how is CO2 a pollutant? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

sixto · #1 08-09-2004, 06:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/09/autos.emissions.reut/index.html

I thought under ideal conditions combustion results in H2O and CO2. How do you reduce CO2 without reducing the amount of fuel burned? I know CO is bad. Are there better carbon compounds to spew? Have little diamonds roll out the tailpipe?

Are they gonna restrict exhaling next?

Sixto
95 S420
87 300SDL

Botnst · #2 08-09-2004, 07:42 PM

Its like this.

Assume some background level of any sort for any chemical. F'instance, methyl mercury is a normal part of the environment. Methyl mercury is usuually so low that it is pretty benign. But at some level, it becomes a problem and this is usually at a level that has a very low or near-zero toxicity. The problem is that methyl merucry accumulates in the food chain. The more organisms you eat that are predators, the more methyl mercury you'll accumulate. And so the prohibitions or warnings on swordfish and lake trout, etc., are not related necessarily to direct effects but rather to cumulative or collateral damage.

So CO2, also a natural part of the environment, may become bad at high concentrations. Not because of direct effects so much as indirect effects. One such indirect effect is as a greenhouse gas, which may accelerate global warming. Another is preferential uptake of CO2 by C-4 plant species which may hasten conversion of some subtropical or temperate plant communities to plant communities dominated by tropical species which are often C-4 species. These effects are in the 'active research' class. Meaning that science doesn't understand all the ramifications of the effects and so society hasn't passed value judgements on these effects. But the 'worst case scenario' that governs the "precautionary principle" would warn against assuming benign or beneficial effects of C02 until they're proven.

So, if you ask an environmental scientist for a sound-bite response, the scientist will probably call it 'pollution' and then add a 20-pound sack of caveats, which are promptly ignored by reporters and editors.

And that's the simple answer.

Bot

nglitz · #3 08-15-2004, 12:07 AM

Simple question. Simple answer: it's not.

Anyone who believes it is should stop contributing to the problem. Stop breathing.

KirkVining · #4 08-15-2004, 02:05 AM

Sure CO2 is natural, but so is sulfuric acid. A little of it in your stomach is ok for digesting food, but go have a glass and let me know how it works out. I am sure I will not be hearing from you anytime soon.

The problem is we are affecting the natural carbon cycle. CO2 is also a gas that has known harmful affects. It traps heat. Producing less of it is not an idea that has no merit.

Our ultimate solution is hydrogen fuel. When the oil runs out, if in running it out we do not destroy ourselves via war and global warming, it wil be our next fuel. Burning hydrogen does not produce any biproducts, as far as I know. Given that, why are we not putting greater reseach efforts into it?

MikeTangas · #5 08-15-2004, 11:03 AM

It is all part of the vicious cycle. As I see it CO2 is plant food, remember basic grade school science - plants convert CO2 into O2. More CO2 means more plant food, which means more O2 is being produced. More O2 means more for us to breathe, for our bodies or our cars. Also remember that for each gallon of fuel we burn we consume something like 400 gallons of O2.

Someone wants us to suffocate the poor trees!

#6 08-15-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Sure CO2 is natural, but so is sulfuric acid. A little of it in your stomach is ok for digesting food, but go have a glass and let me know how it works out. I am sure I will not be hearing from you anytime soon.

The problem is we are affecting the natural carbon cycle. CO2 is also a gas that has known harmful affects. It traps heat. Producing less of it is not an idea that has no merit.

Our ultimate solution is hydrogen fuel. When the oil runs out, if in running it out we do not destroy ourselves via war and global warming, it wil be our next fuel. Burning hydrogen does not produce any biproducts, as far as I know. Given that, why are we not putting greater reseach efforts into it?

Hydrogen is not being ignored. Currently, it's the cost of electralysis to get the gas, distribution, and technology to use it. Once these factors are overcome by both technological improvements, and the rising cost of petrofuels, you will then see hydrogen take center stage. We are still looking at at least another decade before this line is crossed. Currently, diesels, and hybrids offer the best short, and mid term solutions.

Botnst · #7 08-15-2004, 11:15 AM

The degree to which CO2 is or isn't a pollutant will be unresolved until there is a demonstrated causality between elevated CO2 and global climate change. There is correlation, but correlation proves nothing.

Recall that for decades science knew there was a correlation between tobacco smoke inhalation and certain medical problems. But causality in that regard is fairly recent. In the mid-20th century Congress began to act in small ways without clear, irrefutable proof of a link. Were they wrong? Its a judgement call.

