Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: funboy on July 23, 2006, 10:29:52 AM
-
Im hoping some of the members would be able to give me some information pertaining to the following subject. With all the information being released to the public about global warming and what seems to be our inevitable demise I have questions about CO2.
As ice thaws CO2 is released into the air, further thickening the ozone layer thus increasing global temperatures as heat from the sun cant be released as easily from the atmosphere. I dont have exact figures but it appears that since the pre-industrial era the % of CO2 has increased by approximately 17%. With plants being our main source for converting CO2 into Oxygen, if we were able to plant enough trees or even find an effecient method for converting CO2 to O through some highly sufisticated technolgy, wouldnt we have a drastic increase in the amount of Oxygen in the air?? Would we not be faced with yet another delima??
Is the only way to rectify this situation to somehow capture CO2 and keep it in a solid form ??
In looking at the molecular weight of CO2, carbon having a molar mass of 12 g/mol and Oxygen having a molar mass of 16g/mole (or 32g.mole in O2) wouldnt breaking down the amount of CO2 to the point where we were 100 - 150 years ago not increase the oxygen content in the air by aproximately 2/3 the amount of CO2 in the air (or 11% approximately)??
-
Although I might agree that global warming is a problem, it appears that several statements you posted are questionable and there are those who would take issues with your assumptions.
For instance, is this really the mechanism?
As ice thaws CO2 is released into the air, further thickening the ozone layer thus increasing global temperatures as heat from the sun cant be released as easily from the atmosphere.
What was it like when there were no polar icecaps and the dinosaurs roamed the earth?
How much carbon dioxide in the air would make the north and south pole to hot for humans?
what seems to be our inevitable demise I have questions about CO2.
Have you looked up the relative concentrations of all the gasses in the atmosphere?
In looking at the molecular weight of CO2, carbon having a molar mass of 12 g/mol and Oxygen having a molar mass of 16g/mole (or 32g.mole in O2) wouldnt breaking down the amount of CO2 to the point where we were 100 - 150 years ago not increase the oxygen content in the air by aproximately 2/3 the amount of CO2 in the air (or 11% approximately)??
Would it be better to convert the carbon dioxide to fuels and oxygen? Then burn the fuels to create carbon dioxide. Thus completing the cycle like plants and animals are doing currently. What caused the last global cooling during recorded history? Is what caused that cooling also a factor in the global temperature?
if we were able to plant enough trees or even find an effecient method for converting CO2 to O through some highly sufisticated technolgy, wouldnt we have a drastic increase in the amount of Oxygen in the air?? Would we not be faced with yet another delima??
When you enter the global warming debate, be well informed.
Clean dry air (approximately)
N 78.084%
O 20.947%
Ar 0.934%
CO2 0.033%
-
I am not entering a debate or pretending to be well informed. hence why I posted on here for information.
True, melting of ice contributes minimal to CO2 emmisions, the burning of fuels plays a much larger part, it was just an example I was using
The idea of converting CO2 to fuels + oxygen sounds like the best sollutions I have heard of, unfortunately I have only heard about it at this point (very uniformed apparently)
Thanks for the information you provided, had I known the % of CO2, I probably would never have posted this question.
Chris
-
It seems that even bio-diesel has issues
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=8300.msg46053#msg46053
So the topic becomes even more complicated
-
The idea of converting CO2 to fuels + oxygen sounds like the best solutions I have heard of, unfortunately I have only heard about it at this point (very uniformed apparently)
Check out this thread (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=9450.0)
Removing atmospheric CO2 is a very tacky issue. We cannot discard CO2 into space because this upsets the material balance in the carbon cycle. Pumping CO2 underground weakens the geological stability of the CO2 waste site, so this is also not a good solution. Unless we found a way to furthur catalyse the photosynthesis process (Kelvin's Cycle) so that it can be industrialised, I am not able to see how CO2 capturing system will improve the global warming situation.
-
I'm starting to wonder if hydrogen burning engines would be a better solution than the hydrogen fuel cell. It seams like it may be cheaper to implement. Atleast in the near future possibly a better idea.
If we could just eleminate fossil fuels (which is currently impossible) then we wouldn't have to worry about CO2 as much.
Go fission power, fusion power, hydrogen burning engines, and hydrogen fuel cells!
-
Although I favour fuel cell, I think electric cars might be way to go in future.
Oil is depleting, but not coal. According to the BP Chief Scientist, we have 1000 years of coal reserve. This means electricity will not be a problem. However, if cars were to run on electricity, then we need to increase the electricity generation to meet the new level of demand due to replacement of gasoline vehicles for electric ones.
This itself is not an impossible logistics task. There must be more coal plants, more nuclear plants and more alternative energy plants to generate electricity. I wonder if the current method of energy generation by coal plants can be improved. Perhaps there are other fluids which are better off at transforming heat energy from the combustion of coal into kinetic energy to drive the turbines. Why are we still at steam? It is the 21st century already.
-
I'm starting to wonder if hydrogen burning engines would be a better solution than the hydrogen fuel cell. It seams like it may be cheaper to implement. Atleast in the near future possibly a better idea.
