Maker Pro
Maker Pro

90 amps for electric car charge!

B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane
from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall,
the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue:
while the methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the
atmosphere, the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was
burned. All that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2.
Sheesh; are we *really* that much a nation of idiots?

Nope. Just you.

Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or gasoline.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

Plus, recovering methane and using it to create energy prevents the methane from
escaping to become a greenhouse gas. The energy produced is a bonus.
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nope. Just you.

Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or gasoline.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

Plus, recovering methane and using it to create energy prevents the methane from
escaping to become a greenhouse gas. The energy produced is a bonus.

Totally beside the point; the news report said specifically that
capturing the methane and burning it would mean that the carbon in the
methane wouldn't be released into the atmosphere. The CO2 released when
the methane is burned is most definitely a greenhouse gas. (Remember the
formula from high school chemistry? CH4 + 02 --> CO2 + H20)

Try to read more carefully.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Totally beside the point; the news report said specifically that
capturing the methane and burning it would mean that the carbon in the
methane wouldn't be released into the atmosphere. The CO2 released
when the methane is burned is most definitely a greenhouse gas.
(Remember the formula from high school chemistry? CH4 + 02 --> CO2 +
H20)
Try to read more carefully.

Try to write more carefully then.

"this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is what you said. And it clearly
will, by reducing the production of the equivalent power burning coal. Less CO2
is produced with the methane.
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
Try to write more carefully then.

"this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is what you said. And it clearly
will, by reducing the production of the equivalent power burning coal. Less CO2
is produced with the methane.

Except that this is the wrong comparison: the methane is being used to
power garbage trucks, so the proper comparison would be with gasoline,
diesel or propane.

So the only carbon that's being kept out of the atmosphere is the
marginal difference between the carbon emitted by burning one of these
fuels and the carbon emitted by burning methane. Not at all what the TV
news report said.
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth.
(It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but
not too much, of it.
 
T

The Daring Dufas

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth.
(It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but
not too much, of it.

People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

TDD
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

I take "educated" to mean at least some post-secondary education, let's
say a bachelor's degree. And not at some diploma mill where the only
goal is to get a barely passing grade so one can get into business, real
estate, or some other money-grubbing profession.
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Except that this is the wrong comparison: the methane is being used to
power garbage trucks, so the proper comparison would be with gasoline,
diesel or propane.

So the only carbon that's being kept out of the atmosphere is the
marginal difference between the carbon emitted by burning one of these
fuels and the carbon emitted by burning methane.

Nope, significant *carbon* is being kept out of the atmosphere. As Bob
said you are *substituting* methane for other fuels instead of just
having the methane (a greenhouse gas) leak out to the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas emissions are clearly reduced - the major reason for
using the methane.
Not at all what the TV
news report said.

That is assuming you heard right. If the report said "reduce carbon
emissions" [or greenhouse gas emissions] it would accurately describe
what is happening.

"Reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is a misstatement of the major benefit
[but true using Bob's reference]. IMHO as misstatements go, it is
relatively minor. There is a major benefit in using the methane.

In addition, if I remember right, methane is a more powerful greenhouse
gas than the CO2 that the methane is turned into - an additional
excellent reason to use the methane.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
The said:
People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

I was educated in government schools and got a fine education. As were a huge
number of
Americans.

One idiot shouldn't condemn a whole system. By the way, what public school did
that person go to?
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Except that this is the wrong comparison: the methane is being used to
power garbage trucks, so the proper comparison would be with gasoline,
diesel or propane.

So the only carbon that's being kept out of the atmosphere is the
marginal difference between the carbon emitted by burning one of these
fuels and the carbon emitted by burning methane. Not at all what the
TV news report said.

So, if the methane had just wafted off into the atmosphere, you are saying the
carbon wouldn't have ended up in the atmosphere?
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
So, if the methane had just wafted off into the atmosphere, you are saying the
carbon wouldn't have ended up in the atmosphere?

What are you, an *intentional* fucking idiot? Really.

READ WHAT I SAID. Let me paraphrase and try to explain, this time with
SMALLER WORDS that you might UNDERSTAND.

The carbon contained in the landfill will reach the atmosphere in both
cases: if the methane is allowed to waft into the atmosphere, or if it
is captured and then burned in an internal-combustion engine (in a
garbage truck). THE CARBON WILL ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE IN EITHER CASE. If
it's captured, the release of the carbon is merely delayed.

And yes, there may be a SLIGHT reduction of the total amount of carbon
released by burning methane as opposed to other motor vehicle fuels
(gasoline, diesel, propane), but the reduction is marginal at best.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
What are you, an *intentional* fucking idiot? Really.

READ WHAT I SAID. Let me paraphrase and try to explain, this time with
SMALLER WORDS that you might UNDERSTAND.

The carbon contained in the landfill will reach the atmosphere in both
cases: if the methane is allowed to waft into the atmosphere, or if it
is captured and then burned in an internal-combustion engine (in a
garbage truck). THE CARBON WILL ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE IN EITHER CASE. If
it's captured, the release of the carbon is merely delayed.

