More Joy From the Car Culture: Rapeseed As A Source of Methyl Bromide.

Probably most people who are environmentalists are aware of the contemptuous refusal of the Christie Whitman era EPA to ban methyl bromide as a fumigant for strawberry crops in California.

Anyone who confused Whitman with an "environmentalist" before she betrayed her home state by suspending coal emission rules and before she got into the climate change denial business, should have been aware of what she was from the methyl bromide action alone.

(Christie Whitman is a supporter, as I am, of nuclear power, but support for the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy alone does not make one an environmentalist.)

Methyl bromide is one of the most potent ozone depleting chemicals there is.

As it happens though, methyl bromide, unlike chlorofluorocarbons, is a naturally occurring chemical.

Tonight, while I was looking for something else, I came across one of those articles you really don't expect to see. Apparently the fourth largest source of methyl bromide is, after the ocean, fumigation, and biomass burning, the crop rapeseed, which is grown for it's oil (canola oil). Note that this is not because methyl bromide is being used as a pesticide, but because the plant forms methyl bromide.

The reference is Shallcross et al Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008) 337–345.



And here you were thinking that the main drawback to biofuels was the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico and the destruction of the Sumatran rain forest.

Who knew?

The abstract is here: Rapeseed As A Source of Methyl Bromide

Your post is unreadably wide with that humunguous URL in it.

It's true. I was being as lazy as a sockpuppet linking stuff from Greenpeace.

The ocean is the largest source, at 63,000 tons per year, fumigation - including I assume the California strawberry crop - at 43,000 tons per year, biomass burning at 20,000 metric tons per year and rapeseed, just ahead of gasoline, at 6 million tons per year.

These are live inputs, and do not include the residuals from H-1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane) or from H-1301, bromotrifluoromethane. These two compounds represent 34% of the bromine source in the atmosphere. 47% of the bromine source is methyl bromide and of that, about 1/3 is anthropogenic.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E5DB1430F935A2575BC0A9659C8B63

and the ocean is a net sink for MeBr (-21 Gt/y)

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion (WMO, 1999) and http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yvon-lewis.php

Fumigation contributes 65 Gt/y globally...and rapeseed is a minor source of MeBr to the atmosphere

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10408&page=3

and most rapeseed is grown for cattle feed and oil - not biodiesel...

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/V2-302.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed

Nice Try

(not)

Wait. I have a better idea.

Why not just offer a bunch of lazy google links.

I am merely reporting what is in the scientific literature.

Tough shit if you don't like it.

Just correcting the OP that's all...

and "tough shit if you don't like it"

:evilgrin:

It is rather disgusting how far some here will go in defending these fuels that steal food from the economy and encourage people to keep away from electric cars.

Please keep it up NNadir! It is time the people here at DU woke up and realize that they are going down the wrong path! A path that will lead to MORE destruction of the planet.

Fusion and Electric Cars are the future! Stop delaying it!

Sucker!

Then go bother someone else.

This changes nothing.

On the other hand, if you have any respect for something called "science" or the scientific literature - and admittedly there are zero anti-nuke fundies who qualify - I would choose another word.

What part of "TEH SCIENCE" is so hard to understand???

Here are the global sources and sinks for methyl bromide...

Source Type..........................Emissions (Gg y-1)
Oceans...................................56 (5-130)i
Fumigation - soils..................26.5 (16-48)
Fumigation - durables..............6.6 (4.8-8.4)
Fumigation - perishables..........5.7 (5.4-6.0)
Fumigation - structures...........2 (2-2)
Gasoline...................................5 (0-10)
Biomass Burning.....................20 (10-40)
Wetlands..................................4.6
Salt marshes..........................14 (7-29)
Plants - rapeseed.....................6.6 (4.8-8.4))
Rice Fields...............................1.5 (0.5-2.5)
Fungus....................................1.7 (0.5-5.2)

Total Sources........................151 (56-290)

Sink Type...............................Uptake (Gg y-1)
Oceans..................................77 (37-133)i
OH and hn.............................86 (65-107)
Soils......................................46.8 (32-154)

Total Sinks............................210 (134-394)

The global MeBr budget is unbalanced, but the bottom line is this...

Rapeseed production is a minor source of MeBr and rapeseed production for biodiesel is a minor portion of rapeseed MeBr emissions.

...and the ocean is a net sink for methyl bromide - not a net source...

A decline in tropospheric organic bromine

Montzka, S.A.; Butler, J.H.; Hall, B.D.; Mondeel, D.J.; Elkins, J.W.

Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 30, no. 15. Aug. 2003

Recent changes in atmospheric bromine (Br) are estimated from samples collected at Ten globally distributed, ground-based sites. The results indicate that the global tropospheric burden of Br from the sum of halons and methyl bromide (CH sub 3Br) peaked in 1998 and has since declined by nearly 5 percent (or 0.8 +/- 0.2 pmol mol super -1 or ppt). These changes are driven primarily by a decrease of CH sub 3Br since 1998 that is about two times larger than expected given reported declines in industrial production, a result that may suggest revisions to our understanding of the global atmospheric budget for this gas. The observations imply 25-30 percent larger declines in the atmospheric burden of ozone- depleting, total equivalent chlorine (ECl = Cl + Br*45) in recent years than noted previously.

<end>

A Net Sink for Atmospheric CH3Br in the East Pacific Ocean

Science 17 February 1995:Vol. 267. no. 5200, pp. 1002 - 1005

Jürgen M. Lobert 1, James H. Butler 2, Stephen A. Montzka 2, Laurie S. Geller 1, Richard C. Myers 2, and James W. Elkins USA.

Abstract

Surface waters along a cruise track in the East Pacific Ocean were undersaturated in methyl bromide (CH3Br) in most areas except for coastal and upwelling regions, with saturation anomalies ranging from + 100 percent in coastal waters to –50 percent in open ocean areas, representing a regionally weighted mean of –16 (–13 to –20) percent. The partial lifetime of atmospheric CH3Br with respect to calculated oceanic degradation along this cruise track is 3.0 (2.9 to 3.6) years. The global, mean dry mole fraction of CH3Br in the atmosphere was 9.8 ± 0.6 parts per trillion, with an interhemispheric ratio of 1.31 ± 0.08. These data indicate that 8 percent (0.2 parts per trillion) of the observed interhemispheric difference in atmospheric CH3Br could be attributed to an uneven global distribution of oceanic sources and sinks.

<end>

Undersaturation of CH3Br in the Southern Ocean

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 24, NO. 2, PAGES 171–172, 1997

Lobert, Jürgen M.; Yvon-Lewis, Shari A.; Butler, James H.; Montzka, Stephen A.; Myers, Richard C.

Abstract

Dry mole fractions of methyl bromide (CH3Br) in marine boundary layer air and in air equilibrated with surface water were measured in the Southern Ocean. Saturation anomalies were consistently negative at ?36±7%. The observed undersaturations do not support recently published predictions of highly supersaturated Antarctic waters, but instead suggest a net uptake of atmospheric CH3Br by cold, productive oceans. The observations do not appear to be supported by known chemical degradation rates and present strong evidence for an unidentified, oceanic sink mechanism such as biological breakdown. Our estimate for the global, net, oceanic sink for atmospheric methyl bromide remains negative at -21 (-11 to -32) Gg/yr

<end>

Hobbyists should stick to their made-up molten salt breeder reactors...

First the "renewables will save us" anti-nuke cult announces "Biofuels will save us," well not us specifically, only the 600 million owners of cars on the planet.

Part of this car culture cult is to announce that "biodiesel" is "renewable" and by "renewable" we mean possessed - in fundie cult talk - possessed of zero external cost.

Next, from the same people who say "biofuels will save us," we hear that nobody is using biofuels and therefore the external cost of rapeseed is irrelevant to the yuppie car anti-nuke cult.

Hmmmm. Say what? Let me see if I can put this another way: "Biofuels are great because nobody uses them."

Now, there happens to be a report in the scientific literature detailing the world potential for biodiesel. No sense producing it, but suffice it to say, that even if the car culture yuppie anti-nuke cult rototilled every square meter of Sumatra to make "Renewable Portfolio Standards" for their cars, their little yuppie cars would run only a few days, not that the yuppie car cult gives a rat's ass.

Now. It is well known that fundie anti-nukes can't read. Um, I didn't produce an article that said "methyl bromide concentrations are going up in the atmosphere."

I produced an article saying "rapeseed releases methyl bromide," from well, let's see, this month's scientific literature. I have noted that if the fundie anti-nuke cult attempted to enact its fantasies, well then, the result would be to shift the equilibrium value of methyl bromide.

How did I find it?

Um...um...let's see... Oh yeah, I know. Because I read the current scientific literature, pretty much every damn day.

