Michael Rosenthal

(6/2020) A positive (believe it or not!) consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is the large decline in global greenhouse gas emissions. The abrupt reductions in flying, driving, and industrial production have led to a reduction of more than a billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. You will recall that the oxidation of any carbon-containing material results in the production of CO2, carbon dioxide, a primary culprit in climate change.

As good as this is, emissions will rise again as the virus is brought under control, and the challenge will remain to reach the ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. The current reduced level matches that of 2006. There is a long way to go. One hopes that this event could awaken a more general commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions. However, the disruptions due to the coronavirus have slowed down a number of the planned energy initiatives.

Before the full impact of the coronavirus was felt, 2020 was predicted to be a big year for the increase in the use of renewable power, with a big move to production of energy by wind and solar and strong support from use of natural gas. Texas has been a major force in the development of new wind and solar generated electricity. However the plan there to build a 2,000-acre solar farm which would generate 400 jobs has been put on hold for at least six months.

Another project put on hold was a 9 gigawatt offshore wind project led by the New York State Energy and Research and Development Authority, which was set to be completed by 2035. New York and other states are now under Executive Order to pause such projects. Difficulties in proceeding with these major projects include supply chain disruptions in the United States and from China.

An Energy Report in January however expressed some optimism. In April 2019, wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass combined to produce 23% of United States electricity generation, versus 20% for coal. This data reflected the falling cost of renewables, particular of wind and solar. In the report on this topic, coal use, though declining, was still generating more electricity (28%) than renewables (17%) on an annual basis, with natural gas producing 35%. This supports an earlier 2020 report from The United States Department of Energy that 75% of new United States generating capacity would be wind or solar.

You may recall that a source of energy that received scientific interest in the past was fusion, a process in which atoms are fused together, rather than broken apart, to create energy. I have not heard anything about fusion research for some time. A recent report in The Kiplinger Letter states that fusion research is underway again, with substantial support from the United States Department of Energy. If it could be made practical, one gram of fusion fuel could yield up to 90,000 kilowatts of energy! Though many experimental reactors have been built since the 1960s, none has achieved net energy gain. I had no idea that such hope for energy production by fusion was alive.

You may recall that in last month’s Real Science we conveyed the 2019 energy report locally. Though we can be proud of the report in general, I feel we should be seeking to reduce or even eliminate the 20.40% of our energy derived from coal and replace it with more environmentally supportive forms of energy production.

Congress has been focusing on more immediate matters than good energy planning, and the federal government has also been worrying more about supporting American petroleum producers who are suffering from reduced energy demand. In my opinion, we should indeed worry about current mainstays in our economy. However, we should not let this deter us from a well-planned commitment to renewable energy use and protection of the environment. A practical balance must be sought!

_____________________________________

Last month in Real Science we had some fun (and we sure can use some!) and talked about fireflies. How about a bit of discussion on skunk stink!

I’m sure you have noticed with the arrival of spring, skunk smell is back. I particularly notice it when I take our dogs outside for their last trip of the day before doggie bedtime. We live next to a wooded area. Over the years I have heard of various remedies for skunk stink, as some call it.

In a December 2019 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the magazine of the American Chemical Society, it was reported that chemists at the University of Oklahoma have found a chemical technique to fighting skunk stink in the Alaskan soil. It is use of a chemical called pericosine A, a chemical compound found in nature. They found that by experimenting with it, that it could convert smelly chemical sulfur compounds (known as thiols) to odorless ones. The smell in skunk stink is caused by a sulfur containing chemical! This is not a surprise to chemistry students who are hit by the stink the first time they encounter volatile chemical compounds that contain sulfur in the chemistry lab.

Finally, how about one more amusing chemistry story. Are you a fan of comics who remembers Popeye The Sailor Man? And do you remember that he got a performance boost by eating spinach? When I was growing up, spinach was considered a children’s health food, and we were strongly encouraged to eat it. Though I like it now, I found it an unpleasant food requirement then, even with Popeye as a hero.

Well, as also reported in Chemical and Engineering News, researchers in Germany have discovered that an extract from spinach boosts athletic performance by enhancing muscle cells! The question now is whether the extract, named ecdysterone, should be banned from athletic diets. Spinach is good stuff for you to eat. It is low calorie and a good source of calcium, iron, magnesium, and potassium. However, to achieve the level consumed by athletes in the study, one would need to eat about 4 kilograms (8.8 pounds) of spinach daily! That’s a lot of spinach, even for Popeye!

Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal