There was an interesting program on the BBC last week about the quest for absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin or -273.15 degrees Celcius). Part two is tonight but I keep thinking about a statement in last week's program: a pint of liquid nitrogen costs less than a pint of milk.
Finding this a bit hard to believe I did some searching on the web and found that a gallon of liquid Nitrogen costs about 2 dollars
. That's roughly 0.5 dollars per litre. That's 0.32 euro.
Milk costs 0.93 euro a litre at Holland's biggest grocer.
Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit absurd? Here we have one the one hand a product that requires a cow that essentially is able to maintain itself by eating grass, which grows on sunlight off all things, and on the other hand we have a product that requires large amounts of energy to produce in chemical plants.
Compounding this: milk should essentially cost more than it does, as supermarkets use milk to get in customers and are essentially selling it at a loss (or break-even at best) so we buy more luxury goods like coke and pringles and individually wrapped cookies and whatnot. We won't even get into the fact that milk is so cheap because we keep our cows in the millions and have selectively bred them so they produce 16 litres of milk per day instead of the 2 they originally did.
Anyway: tonight is part two of 'The quest for absolute zero' at a seriously ungodly hour for a working person but the DVR is patient. The production of said DVR probably used liquid Nitrogen at some point.