And yes, there may be a SLIGHT reduction of the total amount of carbon
released by burning methane as opposed to other motor vehicle fuels
(gasoline, diesel, propane), but the reduction is marginal at best.

But pound for pound, isn't methane a 'worse' green-house gas than CO2?
I understand that methane released into the atmosphere is more
detrimental to 'global warming' than CO2.

So converting the methane to CO2 before releasing it still puts the same
amount of carbon in the air, but in a form that is less detrimental.

daestrom
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
But pound for pound, isn't methane a 'worse' green-house gas than CO2?
I understand that methane released into the atmosphere is more
detrimental to 'global warming' than CO2.

So converting the methane to CO2 before releasing it still puts the same
amount of carbon in the air, but in a form that is less detrimental.

That's another issue entirely. So far as the "badness" of CO2 vs.
methane goes, I simply don't know. If you say methane is worse, I'll
have to take your word for it.

But even if that's true, it's simply another *marginal* difference.
Doesn't change the point I was making, which is that the mainstream
media often portrays things like this (capturing methane from landfills
and burning it) as somehow completely *eliminating* that release of carbon.
 
G

Guest

Jan 1, 1970
0
Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?
 
G

Guest

Jan 1, 1970
0
David Nebenzahl said:
What are you, an *intentional* fucking idiot? Really.

READ WHAT I SAID. Let me paraphrase and try to explain, this time with
SMALLER WORDS that you might UNDERSTAND.

The carbon contained in the landfill will reach the atmosphere in both
cases: if the methane is allowed to waft into the atmosphere, or if it is
captured and then burned in an internal-combustion engine (in a garbage
truck). THE CARBON WILL ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE IN EITHER CASE. If it's
captured, the release of the carbon is merely delayed.

And yes, there may be a SLIGHT reduction of the total amount of carbon
released by burning methane as opposed to other motor vehicle fuels
(gasoline, diesel, propane), but the reduction is marginal at best.
----------------------
Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time land
fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means that
this replaces the burning of natural gas or other fuels.
sum x units
x+y > x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into the
atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Essentially, assuming equal conversion efficiencies (admittedly not true but
also not actually germane to the issue) using the landfill methane alone
produces half the carbon that would be released by burning natural gas AND
letting the methane "waft into the atmosphere".

The "illogic" is that you are comparing one "carbon source " with the other
"carbon source" which is not the situation, rather than one such source
with both such sources -which is the situation.
 
T

The Daring Dufas

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob said:
I was educated in government schools and got a fine education. As were a huge
number of
Americans.

One idiot shouldn't condemn a whole system. By the way, what public school did
that person go to?
I'm not sure, I'm more worried about where she was trained as a
respiratory therapist.

TDD
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time land
fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means that
this replaces the burning of natural gas or other fuels.
sum x units
x+y > x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into the
atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Got to admit you seem to have hit the nail right on the head here. I
accept your explanation.

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading. They
didn't explain things the way you did, and left the impression that the
methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being released.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
That's another issue entirely.

But for a non-scientific publication by a non-science journalist, it may
be the point they were going for.
So far as the "badness" of CO2 vs.
methane goes, I simply don't know. If you say methane is worse, I'll
have to take your word for it.

Here's the EPA's and IPCC's 'word' on it. Methane has a GWP more than
20 times that of CO2 (see sidebar in middle right side of page)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
But even if that's true, it's simply another *marginal* difference.
Doesn't change the point I was making, which is that the mainstream
media often portrays things like this (capturing methane from landfills
and burning it) as somehow completely *eliminating* that release of carbon.

Reducing the Global Warming Potential by a factor of 21:1 may not be
'eliminating' it, but it is far more than just a 'marginal' difference.

daestrom
 
D

David Nebenzahl

Jan 1, 1970
0
In a way, they're right. The carbon in the landfill and the released methane
are already part of the earth's carbon cycle. Natural as the CO2 we breath out.
The problem with carbon, if there is one, is carbon released by burning fossil
fuels. That carbon has been out of the cycle for millions of years.

So burning the landfill methane does release zero additional carbon.

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?

Again, at the cost of belaboring this point, the news report left the
impression that capturing the landfill gas would *eliminate all* carbon
emissions from the trash. It would do no such thing.
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Got to admit you seem to have hit the nail right on the head here. I
accept your explanation.

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading. They
didn't explain things the way you did,

Don was the third person who made essentially the same point. We have no
idea whether the news program did or not - you seem to not catch on.
and left the impression that the
methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being released.

Using the methane results in ZERO *additional* carbon being released.

Your post that started this said "reduce carbon dioxide emissions". If
you misheard and they said "reduce carbon emissions" the report was
accurate. If they did say "reduce carbon dioxide emissions" the report
misstated the effect, but was close - as understanding of science goes
today. Using the methane reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Three people
who posted here understood that and tried to tell you, starting with
Bob. Your understanding of science, at best, does not appear to be
better than the news program.
 
Top