Fuel at $1.50 per gallon

[Robertcateran]

1 kg of fuel makes almost 4kg of CO2. 10L of fuel gives about 100kms 100kms an hour gives almost 40kg of CO2 or 80 pounds of CO2

[jzk]

Originally Posted by elcubanito

My desicion had nothing to do with oil prices going up. It had to do with the fact that I couldn't go to sleep peacefully knowing that my car pumped CO2 at the rate of 33 pounds/hour into the atmosphere.

Methinks you are taking bad advice. Carbon is the element of life, not some kind of pollutant.

However, bravo for actually living what you preach and believe!

[Alan Wheeler]

1 kg of fuel makes almost 4kg of CO2. 10L of fuel gives about 100kms 100kms an hour gives almost 40kg of CO2 or 80 pounds of CO2

That is not possible. Unless you have just managed to create cold fusion. You can not make more of something. Carbon is part of the hydrogen chain that makes up oil. Burning fuel is a chemical reaction called oxidation. More heat is produced as a result. The components left over are what goes out the exhaust. The large majority being carbon. But the carbon is only apart of what went in. There are many other nasties also produced. You can not produce more carbon, if you understand what I mean.

Methinks you are taking bad advice. Carbon is the element of life, not some kind of pollutant.

Yes, but in many different forms. Oxygen is also needed for life, but is toxic in a pure form to us. It is considered that the Black carbon is a very nasty substance to us and taken into our lungs, is considered quite carcinogenic. However, the issue with Diesel fumes is that there are many other nasties. The worst is the oil residue that has not burnt. The bad side to our environment with Diesel fumes, is that it is the worst offender for atmospheric discolouration. Or in other words, it produces visible smog. Petrol engines tend to be cleaner burning. However, there are some far nastier chemicals produced as it burns that are far more harmful to us and the environment. Carbon monoxide being one of them. So all in all, diesels is slightly better for the environment as far as noxious items are concerned, but it is the dirtier pollutant.
LPG on the other hand gives off water and Co2. It is one of the cleanest burning fuels.

As far as Carbon causing a suppossed Greenhouse affect, that simply is not true and yet we have some very squeaky wheels out there telling the world it does. Carbon does not absorb heat. Taking that analogy to an extreme, it is the fundemental reason why you can walk over a fire pit of burning embers. Carbon is a very poor conductor of heat and the sweat in your foot wicks away the heat from the embers surface and the heat internaly does not manage to transfer itself through the ember to continue heating your sweaty foot.
Another argument is that the carbon bounces infra red back down again. But if that were the case, then we would also have a reduction in heat getting to the planet surface in the first place. Plus, on top of all that, it has been shown that carbon dioxide has little affect on the infra red spectrum of light anyway.
However, that is not to say we should not try better at reducing our emissions. We do put far too much crap into the air we breath.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

That is not possible. Unless you have just managed to create cold fusion. You can not make more of something. Carbon is part of the hydrogen chain that makes up oil. .......................... You can not produce more carbon, if you understand what I mean.

Actually it is.

Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. Oxygen is 16. So 1.2 kg of carbon will, if completely burned, produce 4.4 kg of CO2 (1.2+1.6+1.6).

Carbon is an element. It's not part of the Hydrogen chain, Hydrogen being another element.

Petroleum products are basically Carbon chains - CH4 is methane, (fart gas) C2H6 is ethane, C3H8 is propane, and so on.

When you burn this stuff completely you get CO2 and H2O. Both are believed to be greenhouse gases.

[GordMay]

As Cruisingcat implies - the production of CO2 (combustion of C in O) does not represent an increase in carbon (it’s actually a decrease in both carbon & oxygen).
No mass has been magically “created” - carbon and oxygen have been combined to form carbon dioxide, of a mass equal to the combined “weights” of the constituents, and greater than each of the constituents separately.

[Robertcateran]

The point of greenhouse gases, is they hold the longer wavelengths but are more transparent to the shorter wavelengths. The shorter wavelengths come from the sunlight, are absorbed by the ground and water, and then they reemit at a longer wavelength. The bulk of scientists who have really studied the subject come to very similar conclusions. If someone could come up with a decent argument against this, then they would make their name, and be able to get lots of money from the coal industry. Unfortunately, the science gets stronger and stronger for warming from the extra CO2. My field, plant physiology, has plenty of evidence for the increase of CO2 affecting plant distribution and physiology, and every six months we have to recallibrate up as to the atmospheric level when we do our gaseous exchange experiments on the leaves.
What is of great concern, even without the warming, the extra CO2 affects the stability of the coral skeleton. If you can remember the high school science experiment where you blow into lime water and it turns cloudy, and if you blow a bit longer it turns clear again, is an example of what extra CO2 can do . The calcium carbonate in the form that is in coral is susceptible to weakening at a level of CO2 of 450 parts per million, less than the target forecasts of best case scenarios. This spells the end of the Great Barrier Reef. There have been plenty of experimentation confirming this finding
AS far as evidence of heating that appears more relevant to a sailor, the opening up of the NW passage says something.

Robert

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

Well, my habits have sure changed. No more coming in on Sunday to do the books. I do them on my regular trip to the shop. No more running to the store for a single item.

I have lived with those habits (pretty much) for 30+ years. Didn't help much - look where we are now.

[Nordic cat]

Living in Denmark, we are used to incredible taxation levels to pay for the most effective wealth redistribution scheme around. Top end income tax is 63%!!!!! (for all taxable income over around 70.000 US$/year) Cars are taxed at 182%.

Getting back to fuel prices, ours are at the top end in Europe, even though we have oil production here.

The only way to bring down fuel prices in the long term is to lower consumption, and with the increase in oil consumption from emerging markets, there is no way it is going to happen. So we have to look at other sources of energy if we want to maintain our standard of living.