If we could just eleminate fossil fuels (which is currently impossible) then we wouldn't have to worry about CO2 as much.
Go fission power, fusion power, hydrogen burning engines, and hydrogen fuel cells!
While employing hydrogen combusion engines would allow us to bypass the issue of creating affordable fuel cells, it would not solve the problems of producing hydrogen fuel cleanly and efficiently, building an infrastructure to transport and distribute the hydrogen fuel, and engineering facilities and cars which can store the hydrogen safely and efficiently. While hydrogen combusion engines could be a good temporary step made to increase demand for hydrogen fuel and a hydrogen infrastructure, I think it is more likely that we will solve the cost issues with fuel cells before we solve the issues pertaining to the production, transport, and storage of the hydrogen fuel.
Although I favour fuel cell, I think electric cars might be way to go in future.
Oil is depleting, but not coal. According to the BP Chief Scientist, we have 1000 years of coal reserve. This means electricity will not be a problem. However, if cars were to run on electricity, then we need to increase the electricity generation to meet the new level of demand due to replacement of gasoline vehicles for electric ones.
This itself is not an impossible logistics task. There must be more coal plants, more nuclear plants and more alternative energy plants to generate electricity. I wonder if the current method of energy generation by coal plants can be improved. Perhaps there are other fluids which are better off at transforming heat energy from the combustion of coal into kinetic energy to drive the turbines. Why are we still at steam? It is the 21st century already.
At least in the US, most electricity is produced from methane (natural gas). Coal, although more readily available at a cheap cost, is much more polluting than methane. So, it becomes a trade off. If we produce electricity from coal and use that electricity run cars, we lower our dependence on fossil fuels. However, because coal is so much less clean, doing so would have minimal benefits from an environmental point of view (althogh I'm not sure of this fact). But, practial and affordable electric cars are definitely more in reach than hydrogen fuel cells.
I do like the idea of using a different fluid for turbines. Water has such a high specific heat and heat of vaporization that it seems like the worst choice for a power plant (at least in terms of energy efficiency).
-
I read in the news paper the other day that out of the 186 billion tonnes of CO2 released (each year?) that only 6 billion of this was due to humans (industry, farming etc.) the other 180 billion tonnes is being released naturally anyway (through volcanoes, cows and animals breathing and farting etc..). The earth goes through heating/cooling cycles over thousands of years, we have been recording temps and CO2 levels for mere hundreds. Do we really know what we are talking about? We could be getting hotter because of a natural turn on the way out of the last ice age - no one knows as far as I can make out if we are coming out of the last or going into the next ice age.
-
newspaper...? the newspaper get their info from the scientists, which scientists are those? the newspaper isn't very reliable after all
-
newspaper...? the newspaper get their info from the scientists, which scientists are those? the newspaper isn't very reliable after all
Fair enough, but I could be very cinical and say neither are the scientists! Unless thay shock and scare, no-one will fund their research into global warming. One volcano erruption emits more CO2 than most industries do in a year. Also, what I said is true about not knowing if we are coming from or going back into ice age (coming out I'd say).
-
Shifting to electric cars would put a whole new load on the aging U.S. power grid which has been having problems lately.....again. I'm not sure if it would be capable of taking the new load of people plugging there cars into the wall.
If only hydrogen was easier to store safely.
-
The earth goes through heating/cooling cycles over thousands of years, we have been recording temps and CO2 levels for mere hundreds.
P -
There are other studies able to analyze the climatic temperature patterns for more than a few hundred years. For instance the layers of ice in the polar caps have given us an idea of these temperature changes prior to official weather measurement.
-
The earth goes through heating/cooling cycles over thousands of years, we have been recording temps and CO2 levels for mere hundreds.
P -
There are other studies able to analyze the climatic temperature patterns for more than a few hundred years. For instance the layers of ice in the polar caps have given us an idea of these temperature changes prior to official weather measurement.
OK, I'll admit there are other ways of getting an 'idea' of what has been going on, but nothing is exact with this. Can you tell me if we are coming out of or going into an ice age?
Don't get me wrong, I defenitley think we should re-cycle and save energy, but I don't think it will have as great effect on the climate as we all think.
-
Fair enough, but I could be very cinical and say neither are the scientists! Unless thay shock and scare, no-one will fund their research into global warming. One volcano erruption emits more CO2 than most industries do in a year. Also, what I said is true about not knowing if we are coming from or going back into ice age (coming out I'd say).
there are also privately-funded scientists that do their own independent research, and this is where checking the scientists comes in. which scientists provided the information for the newspaper? the odds of the newspaper being biased to produce 'grand' results compared to the odds of scientists biased to do likewise, overall is more greater imho. therefore, it helps to double-check by looking up the source of the information.
now if i may ask again, where did the newspaper get its info from? im curious in looking it up to read more too ???
-
World population grew very slowly throughout human history, until the Industrial Revolution and the dawn of an age of fossil fuels. By 1900 it had reached 1.65 billion. It then multiplied nearly fourfold to 6 billion within a century.
<Tongue in cheek mode>
I got the above quote from the internet and we all know that it is more accurate than the newspapers.
