Emissions

Cheery

Cheery

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Dec 2004
Messages
10,383
Location
Derbyshire
Visit site
With regards to the post below on the trawler emitting 37 tons of CO2. What would the fuel weigh to emit this much? I suspect this is another green lie, after all a trawler yacht wouldn't use that much in 10 days would it. So how much fuel would need to be consumed to create 37 tons of CO2?

Speaking as an ignoramous of course!
 
From the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network website......

[ QUOTE ]
In 1993, the Stockholm Institute - Boston Center produced "Towards a Fossil Free Energy Future: A Technical Analysis for Greenpeace International." In this report, the Stockholm Institute summarizes greenhouse gas emissions from various sources. It lists emission factors of 2.71 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of coal input, 1.85 kg per cubic meter of natural gas, and between 3.06 and 3.14 kilograms per kilogram of oil. We split the difference and assume 3.1 kilograms of CO2 emissions per kilogram of oil input.

Thus, we use emission rates of 3.1 metric tons of CO2 per ton of oil, 2.71 tons per ton of coal, and 1.85 kilograms per cubic meter of gas.



[/ QUOTE ]
 
This explains the apparent anomaly;
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
Gallons are US.
But even so it does look as if the figures have been journalised!

And if the aim of the exercise is to lower CO² emissions then running on chip fat wont make any significant difference.
If the aim is to reduce use of non renewable energy sources then it might be worthwhile.
Tricky stuff this saving the planet.

Edited cos I pushed the wrong button.
 
Its to do with atomic weight. Hydrocarbons mainly carbon AW 14 (?), if I remember my A level Chemistry.

AW Oxygen 16. Weight CH compounds say 15 ish. AW CO2 46, ie factor of about 3 times CO2 weight to weight of oil burnt.
 
Even though the analysis was done for Greenpeace, I think the figure is roughly the same as the one given by the U.S. Department of Energy on the webpage that Colmce gave the link to.

I might be wrong of course....... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
Official conversion factors for various fuels here (pdf file)

Tonnes CO2 = 3.164 x tonnes diesel (Table gives Kg/tonne)

or 2.63 kg of CO2 per litre of diesel

37,000 kg CO2 ~~ 14,000 Litres of diesel

Andy
 
The answer to your question is surely about 37 tons. Matter, and hence mass, can be neither created or destroyed. True, a tiny amount of the mass of the fuel is converted into energy ( E=mcc where c is the velocity of light) but that is so tiny as to be insignificant. Of course some oxygen in the air is used in the combustion process but that weighs many times less than the diesel oil.
Humans breathe in air, which is oxygen and nitrogen, and breathe out carbon dioxide, so the best way to reduce greenhouse heating would be a drastic reduction in the population. One way or another that reduction must happen so what is all the fuss about?
 
Follow the link in Colmce's post above, and all will be revealed /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif (Well, the bit about the weights, anyway).

Build a few more nuclear power stations and plant loads of trees - we'll be 'right. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Andy
 
About 14000 litres - an average of 1400 litres per day or 60 litres per hour. This is entirely reasonable for a trawler: an 80 footer will have a 500-600hp engine which, <u>even in good condition</u> , will use 60-70 litres per hour at max chat. It won't be going full tilt the whole time, of course, but it will be at the upper part of the range for most of the time - either on passage to the fishing grounds, or when dragging the trawl. Additionally, there will be a large generator (80-100hp: another 10-12 litres per hour) to run the electrics (think of the size of the refrigerated hold) and the powerful hydraulics needed to get the trawl inboard.
So when the engine isn't running full out, the generator certainly is. I'd say that 14000 litres is a reasonable amount for a trawler to use in that time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Humans breathe in air, which is oxygen and nitrogen, and breathe out carbon dioxide, so the best way to reduce greenhouse heating would be a drastic reduction in the population. One way or another that reduction must happen so what is all the fuss about?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are about 6,000,000,000 people in the world.

Given a resting respiratory rate of around 12 breaths per minute,
a tidal volume of 500ml,
an expired CO2 concentration of 5%,
and CO2 density of 1.87 Kg/m3 at 15 deg C,

each of us breathes out 300ml of CO2 per minute.

which is 18 litres of CO2 per hour

which is 0.3 tonnes per year

which means that the world population breathes out 1,800,000,000 tonnes (1.8 billion tonnes) of CO2 each year.

That sounds like an awful lot of carbon dioxide.

And that’s resting.

Maybe if I could get a few people to stop breathing, I could keep my gas guzzler.

Here are some proposals for alleviating the problem:

People with larger bodies, and therefore larger lung volume ( e.g. Americans, Dutch, us) who produce more than their fair share should have their air allowance restricted compared to, say, Indians and Chinese, who tend to be smaller.

Any exercise other than as is necessary for wealth creating work should be stopped (especially football, ‘cos I don’t like it).

Tony Blair should stop talking.

Any activity requiring heavy breathing, such as sex and anonymous phone calls, should be made unlawful. That would have the added benefit of reducing the future numbers of breathers.

Wipe out all life on Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top