(Soylent) Green Energy!

[aerius]

http://www.livescience.com/17286-burnin ... icity.html

Burning Deceased Baby Boomers Could Generate Electricity
Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
Date: 02 December 2011 Time: 12:47 PM ET

In Durham, England, corpses will soon be used to generate electricity. A crematorium is installing turbines in its burners that will convert waste heat from the combustion of each corpse into as much as 150 kilowatt-hours of juice — enough to power 1,500 televisions for an hour. The facility plans to sell the electricity to local power companies.

Some might find this concept creepy. Others might be pleased to learn that the process "makes cremation much greener by utilizing its by-products," in the words of cremation engineer Steve Looker, owner and chief executive officer of the Florida-based company B&L Cremation Systems, which is unaffiliated with the Durham enterprise.

In Europe, tightening regulations on crematorium emissions, coupled with the high price of energy, will lead more and more facilities to go the way of Durham in the future, Looker said. Will crematories in the United States follow suit?

According to Looker, whose company is currently testing different methods of utilizing cremation waste heat, the expensive turbine systems being installed in Durham are not yet economically viable for crematories here. "In the U.S., most crematories don't have enough through-put," he told Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. "Cremation in some parts of Europe is over 90 percent, but it is not over 50 percent yet here." That is, less than half of Americans opt for cremation. Most are buried.

Consequently, while burners in Europe typically run 24 hours day, ones in America operate only eight hours each day, Looker said. "A typical turbine system would cost somewhere between $250,000 to $500,000. If it's running 24 hours a day, that's a five-year payback. If it's running eight hours a day, that's a 15- or 20-year payback, which isn't feasible," he said.

However, Looker is hopeful that the situation could change in the near future. "Over the next ten years, with the baby boomers coming through, cremation is going to reach 75 to 80 percent. Then, this might be feasible."

Furthermore, a turbine designed by a company called Thermal Dynamic Engineering, which produces just 50 kilowatt-hours of energy but is much less expensive to install than the Durham system, will be available in the near future, Looker said.

Thus, it may indeed come to pass that deceased baby boomers will someday help power your household appliances.

How many people died so that you can have the electricity to enjoy your modern lifestyle?

[Dave]

I would think, technically, you're just recapturing energy released from burning natural gas, since bodies, being 70 percent water, are not net-energy positive from combustion. (Though you could dry them.)

Note: I'm not very familiar with crematoriums.

[His Divine Shadow]

Coal lobbyist dream come true, no longer will coal have the highest death to kilowatt-hour ratio.

I would think, technically, you're just recapturing energy released from burning natural gas, since bodies, being 70 percent water, are not net-energy positive from combustion. (Though you could dry them.)

Yeah that's what we do with firewood, just stack them up and let them dry out in the sun.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

I'm somewhat surprised that no one has thought of attaching a small steam turbine to something that generates huge amounts of waste heat...

Though it not being economical is a viable reason... somewhat. It's always short term in those calculations.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, if people don't do it because they find it ghoulish and disturbing to get electricity from burning corpses... well, I support that decision. I find it kind of disturbing myself.

The whole point of having funeral customs is that we don't want to treat people's dead bodies like so many random pieces of refuse. There is a sentimental and a social value to a human being, and I think there's a lot to be said for insisting that the value doesn't entirely disappear the moment they die. So producing goods by disposing of human bodies is something I think we can afford to avoid doing, all else being equal.

[Zaune]

Brings new meaning to the phrase "human resources", doesn't it? And I have to say I agree with Simon, up to a point; personally I wouldn't particularly care if it was me they were laying to rest, but I can see how it might be a good idea to make this an opt-in thing.

[Ahriman238]

Zoobs are people!

I don't have a problem with this. There's a placei n the US where you can have your ashes compacted into a miniscule diamond.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think the payoff justifies the practice at all- 150 kilowatt-hours is worth, oh, probably less than ten dollars, certainly not a lot more.

At that level, the social opportunity cost of not burning corpses to generate electricity is really quite small, in my opinion. We do many things that are more expensive and a good deal sillier.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The crematorium is implementing it on its own volition. If people don't wish to have their bodies burnt at a place that recycles some of the energy they can go elsewhere. Are you saying this place shouldn't allow people the choice to have their cremation done there because someone else might have beliefs about the sanctity of funereal customs?

