Reactions

WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR ACS?

From Oct. 12 to 26, complete an online survey at chemistry.org/visionsurvey to let us know what you think. Your ideas are important, as they will shape the strategic priorities and activities of the society.

Disaster ahead

In the pair of letters titled "Yucca Mountain Concerns" (C&EN, Aug. 1, page 6), Ralph L. Andersen's suggestion that "nuclear energy is poised to make major contributions over the next decade" seems to completely ignore the problems with safely transporting the waste products to fuel reprocessing plants and long-term storage facilities. Beyond the Yucca Mountain problems noted in Gordon L. Nelson's letter, either sabotage or accidents during any step in the sequence--reactor, truck/rail transport, fuel reprocessing, or waste storage--will cause disastrous consequences and likely result in sizable areas becoming uninhabitable for many years.

Dana L. Roth
Pasadena, Calif.

In defense of lawyers

As a Ph.D. chemist and a practicing lawyer, I was shocked to see Werner Zimmt's letter "Litigation overload" (C&EN, Sept. 5, page 6).

Using Zimmt's logic, chemists and chemistry should be held accountable for the following societal problems: drug abuse, because chemists have discovered and made drugs such as morphine, cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and a vast pharmacopoeia of designer drugs; environmental pollution, for toxic waste sites, the consumption of hydrocarbons, the depletion of the polar ozone layer, and the creation of pesticides such as DDT; the destruction of traditional family structure through hormone-based birth control pills, latex used in condoms, spermicide, and other reproduction-related drugs; the destruction of religious morals by supporting and promoting an objective and scientific view of the world; modern warfare, for creating dynamite, gunpowder, plastic explosives, nerve gas, and other lethal chemicals useful in weapons of mass destruction; and so on.

Using Zimmt's logic, chemists and scientists in general would have much to fear if a single individual can be held accountable for all of the ills caused by his or her profession. If society decided to hold Zimmt responsible for his role as a chemist and scientist for these myriad crimes against humankind and the global environment, he no doubt would want the best lawyer available to help him protect his life, liberty, and property.

Of course, the other alternative is that advocated by William Shakespeare's character Dick the Butcher in "Henry VI," part 2, who is a brigand and criminal intent on the violent overthrow of civilized society. He infamously says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The proposal was not designed to restore sanity. It was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of anarchy and violence, thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

The only part of Zimmt's letter that I can agree with is his last line: "Shakespeare had the right idea." Indeed he did.

Carter J. White
Houston

Negative on net energy

In "Ethanol Wins Big In Energy Policy," C&EN provides rather extensive coverage of ethanol from corn, including David Pimentel's criticism of ethanol's supposed "negative net energy," which he has recently estimated at about 29% (C&EN, Sept. 12, page 28). At the end of the article, I am quoted as saying that the net energy argument is irrelevant and should be discarded. This is true, but in the absence of more details, your readers may not know how to evaluate my claim that the whole net energy argument is irrelevant, even foolish. Here are some of those details.

The net energy argument is foolish because it rests on a falsehood--that all British thermal units from all sources are created equal. This is untrue. Otherwise we would not pay 10 times more for a kilocalorie of electricity than we do a for a kilocalorie of coal, or five times as much for a kilocalorie of oil as a kilocalorie of coal. Pimentel's net energy analysis only accounts for quantity of energy and takes no account of energy quality--a fundamental and egregious error.

This fundamental error is compounded by Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek's failure to compare ethanol with other energy sources. Using their definitions and methods of calculating ethanol's net energy, gasoline has a "net energy" of -39% versus ethanol's supposed -29%. Electricity has an enormous 235% net energy. If ethanol is a bad fuel because it has a negative net energy, then we should immediately close all refineries and all coal-fired power plants.

At an Aug. 23 forum at the National Press Club, Pimentel advocated converting coal into diesel fuel, which yields 1 Btu of diesel from 2 Btu of coal. The math is easy: one minus two divided by one for a net energy of -100%. Apparently, negative net energy is only bad for ethanol and not for other fuels.

It is time to bury the foolish, misleading, and unproductive net energy debate. Instead we should concentrate on improving the economic and environmental performance of ethanol from corn and cellulose materials. Ethanol is and will be an important contributor to ending our near total dependence on petroleum for liquid fuels.

Bruce E. Dale
East Lansing, Mich.