Is it moral for crematoria to generate electricity with their waste heat?

[Annie]

Thanks for the recommendation

 

[TK421]

The only problem I can conceive of is that the heat generated by burning a body is technically part of the body. The products of combustion are less massive than the reactants by the mass-equivalent of the heat released.

Combustion is a chemical change, not a physical change. The heat is not technically part of the body.

 

[redcatholic]

At the very least it could be incentive for some crematoriums to actually do the job they are supposed to do. How many news stories in the last decade or so involved bodies being illegally stored in odd places because they were not being cremated…

 

[whatistrue]

The dead are not fuel or ingredients.

Specifically, the dead body is not the fuel that generates the heat for cremation. That is generated using an outside source of fuel such as natural gas or propane, not the body itself.

 

[ReaderT]

Specifically, the dead body is not the fuel that generates the heat for cremation. That is generated using an outside source of fuel such as natural gas or propane, not the body itself.

Yes, but then the body keeps the fire going and is therefore fueling the fire. The article mentions “heat from the combustion of each corpse” powering televisions. The whole thing is inhuman and I wonder where it stops (can we make corpses into car fuel? Sofa stuffing?) Reminds me of the Nazis.

 

[FiveLinden]

Just on the physics of it all - the heat generated from the combustion of a body in a crematorium must be absolutely tiny compared to the heat used to create the rapid combustion. Most of this, as with all fires, goes up the chimney. There are devices which will capture such heat (for example a wetback on a wood fire and use or store the heat energy which otherwise goes into the atmosphere. I think this is what is being discussed about electricity generation. Presumably a small steam generator would be used to either charge batteries or supply a local grid.

A more relevant question to the issue of treating human bodies with respect (I would have thought) is the emission of particles from the crematorium. These will generally be products of combustion and therefore not the ‘same’ as the original body particles. For example, they may be carbonised. I think for most cultures/systems of belief such particles should be kept apart from other human activities but are not themselves considered body parts. I am guessing this would be the Catholic view.

The ‘ashes’ left behind after a cremation are essentially bone, so only a part of the original body, most of which was water.

 

[mythbuster1]

I’m aware of that, but a megawatt-hour has the same mass regardless of its source.

 

[mythbuster1]

A human corpse is 55-70% water, which is not only inert, but robs the furnace of heat, which is why external fuel is required to start and even to maintain the fire. Even so, you are correct that the combustion of human flesh does release energy, and the fattier the corpse, the more energy it releases.

 

[mythbuster1]

Even though Western Christians are allowed to be cremated, the ashes still have to be treated with the same respect as an intact body. They are not to be divided among several urns, nor scattered, nor even kept in homes indefinitely, but rather buried in a grave or mozelium on consecrated ground.

 

[whatistrue]

then the body keeps the fire going

Not significantly. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I understand that the amount of extra energy added by the body itself can essentially be treated as being within the limits of accuracy of a temperature measuring device at the levels of heat in a crematory.

 

[GEddie]

I’d say not.

Cremation does not use the human body as fuel. In fact, a huge amount of fuel is needed to consume the mostly watery body.

That fuel produces a lot of heat, so making use of that heat only makes sense.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ReaderT]

Not significantly. I don’t have the figures readily available, but I understand that the amount of extra energy added by the body itself can essentially be treated as being within the limits of accuracy of a temperature measuring device at the levels of heat in a crematory.

I’ll refrain from commenting because we (Easterners) teach cremation isn’t appropriate to begin with, so whatever follows isn’t appropriate either.

 

[Dan123]

The article mentions “heat from the combustion of each corpse” powering televisions.

It may be worth keeping in mind it’s an article trying to get you to read and discuss it. I actually heard about this technology a few years ago and the heat recovery was from the gasses going up the flue. It was coupled with a process that recovered mercury in those gasses so we wouldn’t be spewing mercury (often from dental fillings) into the atmosphere.

That sounds like Nazis to you?

 

[mythbuster1]

Only in the sense that the Sonderkomandos used the heat from the crematoria to keep their cells warm. Of course, for all their privileges, the SKs were prisoners just as much as the other inmates. In fact, their first task upon being recruited to the SK was to dispose of their predecessors, driving home the point that no matter how much they served the Nazis, they were still marked for death.

 

[FiveLinden]

I have realised there is an endless opportunity for discussion on CAF by using the formula:

'Is it moral to [insert activity] in association with [insert other activity considered immoral or part of a sacred process by the Church].

For example 'Is it moral to **publicly shake hands with a notorious apostate?’ Or: 'Is it moral to sing a hymn as part of a choir if the hymn contains heretical concepts. Or: Is it moral to drink stored water in an emergency if it is from a container of holy water?’.