And while this is a nitpick, you're not making energy from burning corpses; the human body takes energy to cremate. They're taking the exhaust from their burner and just putting some of the heat they'd be tossing out to good use.

[aerius]

I don't think the payoff justifies the practice at all- 150 kilowatt-hours is worth, oh, probably less than ten dollars, certainly not a lot more.

10 cents/kWh is a pretty average price, works out to $15 per corpse. They're saying the turbine system costs a quarter to half mil, so that's about 16700 to 33000 dead bodies to break even. They're saying 5 years to get a payback so that's 9-18 bodies a day, that sounds like a pretty good burn rate.

[KhorneFlakes]

The most amusing thing I find about crematoriums is that you can apparently have your ashes made into gunpowder in some countries.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think the payoff justifies the practice at all- 150 kilowatt-hours is worth, oh, probably less than ten dollars, certainly not a lot more.

10 cents/kWh is a pretty average price, works out to $15 per corpse.

I lowballed the price of electricity.

Anyway, Jogurt- suffice to say that I would be uncomfortable to see these turbines become a common practice, for reasons that can't be easily nailed down in terms of syllogisms. But to keep the subject to things I can explain in short form:

Do I want to close down this crematorium because of the turbine? No.

Do I expect their business to drop off a bit on account of the turbine? Probably.

Do I think it's unfair or unreasonable if their business drops off? Not at all- one of the obligations any undertaker or other funeral-related custom has is to not creep out the clients unnecessarily.

[someone_else]

The whole point of having funeral customs is that we don't want to treat people's dead bodies like so many random pieces of refuse. There is a sentimental and a social value to a human being, and I think there's a lot to be said for insisting that the value doesn't entirely disappear the moment they die. So producing goods by disposing of human bodies is something I think we can afford to avoid doing, all else being equal.

Why? A corpse is not a person. Besides, cremation is done after a funeral, so you have all the time to say goodbye.

You will have to leave him/her go anyway and proceed with your life if you want to live happy.

Besides I'd rather prefer that my atoms are back into the life cycle than sealed into a vault for an unspecified amount of time, there only to satisfy my relative's attachment to something that is now gone.
That's an unhealthy state of mind.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

People have irrational beliefs about death in many ways; telling them that a corpse isn't a person isn't likely to change their opinion much. A better way to show this in a good light is to just look at it as just a new form of funereal service, a new option to choose from. I'm sure there are a lot of people who dislike cremation sans-energy recycling, too, but you're not forcing it upon them so having the choice there doesn't hurt anyone (well, the burning of all that fuel might be an issue, but that's another matter).

[Simon_Jester]

Why? A corpse is not a person. Besides, cremation is done after a funeral, so you have all the time to say goodbye.

A corpse is not a person and I have no fundamental problem with cremation/dispersal of ashes/whatever.

For me, the sticking point is that I think there is a valid social reason behind funeral customs- you will note that basically all societies have special customs for disposal of the dead, rituals and so on, regardless of what religious beliefs or other cultural traits they may have.

I think that showing a certain amount of ceremony and respect for the dead helps us to preserve the idea that we should apply a certain amount of ceremony and respect for the living- that we should not dispose of people casually, that life is precious, and that there is a certain amount of necessary dignity we need to grant each other in order to be happy and healthy as a society.

This can mean 'inefficient' expenditures of resources on ceremony. That's not the worst thing in the world, if you ask me.

Now, personally I think using someone's cremation to power a steam turbine is disrespectful, and I don't like it. Do I think the crematorium which does this should be shut down for doing it? No. But I'm hardly going to condemn anyone who decides they don't want their relatives' bodies burned there.

[KhorneFlakes]

Just wondering, Simon: Relating to my previous post, what would be your feelings that if you were cremated after dying, and your ashes were made into gunpowder instead of being burnt for energy? Would that feel less disturbing?

[Simon_Jester]

That would also feel quite disturbing as something that might happen to my ashes, since I have no desire whatsoever for such a thing to happen to me.

Again, if some other person wants that for themselves, fine- the demand for dignity has more to do with the wishes of the deceased in general than it does with the wishes of me in particular.

