Cleaning up oil spills with disposable paper towels

[Nick_Jinn]

Am I alone in thinking this might not be the most ecologically sound response?

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/a/47/a475029051955c573f57edd55d5f0668.jpeg





Apparently the best solution is bacteria.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270

[Paqman]

Why not? Paper towels are made from a renewable resource.

[TheNerdAL]

I'm more into that idea to reuse the oil.

[_h_]

Vacuum it up with a wetvac, as much as possible and then dump sand on the remaining (sand absorbs and picks up the oil).

[Nick_Jinn]

Why not? Paper towels are made from a renewable resource.


It depends on what we get the fiber from. If we were growing bamboo, a quickly renewing resource, that would be one thing....its basically a wood like grass. Cutting down forests? Our forests, especially the old growths, are being depleted rather than renewed. Every year we have less forest than the year before....whats worse, you cant just grow back a forest after a clear cut. Forests have eco-systems. The soil washes away without the roots to keep it in place....just planting mono crop clones in abundance will not bring a forest back after a clear cut.

Considering the sheer volume of oil spilled, cutting down forests to wipe up oil on the beaches sounds like a losing battle....maybe to save the animals is one thing, but wiping up the whole beach side has been widely criticized by activists. That is more about short term beautification than long term environmental gains.


However, bacteria seem to be really really good at eating up the oil.

[Paqman]

Cutting down forests? Our forests, especially the old growths, are being depleted rather than renewed. Every year we have less forest than the year before....whats worse, you cant just grow back a forest after a clear cut. Forests have eco-systems. The soil washes away without the roots to keep it in place....just planting mono crop clones in abundance will not bring a forest back after a clear cut.


Nobody chops down old growth forest to make paper. Like most wood used on an industrial scale it's from pine forests, which are replanted after they're harvested. Increasing paper consumption would actually make the industry plant more trees.

Sure, maybe the land shouldn't have been cleared in the first place, and such forests are hardcore monoculture, so there's no biodiversity, but it is a renewable resource made from rain and sunshine. Compared to pretty much every other resource used by industry, wood is pretty benign environmentally.

[Tristam Green]

It depends on what we get the fiber from. If we were growing bamboo, a quickly renewing resource, that would be one thing....its basically a wood like grass. Cutting down forests? Our forests, especially the old growths, are being depleted rather than renewed. Every year we have less forest than the year before....whats worse, you cant just grow back a forest after a clear cut. Forests have eco-systems. The soil washes away without the roots to keep it in place....just planting mono crop clones in abundance will not bring a forest back after a clear cut.

Considering the sheer volume of oil spilled, cutting down forests to wipe up oil on the beaches sounds like a losing battle....maybe to save the animals is one thing, but wiping up the whole beach side has been widely criticized by activists. That is more about short term beautification than long term environmental gains.


However, bacteria seem to be really really good at eating up the oil.

So much wrong.


Nobody chops down old growth forest to make paper. Like most wood used on an industrial scale it's from pine forests, which are replanted after they're harvested. Increasing paper consumption would actually make the industry plant more trees.

Sure, maybe the land shouldn't have been cleared in the first place, and such forests are hardcore monoculture, so there's no biodiversity, but it is a renewable resource made from rain and sunshine. Compared to pretty much every other resource used by industry, wood is pretty benign environmentally.

So much right.

@ Nick_Jinn: Paper companies farm trees just like any other crop. Forests can be grown in five years' time, and they rotate the chopping from forest to forest. Completely renewable, completely environmentally-friendly.

[P4man]

IIRC that well spilled something like 500 million liters of oil. Then looking at that picture I can only shake my head.

[Tristam Green]

IIRC that well spilled something like 500 million liters of oil. Then looking at that picture I can only shake my head.

Actually, cleaning oil up with paper towels isn't a bad idea. It is extremely absorbent, and since the oil will ultimately float (lower density than water), it will be the first thing absorbed.

If I remember, paper towels were used during the Valdez incident.

[P4man]

Actually, cleaning oil up with paper towels isn't a bad idea. It is extremely absorbent, and since the oil will ultimately float (lower density than water), it will be the first thing absorbed.

Thing is.. how many liters worth of oil would you expect to recover this way?

[Tristam Green]

Thing is.. how many liters worth of oil would you expect to recover this way?

I'm thinking it was used (and is intended to be used) on a much-smaller scale than the OP might be insinuating.

[Nick_Jinn]

There are all different kinds of paper operations.


