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

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

Simple question. Simple answer: it's not.

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

__________________
Norm in NJ
Next oil change at 230,000miles

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?

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!

__________________
Mike Tangas
'73 280SEL 4.5 (9/72)- RIP
Only 8,173 units built from 5/71 thru 11/72

'02 CLK320 Cabriolet - wifey's mid-life crisis

2012 VW Jetta Sportwagon TDI...at least its a diesel

Non illegitemae carborundum.

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.

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.

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.

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

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

This is a joke, right?

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

Hydrogen bombs use a very different form of a complex hydrogen isotope totally unlike fuel gas.

What does gasoline do, just kind of smolder? I am sure we can come up with a safe system for it, as we have done for gasoline. In the end the old saying "it beats walking" will come into play.

Hydrogen sucks as a fuel for transportation. It's not dense enough. You can liquify the stuff, and the energy density is still 1/10th of gasoline. Can you imagine the extra expense and weight involved with trying to contain liquid hydrogen? Not to mention it leaks like crazy. If you take the time to do the math, the process are way too inefficient to use hydrogen as an energy storage medium - better off using batteries.

Our ultimate (transportation) solution is renewable hydrocarbon fuels, like biodiesel. Growing it pulls CO2 from the atmosphere, and burning it returns it to the air for a net balance of zero.

__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88
'01 VW Beetle TDI
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD
'89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T
'78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110
Oil Burner Kartel #35

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg

Seeing as the earth has warmed and cooled a whole bunch of times all through history, how can you explain those "global warming" trends? No SUV's to blame back then. And the amount of crud spewed in a volcano dwarfs anything manmade.

The 4 good questions never asked:

1) Is there global warming? yes, it occurs and always will, as will cooling

2) Is the current trend abnormal from historical patterns (assuming for sake of argument it is warming now)? uh, no

3) Are human responsible? No again. Its been going on longer than we existed by far, plus it is occuring on Mars (explain that)

4) Assuming all of the above is true (it is warming abnormally and man is responsible), is it a bad thing? Global cooling causes everything to DIE. Warming creates prosperity in nature. In the middle ages grapes were grown in England and Greenland was farmed.

Don't listen to Al Gore, he is a clueless clown. Follow the money trail and you will see where his motivation come from.

With all that said, why is it we can't just come out and say we should stop polluting the atmosphere because ITS HARMFUL TO PEOPLE? Thats sound like a perfectly good reason to me. No need to make up bogus claims based on junk science.

__________________
MB-less

Al Gore has become a convenient red herring in this story. Plenty of people with a far greater background in science have opinions on this matter that fall very close to Gore's.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Looking at this from a very broad perspective, it seems reasonable to me that there are cyclical events in nature that wipe out existing life and get life started anew. It's not a license to be complacent or irresponsible but not extracting another barrel of oil from this day forward isn't going to stop the cycle or alter it substantially. What's a few human generations in the scale of the earth's age?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for quitting oil cold turkey, but not because of anything Mr. Gore says.

Sixto
87 300D