[KhorneFlakes]

K. I imagined that would probably be the answer for most people.

One thing with cremation I've never understood is why it's popular. When I look at other people's reason's for wanting to be cremated on death or relatives wanting a dead relative to be cremated, is that... well, you're incinerating the corpse. And leaving ashes. I guess it's a sentimentality thing.

When I die, my wishes for how my body should be handled would be to have my skeleton buried, with a marker left there to indicate that human remains have been buried there. The rest of my body will eventually rot anyway - part of the reason why I find myself wondering why people choose to have their body untouched on death.

I guess human burial customs and views on how corpses should be treated is funny like that. I don't really understand the "get your ashes made into gunpowder" thing either, but if you think about Shroom could probably turn it into some cool story.

[someone_else]

People have irrational beliefs about death in many ways; telling them that a corpse isn't a person isn't likely to change their opinion much.

I was just stating my opinion, changing someone's opinion on this matters would require at least direct interaction and even then is not likely to work.

well, the burning of all that fuel might be an issue, but that's another matter

Not that much. We use much more fuel (of any kind) just to stay warm and travel around the city for one single year. Adding a year on top of a 80-ish year period to destroy the remains isn't going to hurt much.

I think that showing a certain amount of ceremony and respect for the dead helps us to preserve the idea that we should apply a certain amount of ceremony and respect for the living

Mh, I've seen many people pay more respect to (their) dead than to (unknown) living people. But it's tangential here.

Besides, I find much more disrespectful sealing my remains in a airtight coffin (here the coffins have an internal metallic "box" that is soldered airtight by city officials due to clearly biohazardous content) for 30-40 years, condemning the living relatives to pay for the illumination of the tomb and the rent of the space (which isn't very high, but still enough to be a hit), and then end up in the cemetry's common grave when the contract reaches the agreed duration to make more space for new dead in the same place (no I still have to see a large cemetery like the ones in the US, all cemeteries I saw were basically capsule hotels with a coffin in each "room", and a small garden where only the ones that could afford the high rent could be buried (again temporarily).

Considering that none I know gives a shit about going to visit cemeteries here (only elderly do, and even then the generation that did is dying off), then i see no reason to be a so big fuss when I die (I always wanted to die in a gloriously catastrophic explosion where anything in range is nearly atomized, btw). If they can recollect some of the power expended to reduce my body to ashes, better still, the less fuss the better.

I also like fire.

I also like the idea of being turned into gunpowder as well, since I like explosives.

When I die, my wishes for how my body should be handled would be to have my skeleton buried, with a marker left there to indicate that human remains have been buried there. The rest of my body will eventually rot anyway

The skeleton should last a couple decades if in relatively fertile land (acid ph). If in less-fertile land (neutral ph) it can last close to forever.
Just so you properly choose where you wanna be buried.

One thing with cremation I've never understood is why it's popular. When I look at other people's reason's for wanting to be cremated on death or relatives wanting a dead relative to be cremated, is that... well, you're incinerating the corpse. And leaving ashes. I guess it's a sentimentality thing.

In many cases it is due to attachment. You cannot keep the tomb in your garden (at least in most places you cannot), while you can keep the box with ashes on a table and speak to it to satiate your insanity.

In countries like Italy, it is also a trick to avoid ludicrous burial costs (around 4000 euros for fucking burying someone without thrills, with cremation is somewhere around 2000) and as such chosen by most people that don't want to force their relatives to cough up that money upon their death (that money MUST be coughed up by someone, as required by law, and weirdly all companies handling this issues make the same high prices). And as i said above, tombs here aren't yours, they are rented for a while (depending on contract, at most a century, but that was 50 or so years ago, now the max is around 30-40 years or there isn't enough turnover for new ones). And after the contract expires the remains go in the cemetery's common grave (yes, feel free to scream at this).

Like my grandpa. He was extremely annoyed by the costs of tomb rent and lighting of his grandparents (silly contract, we after more than 50 years and not even knowing who the fuck they were beyond the names and a little trivia, still have to pay for their site since contract was something like a couple fucking centuries), and opted for cremation because it was the only way to avoid this annoyance to us too.