See, I used to live in Oregon and I had first hand experience with areas of old growth and more often mid growth forest being clearcut....and they didnt call it clear cut, but they basically left 1 tree in 100. It might not all have gone for wood. A lot of paper might be recycled.....but a lot of it goes towards paper. Not a lot of produces are making 100% recycled material. They are using a mix of pulps, whatever is cheapest.

I am telling you, they are still clear cutting forests in the pacific northwest and some of that wood goes to make paper. Forests suck up green house gases which prevent global warming. Deforestation is as much to blame for warming as fossil fuels are.



When paper consumption increases, they cut down mid growth forests to make more room for harvesting. They dont JUST plant new trees on the land they already clear cut to make paper, producing more trees. They expand into the national forests and log them.

[Paqman]

Forests can be grown in five years' time, and they rotate the chopping from forest to forest. Completely renewable, completely environmentally-friendly.

Well, it's more like 25 years than five even for a fast-grower like Pinus Radiata. And I wouldn't exactly call monoculture envrionmentally friendly, since those forests are very poor habitat.



I am telling you, they are still clear cutting forests in the pacific northwest and some of that wood goes to make paper.

I did a bit of research after my earlier post and it seems like about 9% of pulp does come from old growth (http://ecology.com/features/paperchase/index.html). So I take back my "nobody chops down old growth to make paper" and replace it with an "almost nobody".
When you're contemplating the cleanup of a massive industrial accident, complaining about using a resource which is merely 91% renewable seems a bit odd.

[sdowney717]

Oil in the gulf is disappearing fast. The area has many many natural oil seeps and there are lots and lots of bacteria eating up the oil.

It seems out of place, unnatural even to think that crude oil is eaten, but it simply is eaten, the environment cleans itself up.

thankfully it does. Some water areas which dont have a lot of seeps and are colder, the environment takes a lot longer for the oil to degrade. I actually think if oil has to spill somewhere, the gulf was the best place for it.
http://commoditysurge.blogspot.com/2010/07/microbes-saving-bp-nysebp-and-gulf.html

[sdowney717]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10791343

Oil disappearing fast

[sdowney717]

All that show of having thousands of boats out there to appease the media and those that want to "feel" something is being done, was largely a waste of time, counting for at most, about 2 percent of the oil being cleaned up. And that's on the top end of the estimate. It's probably much lower than that.

people want to do something but mostly it is just too much oil for people to do anything. And apparently they did not have to do anything.

http://commoditysurge.blogspot.com/2010/07/microbes-saving-bp-nysebp-and-gulf.html

[Paqman]

the environment cleans itself up.


It does, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and prevent the damage in the short term. Straight Dope published a really interesting discussion on how oil spills resolve themselves a little while ago:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2943/did-nature-clean-up-most-of-the-exxon-valdez-oil-spill

tl;dr version: nature has ways of dealing with spilled oil, but human intervention can make them much, much more effective.

[Nick_Jinn]

Thank you for that concession.

But 9% isnt "almost nobody". Thats about a tenth. There is also mid growth forests being encroached on, so its not just post consumer material and sustainable tree farms that take a hit with excessive paper consumption.


Now, sustainable forestry is possible....in theory it could be a clean resource, we just are not there yet.




Kind of like nuclear.....cold fusion, or even alternative fission reactions that dont produce as much toxic or radioactive byproducts are much preferable to the outdated technology that is currently cheap and plentiful.

[P4man]

Oil in the gulf is disappearing fast. The area has many many natural oil seeps and there are lots and lots of bacteria eating up the oil.

It seems out of place, unnatural even to think that crude oil is eaten, but it simply is eaten, the environment cleans itself up.

thankfully it does. Some water areas which dont have a lot of seeps and are colder, the environment takes a lot longer for the oil to degrade. I actually think if oil has to spill somewhere, the gulf was the best place for it.
http://commoditysurge.blogspot.com/2010/07/microbes-saving-bp-nysebp-and-gulf.html

There is a problem with those bacteria though.. they take out all the oxygen from the water. The effects of that can be disastrous, much more so than you would believe if i told you, so just google for oceanic anoxic event before you ridicule me when i tell you those very bacteria likely killed the dinosaurs (and over 90% of all life on earth).

Not saying I think this spill will trigger such a worldwide event, just that this isnt exactly good for the local environment. I also think global warming may already be triggering such an event by stopping the gulf stream, but thats for another discussion.

[Nick_Jinn]

The paper towels are not going to make a dent in that though. Its just going to waste trees.....even if its mostly tree farms and some old growth forests.

But you are right. The oil is disastrous. We changed the eco-system by feeding those bacteria.

[sdowney717]

Algae make oxygen, there is a balance established which gets knocked over but it gets restored.
http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/


"No doubt about it... hands down the most important organism on this planet is marine algae."

the lowly algae could solve the oil dilema
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/road-trip/


It is estimated that between 70% and 80% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by marine plants . Nearly all marine plants are single celled, photosynthetic algae. Yup, that's right, good ol' scum on the pond…green gak…..slip slimein' away. Even marine seaweed is many times colonial algae. They are a bunch of single cells trying to look like a big plant (see seaweed photo), but they are really individuals.

http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/images/2.jpg

[Nick_Jinn]

Algea is important, but that doesnt mean our forests are expendable. I think recent studies show that most oxygen in our atmosphere is still produced on land, not in the sea.

And besides oxygen, the old growth forests are perhaps a little better at trapping carbon, regardless of who is the biggest oxygen producer. Trees suck up carbon from the AIR. Algea and sea plants suck it up from the WATER. If we want our ATMOSPHERE to have less greenhouse gasses we need to preserve our land based carbon suckers, ie, the old growth forests. New new growth and surface vegetation just doesnt trap as much carbon as the giant redwoods do.

[utnubuuser]

Those aren't paper towels... It's a special material (petro chemical) that only absorbs the oil and not the water

The bacteria thing is propaganda bull!

Want to watch a good video on the oil spill? here:
http://sazeit.com/main/Ted-Talks-Video-of-the-month

The only way to clean up oil is to not use it at all.

BP used millions of liters of dispersant, that means the oil is now disolved into the water in itty bitty teeny weeny little microscopic droplets that no one will ever know they're eating, breathing, drinking...

[Nick_Jinn]

Yeah, I know. Those are different, but I know for a fact that they have been using regular disposable paper towels as well. It just looks so wasteful.

And it isnt about helping the environment. Its about short term cosmetic benefits.


The exception of course is when they are helping clean the animals vs every stretch of tourist beach front.

[sdowney717]

The only way to clean up oil is to not use it at all.

then get rid of all plastics and modern medicine.
get rid of airplanes and trucks and ships.

Go back 200 years. go back to sailing with wood boats, horse drawn carts and awful dirty disease infested hospitals, no plastics surfaces means wood with germs.
no tubing for IV's. the entire industry of modern medicine gone.

You cant even use steam power because they are oiled, all metal machines are oiled.

How about setting up an agrarian utopia? Like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

[P4man]

then get rid of all plastics and modern medicine.
get rid of airplanes and trucks and ships.


I wouldnt say dont use it, but for Pete's sake lets stop (or at least minimize) burning it. Oil is such a fantastic product with so many applications that burning it all in just a few generations is criminal.

[sdowney717]

but for Pete's sake lets stop (or at least minimize) burning it

ok, i agree with the overall idea of not using it in the same old way.

http://algae-book.com/uncategorized/algae-biofuel-could-cost-only-1-per-gallon-from-darpa/


Algae Biofuel Could Cost Only $1 Per Gallon From DARPA
Darpa talks algae oil. Now if they really can get this working what do you think about the future of oil?

[Paqman]

Trees suck up carbon from the AIR. Algea and sea plants suck it up from the WATER.

Same same. Excess carbon in the atmosphere dissolves into the sea.

[Nick_Jinn]

I dont know if this is just another conspiracy theory or not, but I have met people who gave talks and claimed that their life was threatened because of inventions they came up with that threatened our dependence on oil for transportation.....I sort of believe it.


The people with the money are not rushing towards the alternative. They want to slow down progress as much as possible to squeeze every last drop of profit from the old monopolies before they move on....they have technology they are just sitting on, waiting for it to become 'economically viable'.....that doesnt mean its too costly to produce or for consumers to afford, that means that their obscene profits would vanish because the laws of supply and demand work better when you artificially create an environment of 'lack, want and need'.

[Nick_Jinn]

Same same. Excess carbon in the atmosphere dissolves into the sea.


Yeah, it does, but not as rapidly as when trees take it directly from the air.


They are both important. You cant neglect either. The algae is by no means expendable, but we cant just waste our old growth forests and think that algea is going to cover the discreetly.....especially not at the rate that the ocean dead zones are expanding. We cant afford to just cut down the forests and think that some other part of the ecosystem is going to make up for it.