More than 10% of our energy comes from wind turbines, both on and offshore "farms" The large turbines now produce more than 5MW each, and have blade diameters of more than 120 meters.

We pay around 0.4 US$ per kWh for electricity, which is also due to taxation, but the electricity distribution companies have to buy all excess electricity generated by wind turbines at a price that is a fixed percentage under their sales price, so if you invest in a turbine, you are guaranteed a customer. Of course the electricity companies all moaned about this for many years, now they are the ones investing in wind power.

CO2 quotas are forcing companies and power companies to rethink their strategies and come up with solutions for saving energy and lowering the CO2 emissions.

Waste incineration plants burn waste, generate electricity, and sell the heat for district heating.

Manure from farms is used to generate methane that powers engines that generate electricity and excess heat for heating.


What all this means, is that we as consumers are not going to take the initiative alone, we need the law makers to get involved in making decsions that strong lobbies are going to fight all the way. They also need to make legislation that is unpopular with all the voters. But for the long term it is the only solution.

When the money taken in from these taxes is recycled into subsidies to bring down energy consumption, it might not be the perfect world, but it does help change. Use of solar heat, heat pumps, better insulation, more efficient appliances, all get subsidised to get us to take better decisions.

For example, after paying 182% tax on your car, there is an annual "road tax" this is based on the mileage your cars does, In Europe there is a CE norm for measuring this. The more inefficient your car is, the more you pay. The car with the lowest consumption pays nothing, and it goes up from there. My car is rated at around 8.7 km/l, so I pay 2000 US$/year in road tax.

So my next car is going to be a lot more efficient.

Most of us make decisions based on our wallets - so a mixture of stick and carrot is the only way to change things. If we don't start, we will forever be dependent on the major oil producing countries, and their whims.

As for CO2 being the terrible gas that is creating the weather changes - I am not a believer.
CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, air is around 29, so CO2 is heavier than air, and will therefore sink down to the lowest areas,i.e sea level. The partial pressure of CO2 in the air and water will equalise ( that's why a soft drink or beer fizzes when opened), so water will absorb CO2 depending on the salinity or rather total salt concentration. CO2 and water react to form a weak acid which leads to other things, but the CO2 is absorbed.

One major volcanic eruption generates more CO2 than all the fuel we burn in a year.

So that's why I think the whole CO2 debate is just a cover for more taxation in most cases, but if that is what works, then OK, I value my freedom from Russian or middle east politicians/dictators more than driving a big gas guzzling vehicle.

Just MHO

Regards

Alan

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Nordic cat

One major volcanic eruption generates more CO2 than all the fuel we burn in a year.

So that's why I think the whole CO2 debate is just a cover for more taxation in most cases, but if that is what works, then OK, I value my freedom from Russian or middle east politicians/dictators more than driving a big gas guzzling vehicle.

Just MHO

Regards

Alan

I agree.
It is a "Green Scam" like the bumper sticker says.
But "the public" will not stop unless it hits their ability to "eat".
Like all animals who have found a field of grain to graze on. We will eat till starvation thins the herd.
Nature provides all.........untill it is gone.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Alan Wheeler

Yes, but in many different forms.

Yes, but in the form at hand, CO2, it is the very gas that makes photosynthesis possible! And some would try to call it a pollutant?

But, it seems that we agree anyway!

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Nordic cat

Top end income tax is 63%!!!!! (for all taxable income over around 70.000 US$/year)

Fookin 'ell We are moaning down here that Govt is going to make people pay 20% (it's actually been that same rate for 60 odd years - except now we get allowances that drops the effective rate).

My car is rated at around 8.7 km/l, so I pay 2000 US$/year in road tax.

So my next car is going to be a lot more efficient.

2K a year!. We got rid of annual road tax 10/15 years ago - and stuck something on Petrol - cos' it was cheaper to collect.......presently car less at the moment - seriously thinking of getting a BIG Gas Guzzling 4 x 4. cos' they are cheap (as Petrol Consumption = Yikes! - and Petrol here is about the same price as the UK, not sure exactly what ) and I would use only once a week on average, so running costs not an issue.......but mainly so I can put a sticker in the back window........"Runs on Recycled Rainforest and Baby Seal Oil"

[heron237]

It's lower on the refining scale?

[Alan Wheeler]

No mass has been magically “created” - carbon and oxygen have been combined to form carbon dioxide, of a mass equal to the combined “weights” of the constituents, and greater than each of the constituents separately.

That is what I was trying to say. I am sorry but my Dislexia causes me to struggle to describe what I think. Plus I can't spell worth a damn either.

if completely burned, produce 4.4 kg of CO2

Arr but you see, there is the problem. It does not get completely burned. In fact the process is very inefficient.
Complete combustion is as you say and looks like this.
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O But internal combustion is not so complete for many various reasons. One the complexity of the Hydrocarbon making the particular fuel and the complexity of the air being taken into the engine and finaly the complexity of the combustion in the cylinder and exhaust. Combusion will look more complex, something like this. CH4 + 2O2 + 7.52N2 → CO2 + 2H2O + 7.52N2 + heat Many petrol engines have had a lot of refinment over the years at trying to become more efficient at dealing with the by products. Some have been in the cylinder itself with how the combustion cycle runs it's course, reulsting in efficiency gains, and others deal with the noxiuos fumes outside of the engine, like Catylitic converters and have sometimes resulted in less efficiency. We are only just now seeing advances in Diesel technology that result in better efficiencies and control of harmful emission.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

When you burn this stuff completely you get CO2 and H2O. Both are believed to be greenhouse gases.

H2O is a greenhouse gas?

I better go turn the kettle off...

[David M]

Water, in the form of clouds and of snow increases the albedo effect, effectively reducing warming.