I found this very cool butane torch on sale:
http://www.chefdepot.net/minitorch.htm and, in the description, it
says, "...ozone friendly, too!" So I started to wonder... does
butane have less environmental impact than other fuels? I know
MAPP is a petroleum by-product, which makes me shy of using it, but
I assumed propane was natural gas, which seems to be less of a
problem. I'm no expert, though. Anyone know about this?
Interesting ad, Lisa. For one, I enjoyed their bit about their
butane being the hottest burning available. Cool. (pun intended) I
rather expect that makes it identical to all other butane types, as
there should be no difference between one brand of butane and
another. Equally interesting is the Ozone friendly claim. Does that
mean it LIKES Ozone? Hmm. Maybe it means it doesn’t produce ozone as
a combustion product. OKaaaay. neither does burning any other of our
usual fuel gasses, actually. Does it mean that it’s not producing
fluorocarbon type gasses like Freon or other fluorocarbons that harm
the ozone layer? Again, neither do other fuel gasses. Probably they
mean their brand of butane cans is pressurized with something that
contains no fluorocarbons, which harm the ozone layer. Okay, now
THAT’s cool. But that’s just their brand of butane canisters, and
has nothing to do with the torch itself. And I’d not be surprised if
the other major manufacturers of butane canisters are also
fluorocarbon free, the same as almost all spray can products on the
market these days. So while the Ozone friendly claim is likely true
on this aspect, I’d guess it’s mostly marketing hype, rather than any
actual feature not found on the competitors. This is especially
likely when you consider that butane, like LPG gas (natural gas)
liquefies at relatively low pressures, and the remaining free butane
gas in the “air space” does just fine to pressurize the can. A can of
butane does not need much in the way of additives to pressurize the
can. I could be wrong, and perhaps some brands use fluorocarbons to
pressurize the can, but I doubt it. My guess is that the ozone
friendly claim is about like selling pencils on the basis that they
are wireless/cordless and don’t need batteries.20
As to other environmental aspects of butane as a fuel, it’s more
serious. All hydrocarbon fuel gasses produce, if properly burned, two
main combustion products. one is H2O, or water. The other is CO2,
carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas. If it’s producing less
CO2, then it’s producing even more toxic CO, carbon monoxide, or
simply releasing the hydrocarbon gas unburned into the atmosphere
(perhaps an even worse greenhouse gas in some cases.)
As to differences in fuel gases, Butane and Propane are both
generally byproducts of refining either natural gas or petroleum.
Neither is totally “natural”, and natural gas itself is also not in
any significant way more environmentally friendly than other
hydrocarbon gases, except that because it’s coming straight from the
ground, less energy is expended in coming up with the final product,
so less pollution from manufacturing the stuff. But Natural gas is
just as much a greenhouse gas as any other hydrocarbon gas, up to and
including the gasoline vapors that escape when you fill your car’s
gas tank, or the natural methane released by fermentation of wood by
termites, or the intestinally produced methane from the worlds cows
(who generally fart much more prodigiously than some of the guys in
our office due to the fact that their digestion is based literally on
fermentation of their food).
The only fuel gas I know of which is NOT a greenhouse gas in this way
is pure hydrogen, who’s combustion product is pure water. But of
course, producing hydrogen generally is done by electrolysis, and
that means electricity, and unless you’re getting that juice from a
solar panel or wind farm, or perhaps nuclear plant, you’re right
back to creating at least some pollution, and likely greenhouse gas
of some sort, somewhere. The amounts may vary, certainly, and
hydrogen’s clean burning is why it’s considerably more desirable in
greenhouse effects, than, say, gasoline in automobiles. But perfect?
Nope.
As to that torch, it’s designed for Creme Brule. For that it’s ideal
(though for me, it’s kinda pricey). For your other environmental
concerns, it’s got no advantage, at least not based on it’s fuel gas
choice. And butane, despite the impressive claims of that ad,
actually burns cooler than most other fuels we use, so a soldering
torch burning butane will have a harder time getting your metal hot
enough to solder than will a torch using natural gas, propane
(slightly hotter), Mapp (even hotter still), acetylene (hotter yet
again), or hydrogen (hottest, if burned pure, often “cooled” with
vapor fluxing units using organic solvents like acetone or
methanol).
If you really want environmentally friendly soldering and heating,
get a large fresnel lens, build a solar furnace, and use focused
sunlight. Rather hard to control, but actually possible. As a kid I
got such a kit from Edmund scientific, and that foot square lens, on
a bright sunny day, could easily melt a small bit of brass on a
charcoal briquette… I never tried soldering that way, but
presumably it could be done. Not much good for night owl jewelers,
though…
The truth of the matter is that much of what we do is a long way
from being even close to environmentally friendly, and it’s probably
fair to say that most of us are guilty of using products or materials
that are causing harm of some sort, somewhere, even if we never see
it or are aware of it… Our metals, to begin with, are often obtained
via mining methods that produce disgracefully damaging effects on the
environment. See the article about this in the latest Metalsmith
magazine, titled I think, “The Price of Gold”… One of the more
interesting presentations at the recent SNAG conference was a panel
presentation on this very subject by, among others, the authors of
that article… Sobering indeed, and without obvious easy answers if
we still wish to use precious (or other) metals.
It’s important for all of us to educate ourselves on environmental
issues, and learn to lead the way for our industry, and our society,
in responsible use of resources, and responsible residency on this
planet. But I’d suggest that marketing claims for a product are
probably a poor place to start with the education… (Orchid,
however, is a GREAT place.)
Cheers.
Hope that helps.
Peter Rowe