</Tongue in cheek mode>
Do you still think that increase in population and industrialization has had no effect on tipping the ecological balance?
No one yet has answered my question.
When in recorded history did we have significant global cooling?
It did happen, when and why.
-
Fair enough, but I could be very cinical and say neither are the scientists! Unless thay shock and scare, no-one will fund their research into global warming. One volcano erruption emits more CO2 than most industries do in a year. Also, what I said is true about not knowing if we are coming from or going back into ice age (coming out I'd say).
there are also privately-funded scientists that do their own independent research, and this is where checking the scientists comes in. which scientists provided the information for the newspaper? the odds of the newspaper being biased to produce 'grand' results compared to the odds of scientists biased to do likewise, overall is more greater imho. therefore, it helps to double-check by looking up the source of the information.
now if i may ask again, where did the newspaper get its info from? im curious in looking it up to read more too ???
I'm afraid te Newspaper did not give a reference
-
The media is the worst place for information (except for all other souces). Who controls the media?? How would the truth impact those people??. Its more likely that things are worse than they appear, much like back in the 1980s when we were told that our parents generation would never see the ramifications of our actions, and low and behold here we are.
If the public new as much as the goverment there would be chaos and the economy would crumble.
To think that global warming isnt going to affect us as much as many scientists are leading us to believe is disaster in the making.
The 180 billion tonnes of CO2 emmited into the attmosphere and only 60 billion being a result of hummans probably doesnt take into consideration that massive amounts of green trees and plants have been burned (causing CO2) and leveled out for agrigulture (co2) or livestock (co2) or human living (more CO2).
Sure the direct relation of our CO2 contribution may be 1/3rd of the total problem but what about indirect actions??
Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people?? Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.
Just My thoughts,
-
Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people?? Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.
I just did a quick calculation to figure out how much 6 billion people produce in a year, but information on human breathing CO2 output is hard to find. Some random guy said 0.02 to 0.08 g/h/person...seems a bit low. Anyways using those numbers, it works out to 7 million tonnes/year from breathing. If we get more accurate (maybe even certified :P) numbers, we can settle this thing.
-
About 900 g / day per person (presumably adult) from reference 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide
There would also probably be a deforestation factor to enable human settlement (one of the few oxygen generation and CO2 reduction mechanisms on Earth).
-
The media is the worst place for information (except for all other souces). Who controls the media?? How would the truth impact those people??. Its more likely that things are worse than they appear, much like back in the 1980s when we were told that our parents generation would never see the ramifications of our actions, and low and behold here we are.
If the public new as much as the goverment there would be chaos and the economy would crumble.
To think that global warming isnt going to affect us as much as many scientists are leading us to believe is disaster in the making.
The 180 billion tonnes of CO2 emmited into the attmosphere and only 60 billion being a result of hummans probably doesnt take into consideration that massive amounts of green trees and plants have been burned (causing CO2) and leveled out for agrigulture (co2) or livestock (co2) or human living (more CO2).
Sure the direct relation of our CO2 contribution may be 1/3rd of the total problem but what about indirect actions??
Is there a scientific organization with a model in place that takes into consideration what the CO2 content in the air would be if the human population never grew above 500, 000 people?? Im sure there wouldnt be 120billion tonnes of CO2 being pumped into the air.
Just My thoughts,
No, it was 6 billion, not 60 billion. - about 3% - not 30%
-
I was thinking last night about hydrogen burning engines/fuel cells. Both of these release water vapor as a byproduct. Right?
Water vapor traps heat.
Would hydrogen powered vehicles really solve global warming issues?
I'm all in favor of hydrogen powered vehicles because it's not releasing all the toxins the traditional gas burning vehicles do. Also it decreases the demand for oil, dramatically.
-
My theory is, that even though water vapour traps heat...there's other places for it to go. Carbon dioxide, at least at almost all the temperatures that exist on natural earth, is always a gas. For all of the water pumped into the atmosphere, only a portion of it would remain as water vapour. The rest would work its way into oceans, etc.
Which brings up the point...the sea levels would still rise, and we'd still have SOME of the effects of global warming...just for different reasons.
-
My theory is, that even though water vapour traps heat...there's other places for it to go. Carbon dioxide, at least at almost all the temperatures that exist on natural earth, is always a gas. For all of the water pumped into the atmosphere, only a portion of it would remain as water vapour. The rest would work its way into oceans, etc.
Which brings up the point...the sea levels would still rise, and we'd still have SOME of the effects of global warming...just for different reasons.
even if it remained as water vapour; if the ozone depletion continues, OH- radicals may be formed from water and helped by ozone and sunlight managing to pierce through the lower levels of the atmosphere. they are known to be very reactive though whether that is good or bad... im not so sure myself.
hydroxy radicals are reputed to be able clear up pollutants by reacting with them(most notably hydrocabons), but i dont see how the new compounds are much safer.
-
I think one big thing we could now though, and we have the technology to do it today, is start building nuclear reactors to replace current fossil fuel burning power plants. That would help with the CO2 problem some and also the other toxins that are directly produced by burning fossil fuels.
You could also add in solar power and wind power, although they are less reliable. Geothermal power plants would work too in some areas.