False of True.
I adore science. I think it can lead us to build good Reason that supports an equitable society.
Good Science is a process.
But an equation is not good science.
An easily translatable equation is also not good science.
This email (screenshot at the bottom) I received recently is so simple and compelling. It is declaring that one can tell how ‘carbon neutral’ a fuel is based on it’s carbon-14 content (C-14 is a measure of ‘new’ carbon - carbon that is cycling in the biosphere. Fossil carbon has a different profile of carbon-12, C-12).
Read this delightful article about how we accidentally learned that C-14 was evidence of newly ‘born’ carbon.
The following text is taken directly or with slight modification of this article by Robin McKie:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/10/most-important-isotope-how-carbon-14-revolutionised-science
and references the book Hot Carbon: Carbon-14 and a Revolution in Science by John Marra
Most of the carbon in our bodies and in the outside world, known as carbon-12 (C12), has six protons and six neutrons (6+6=12).
By contrast, carbon-14 (C14) has six protons and eight neutrons in its nucleus.
Carbon 14 is ‘new carbon’ made as cosmic rays batter the upper atmosphere and send cascades of neutrons through the air. These neutrons strike atoms of nitrogen (N, with 7 protons + 7 neutrons), the main component of Earth’s atmosphere, and transform some atoms of nitrogen into atoms of carbon-14 (a slightly larger and mildly more radioactive - aka more jumpy and less stable carbon). In turn, these atoms combine with oxygen to create radioactive carbon dioxide that is absorbed by plants, which are then eaten by animals. Over time, the C-14 settles back into C-12 (it looses those 2 extra neutrons by decay).
To test the idea of old-carbon (C12) and new-carbon (C14) Willard Libby compared “samples from two very different sources. One sample was extracted from natural gas, a fossil fuel whose carbon-14 should have decayed long ago. The second came from the city of Baltimore sewerage system and was extracted from human excrement. It should be rich in carbon-14, having just been produced by humans, Libby reasoned. And that is exactly what he found. Ancient methane had no carbon-14. By contrast, methane newly excreted by humans was relatively rich in the isotope.
The email (below) declares its empiric method: “Carbon-14 analysis is performed using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) instrument according to ASTM D6866 Method B”.
And the email continues its reasoning “Biomass feedstocks are renewable resources because they can be replenished through new plant growth. When biomass is burned, the CO2 that was previously captured by the plants during photosynthesis is released. This makes biomass carbon-neutral, meaning that it does not contribute additional CO2 to the atmosphere.”
That is, this equation declares that IF a fuel has a high percentage of recent life (C14 profile) then it is carbon neutral.
And IF it is carbon neutral, then the email implies that is reason-enough to: “Qualify for tax credits and comply with regulations. Biogenic content testing is recommended or required by several regulatory programs for compliance such as the US EPA Renewable Fuel Standard.”
While this may be how the US EPA Renewable Fuel Standard reads, this, unfortunately, is painfully flawed logic. In the life cycle of making a biofuel, it is VERY possible that LOADS of fossil fuels are used throughout the entire supply chain. Did the crop use fossil fuels for preparing the earth, planting the seed, fertilizing and irrigating the plants, applying pest management practices, what about the energy for making the equipment, fertilizer, and pesticide? and what about harvest, cleaning, transportation, and processing. That is, quite simply, most fuels made today that have high C14% will have high greenhouse gas emissions from all the processes leading up to a pump. This is not carbon neutral by a long stretch. This is partial thinking with large false implications.
While C14/C12 logic is useful for many purposes, It says NOTHING of the relative energy consumed in the production of that biological feedstock nor the lifecycle emissions of that ‘biofuel’.
As we work towards a whole earth sustainability (bc let’s face it, that is what climate change is building in our awareness), let’s try to think holistically.
I adore simplicity.
But this ‘fast fix’ for climate is simple obfuscation*; this is a continuation of fossil-fueled fiscal turpitude.
*This is false advertising.
