Unless you have a coal fired car, we are not talking about pure carbon. Yes there are other compounds produced as the C is converted from H bonds to O bonds. CH2O
But H does not produce CO2. If the Religion of Climate Change were not concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, there never would be a question about which organic we used to fuel our equipment.
My response was an attempt at humor.
1 - A study was performed. 2 - Which study? 3 - The one that was performed.Get it?
CH2O? Sea water?
Um, you said there is no difference what hydrocarbon is used. That, of course, is nonsense. Natural gas is mostly methane, which is one carbon, four hydrogen. Octane is eight carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms. There is a lot of different stuff in gasoline but this demonstrates the idea. 4/1 > 18/8. Less CO2 is produced by natural gas than gasoline because there are more hydrogen atoms per carbon atom. Natural gas isn't so great for vehicles but it releases a lot less CO2 (if that's your religion) than other hydrocarbons. It's at the top of the list, in fact.
Coal, first. Natural gas is a close second. These top the list because they're so plentiful. Neither is great for mobility so we're left with kerosene or gasoline. It's that simple. We didn't choose which form of hydrogen to use for what purpose by accident. Your religion of CO2 has changed the equation, damn economics.
Where do you see the words "pure carbon" in "To produce 1000 KJ of energy from octane releases 774 grams of CO2, to produces that same
1000 KJ from methane rleases 594 grams"?
last sentence 2nd to last paragraph, in the post I replied to. And to produce it from pure carbon releases 1341 grams.
So you're saying I gave you more information than you could handle?
This is the answer:
The very definition of "too much time on your hands?. :-)
It fairness, that was written years ago and can now only be found on the internet archive. Still, I think the tone of this is perfect ...
Keep an eye out for those Saturday Night Drill Specials ...
Are the drills live?
When I was in the service, and bored while on radio watch, I'd sometimes get on the station's PA system and announce "This is a drill, this is only a drill." Then I'd hold a drill up to the microphone and pull the trigger.
In the case of a leaf blower vs a Toyota, it gets to the definition of "pollution" and the general ignorance of greenie do-gooders.
Under California law, "pollution" does not include greenhouse emissions. The law was written to address air quality in Los Angeles and other major cities and the pollutants it requires to be measured and reduced are those that contribute to photochemical smog or are directly harmful if inhaled--oxides of nitrogen, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates.
It is very likely that that Toyota with its catalytic converter and computerised engine management system _does_ produce less oxides of nitrogen, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates than the leaf blower. But it also produces an _almighty_ lot more greenhouse gases.
The sad part is that the ignorant greenies will argue this point, usually citing a court case in which it was ruled that CO2 _can_ be classified as a pollutant, without once considering that the fact that it _can_ be so considered does not mean that the statues regulating pollutants in California have been revised in such a manner that it _is_ so considered.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required