveled cost of electricity for a new nuclear power plant,
• proliferation of nuclear weapons to which even though there is a set treaty for peaceful use of nuclear energy (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea haven’t signed such treaty and may even be developing nuclear weapons on their own,
• the complicated and/or absent waste management to which spent fuel is reprocessed into plutonium or dumped in isolated chambers and left there to decay for thousands of years, and lastly,
• the nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi which left an exclusion zone wherein no man can enter because the land itself emits harmful radiation from the ground and from the air.

Fig 2. Fukushima Daiichi Exclusion Zone

With all the furor coming from the anti-nuclear movement and the governments of Japan and Germany giving in on the pressure of closing down nuclear plants, do we really have to abandon nuclear energy?

Figure 3. Japan’s monthly electric generation from 2009 to 2014

Because of the disaster, the Japanese government enacted a total preventive shutdown of all their nuclear power plants, hence their reliance on oil and gas has risen considerably.

Germany’s rapid Energiewende or energy revolution, with its focus on renewable energy (35% of the total energy production by 2020) and total nuclear-energy phaseout by 2022, has taken a toll to the consumers and to the industry as electricity prices have become 60% higher in the past 5 years (double the prices in the US), pushing companies like BASF to diversify its investments to other countries (in other words, reducing its focus from its country of origin). Added to that is the increase in GHG emissions because electric companies resort to coal as a result of the policy of accelerated nuclear phase-out.

Then why do we even try to kill it when we have to transform the whole grid with the sources power potential varying in weather and time? Besides that, nuclear energy has prevented 1.84 million deaths from air pollution and 64 GT on carbon dioxide GHG emissions from burning fossil fuels. Sounds ironic that we see the perspective of nuclear disasters (Fukushima Daiichi has no deaths, just an evacuation of 320 thousand people) when we have to look at the amount of people dying from toxic gases and the fact that we are aware that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of man-made climate change yet we have to keep on pumping it into the air just to satisfy our needs.

This brings us to the last argument which is the use of thorium. Thorium, with an atomic number 90, is a radioactive actinide with isotope 232 being the most abundant. It has a half-life of 1.405 x 10¹⁰ years and it is used as an alloy electrode and a light source in gas mantles but it is largely scrapped because it is radioactive. It is more abundant than uranium (10 ppm vs 2.5 for raw uranium), it is hard to turn into a nuclear weapon, it produces less waste (1 ton for Th vs 35 tons for U per 1 GW of electricity), it is more manageable (300 years isolation for Th vs. 10000 years for U), and it is more dense in energy than uranium (1 ton of Th energy = 200 tons U energy = 3.5 million tons coal energy).

In designing a thorium reactor, the process fluid is a chemically stable liquid (thorium fluoride) which needs no further enrichment, the operation is at atmospheric pressure, containment is smaller because the fluid turns into a solid if operation stops, and there is no need of control rods or a shutdown for refueling. Compare that to a uranium reactor that its fuel (uranium oxide) is chemically unstable, its design is inherently unsafe, with water at 70 atm as its main component in the design.

So why aren’t we using it?

To the words of Alvin Weinberg, the administrator of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1955-1973, to which he designed the basis of both thorium and uranium reactors, said that it is a matter of politics and a change in paradigm. During his time, his first patented design, the uranium reactor, has already been established as the go-to design for the Nixon administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, and subsequently, all nuclear reactors until today. Also, the fact that you have to waste tons of money just to invest in a different and seemingly difficult to grasp technology is not appealing to investors who want short-term profits. Lastly, and most importantly, we have to change what we think. Nowadays, all we focus on is money, the status quo, and self-interest, not at our future. Those who do not agree to the powerful and to the rich may have to silence themselves, as what was done by Alvin Weinberg.

We end our journal entry for this week with a plea to spark a new discussion about energy. With climate change already in the works and our energy consumption going higher and higher, we should not abandon nuclear energy, or a better option would be create a new, inherently safe, cleaner, and efficient technology such as thorium reactors. We must not look at money but our future as a civilization. Do we take a leap or stand and let the ground crumble?

Links Links Links!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk&sn

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/20b7v9/science_ama_series_were_professors_in_the/

http://www.ews-schoenau.de/fileadmin/content/documents/100GG/100_good_reasons.pdf

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Ever since I have had an experience of the Chemical Engineering subjects, I have always regarded chemical engineering as a problem solving career. Everything has to be optimized: minimized raw material, maximize product through the use of the concepts from the foundation subjects: thermodynamics, transport, and kinetics. With ChE 141 and ChE 142 (Plant Design), I have been exposed to the economics of this career. It is important to optimize the process, but it is also important that profit will come from this. Capital cost and operational costs are considered before fully establishing a design concept for any equipment and the overall plant. Basically, the entirety of the project rely on the profitability. Having taken the ChE 197 elective of Health, Safey, and Environment, our professor has emphasized over and over again that safety is of paramount importance over profit. No matter how profitable a project is, if it is highly hazardous, and if risk management is impossible, it is better to abandon the project. A ChE 190 seminar about the role of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Division Staff from the previous semester also emphasized this responsibility for a chemical engineer. Attending this ChE 198 Design for Environment elective has further cemented this paradigm.

I find it inspiring that there are countries that are already taking the initiative to create a culture of environmentally-friendly processes. There are more government monitoring and assessment happening to reduce emissions. In Europe, one example is the managing of carbon emissions among the countries in the European Union is the Emissions Trading Scheme. In the Philippines, waste generation is also being monitored by the government, as was discussed to us in a ChE 190 seminar, wherein the speakers were members of the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

One of the speakers was Engr. Mary Therese Gonzales, a Technical Staff member of the Monitoring and Validating Section in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Division Staff of the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. She graduated from the University of the Philippines Los Banos with a degree in BS Agricultural Engineering. She discussed the Environmental Impact Assessment, a requirement for the industry before the construction on any plant or other infrastructure. It was highlighted that this was not a permit. Instead, this is a planning and management tool; a document made by the company itself, consisting of provisions on how they would manage all environmental consequences in the area: bio-physical or socio-economic. It is a commitment that they set for themselves, and promise to uphold. The EMB now inspects and assesses the area on a regular basis to check if the company is fulfilling its responsibilities.

After the talk, it made me realize that it is not the government’s job to maintain the environment. It is only there to monitor the industry, as they are the main sector that creates a large impact on the environment, may it be good or bad. The industry still bears the accountability in taking care of its surroundings. And I find the EIA as a symbol to this commitment of all the companies that are willing to take part in this duty. Thus, it is important that as future chemical engineers, we would also take part in this service not only to humanity but also to the environment. With the current lectures in ChE 198, I see that there are methods and heuristics wherein emissions can be managed by the industries. It can start through the design of the reactors, separation process, and the handling of fugitive emissions. Cooperation within the industries will also be a big help in this. Those that cannot afford to reduce emissions can be helped by other companies who can. Some companies also resort to indirect methods such as tree planting and investment on renewable energy.

Chemical engineering is not called the universal engineer for nothing, as a holistic view is needed to be a true chemical engineer. Yes, we are problem solvers, designing processes to manufacture products and solutions for human needs. Yes, we are business people, maximizing profit from the said products and solutions. But ultimately, we are also stewards of the environment, minimizing impact to the surroundings, mitigating wastes and emissions, and generating solutions to maintain and improve the environment. After all, we are not just engineers. We are chemical engineers.