Correlative is present for CO2 emissions. There is more atmospheric CO2 right now than ever before in recorded history and you have to go back many thousands of years to find a similar CO2 concentration. In the fossil record there appears to be a correlation between elevated CO2 and climate change.

KirkVining · #8 08-15-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeTangas

It is all part of the vicious cycle. As I see it CO2 is plant food, remember basic grade school science - plants convert CO2 into O2. More CO2 means more plant food, which means more O2 is being produced. More O2 means more for us to breathe, for our bodies or our cars. Also remember that for each gallon of fuel we burn we consume something like 400 gallons of O2.

Someone wants us to suffocate the poor trees!

The problem, Mike, is that a point is reached where there is more CO2 than plants can convert. When this happens, CO2 is trapped in the atmosphere, and it in turn traps heat. We know by analyzing fossil and archeological evidence that we have increased the excess amount beyond what the carbon cycle can handle in the last two centuries. Who knows, maybe this won't matter for a variety of reasons - it could balance out with a coming ice age, or it could induce more plant growth. For me, the thing to really stay away from is simple conclusions that say it is ok to put our head in the sands. We need solid science not influenced by politics here.

jhodg5ck · #9 08-15-2004, 02:06 PM

Botnst and KirtVining are on the $$.. I'm a recent bio grad, and having taken a year of enviornmental science/issues (mainly in an effort to become informed..) the Huge amounts of CO2 being released are far more then our planet can handle. True, the excess amounts of CO2 does provide more 'food' for plants, but before they can use all of this CO2, there will be other limiting factors.. never mind the gross rate of deforestaion taking place on our planet. Another concern is the amount of CO2 being absorbed by oceans, at present they are absorbing huge amounts of CO2 which in large part has helped keep our atmosphere from getting completely overloaded. There will come a point, when they are saturated and we will see skyrocketing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. No one is really sure when this will be reached as our knowledge base is to limited, but it is a very real threat.

This whole notion of Humans can do it better has been proven wrong time and time again.. I have no doubts this will eventually bite us in the ass as well:-/

KirkVining · #10 08-15-2004, 02:11 PM

History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Godzilla!

Botnst · #11 08-15-2004, 02:53 PM

There was an interesting pilot study done in the tropical pacific a decade or so ago. (BTW, tropical waters are clear because they're nutrient-poor, everything is tied-up and thus, unavailable for phytoplankton, the base of the pelagic food pyramid).

So some folks thought, what if we provide tropical algae with the limiting nutrient, would it spark an algal bloom, increase photosynthesis, and thus facilitate carbon sequestration?

So they loaded a small vessel with iron ore and sailed into the equatorial waters of the Pacific and let fly the iron ore over a huge area. Sure enough, phytoplankton bloomed like crazy, zooplankton entered a feeding planktonic populations enetered exponential growth providing a food surplus for filter feeders, etc. The end product was lots of fishy doo-doo raining down upon the abyssal depths, locked into the organic mud of the sea floor.

Also, there's this business of giving power companies carbon credits for reforestation. In this instance power companies plant trees or pay folks to plant trees and everybody agrees not to harvest them for some number of years. Trees are carbon. So, when you harvest the trees the wood goes into construction and gets locked into buildings for decades longer.

Finally, some of the greatest carbon sinks on the planet are the marshy estuaries of the temperate regions. For example in my area 30 to 60 percent of the outer coastal marsh is organic mater locked-up at slow decomposition rates in marsh peat. By enhancing marsh formation you get pollutant filtration, wildlife and fish habitat, tropical storm protection and carbon sequestration. I should also mention that when you allow marsh to be destroyed you lose each of those benefits.

B

PC Dave · #12 08-15-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Godzilla!

Thanks, I hadn't even thought of that song for, what, 10-15 years?

mikemover · #13 08-15-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Our ultimate solution is hydrogen fuel. When the oil runs out, if in running it out we do not destroy ourselves via war and global warming, it wil be our next fuel. Burning hydrogen does not produce any biproducts, as far as I know. Given that, why are we not putting greater reseach efforts into it?

Yeah, hydrogen is great!......except for the fact that it EXPLODES!!!

Remember a little thing the military had called the HYDROGEN BOMB?

Not exactly something I want riding in the back of my car. Sorry.

Mike