I wasn't embarrassed into googling scientific papers because someone implied that I am a dumb shit living on an inherited estate with my mom picking intellectual lint out of my navel. On the contrary, I read the scientific literature, in part, because I am interested in the universe.

I was surprised by this result. Until yesterday, I had no idea this was true, but - with respect to my energy opinions - I couldn't care less about the impact on the car culture. I would be against the car culture even if rapeseed had no effect on methyl bromide output. In any case, unlike a Greenpeace fundie web link, the paper publishable in peer reviewed literature.

Now, what is "equilibrium?" Well, I wouldn't want to get too technical - I have already encountered anti-nuke dip shits here who have contended that equilibrium doesn't exist - but equilibrium constants are generally the ratios of rate constants. Thus, if one increases a rate, in one direction, one changes the equilibrium value.

Now. There are zero fundie anti-nukes who understand thermodynamics on this website or any other fundie anti-nuke website, but it happens that many things exist that are not in equilibrium. Diamonds - mined in the same place from which the Germans will be their coal to replace their nuclear power - are not forever, no matter what DeBeers claims. They are, in fact, at atmospheric pressure and temperature metastable. Happily for the South African diamond industry, the forward rate of the reaction in which diamond converts to graphite is extremely slow. But one can change the rate of a reaction by using something called a "catalyst." In fact, the decomposition of diamond to graphite has been catalyzed, and it is explosively exothermic. Once the reaction starts - and evolves heat - it can't be stopped.

Now. There are little fundie anti-nukes who know zero about external costs and who come here all the time pushing one of the most dangerous practices on the face of the earth (in terms of death rate) - that would be burning biomass, in particular wood. As it happens, the reason that wood burns is that it is not in equilibrium. However, when one applies activation energy, aka "heat" - a thermodynamic concept that is clearly beyond the pathetic ken of the anti-nuke fundie cult - wood can reach equilibrium, which, in the presence of oxygen, is heavily weighted in the direction of carbon dioxide and water, and not in the direction polymeric carbohydrates.

Methyl bromide in the earth's atmosphere is currently in disequilibrium, but the equilibrium value was in fact, shifted in recent times, when the rate of production rate increased. Now of course, when the rate of production is falling the equilibrium value is falling, but has not been reached. If every square meter of arable land were covered by strawberry patches fumigated with methyl bromide, the methyl bromide concentration would not rise to infinity, any more than the oxygen concentration rose to infinity when photosynthesis evolved. But the equilibrium value would shift.

I thought everyone knew that, but apparently not. Sometimes I forget sometimes how dumb fundies really are. There really is no bottom to scientific illiteracy.

The new equilibrium value of earth's methyl bromide concentration will be determined by the earth's flora, just as the oxygen content of the earth's atmosphere is determined by the earth's flora. One may note however, that the shift in this equilibrium will depend on whether or not rapeseed plants can survive UV radiation. Obviously the rate of rapeseed growth would change if the rapeseed plants produced so much methyl bromide that the earth's ozone layer disappeared.

It's never pleasant to confront cults with science but this is how equilibrium works.

Frankly, I have no idea about how rapeseed fares in the presence of UV and in any case, the question has no bearing on the morality or sustainability of the fundie car cult. Covering the entire planet with rapeseed could not sustain the cars in the US, never mind in the world.

Gee - how is nuclear power going to save us from Yuppie Anti-nuke Cult Car Culture???

I know - it can't and it won't.

As for the rest of teh pseudoscience gibberish...

:rofl:

Be serious. That post right there took away any will I had to read your debunk.

If you are going to act like a kid I will treat you like one. IE I will not take you seriously.

Grow up, Atleast NNadir made a detailed post.

:evilgrin:

Don't make assumptions. They will do you wrong in the end.

He doesn't think fusion will ever work.
His "solution" is to build thousands of fission plants while 6 billion people die.
He wants to reduce the population to under a billion.

It's not like I have to "oppose fusion." The number of fusion plants is identical with the number of coal plants that have been shut by the "solar will save us" game: Zero.

As for the "six billion" remark, I'm hardly the one who is advocating a return to the energy policies - that would be so called renewable energy - that last supported humanity when it's population was six billion people smaller than it is now.

IGNORANCE KILLS.

methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant to kill parasitic nematodes. Its akin to "steam sterilization" of the soil. Farmers kill everything in sight with it then plant hurriedly. The Florida pepper growers are another big user of this chemical.

In China, farmers plant fallow fields with rape during the winter. Now I know why! Thanks NNadir.