infidel

The US burns enough oil in a year to fill a super bowl sized stadium 380 miles deep and enough coal to fill a coal train three times to the moon and back long.
And that's just the US.
I'm not saying climate change is manmade, don't think anyone will ever know.
Just saying I don't think we're burning a minuscule amount of fossil fuels.
More and more people just creates less tolerance for error.

j_martin

Where did you get this BS to regurgitate.

Just for grins and giggles, I personally ran the numbers. Engineers do that.

First the oil.

18,690,000 bbl/day
6,821,850,000 bbl/year
38,302,000,000 cubic feet of crude oil/year

Qualcom stadium 675' across the top seats, 455625 sq. feet area

38,302,000,000/455625 =

84,064 feet high 15.9 miles, just a little short of 380 miles claimed.

Now the coal

1,171,809,000Tons/year of coal

113 ton/rail car load

10,370,000 car loads

48' car length

497,759,575' total train length,

94,273 miles, just a tad short of 1.5 million miles claimed

So what's the point. The amount of carbon involved in all this is miniscule compared to the carbon cycle on this planet.

here's 31,000 American scientists that agree with me.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

The Earths atmosphere contains about 800 Gigaton of carbon dioxide, the surface oceans 1000 GT, the land dirt and plants, 2000 GT, and the deep oceans 38,000 GT. Transfers between these systems amount to about 400 GT/year. Yes, 7 GT human production is miniscule compared to this, especially when you consider the grade school science you learned about CO2 transfer between animals and plants, and can easily see how it would be self regulating.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Hope it helps

j_martin

You got me ******. I'm on a roll now.

Some Inconvenient Math

Data taken from pages at the US Energy Information Administration web site and the EPA web site.

Gasoline has aproximately 150,000 BTU/gallon of heat content.
Lignite coal has about 10,000 BTU/lb of heat content, so it would take about 15 lbs to produce the same heat as 1 gallon of gasoline. I'll assume similar conversion losses, which might be a stretch as the coal loses energy to the stack of the boiler, the generator, transformer and transmission line losses, battery losses, and finally conversion losses in the drive train. I'll assume it takes 15 lbs of coal in a power plant to move a car as far as 1 gallon of gasoline in a similar vehicle.

Gasoline has approximately 5.34 lbs of carbon per gallon. When burned it would produce about 19.5 lbs of CO2.
15 lbs of lignite (60% carbon) has 9 lbs of carbon. When burned it would produce about 33 lbs of CO2.

So the $44,000 electric car actually produces 69% more CO2 than a $12,000 gas burner.
If you consider the conversion losses I so carelessly tossed by the wayside, it's actually much worse than that.

Red_Angus

i dont know anything about greenhouse gases. though the salesmen said it was a problem. havent seen him since i started my truck while he was bent over the tail pipe.

didnt they try EGR on gassers in the 70s and 80s. i know last time i was under the hood of a gasser it was not there now. begs some questions doesnt it?

stidwell

I'm sure the EPA thinks they are alot smarter than any of us...but this is how I see it.

Not I'm not trying to be ignorant, but just what is the purpose of the DPF filter... (I know what it is used for... but why).... isn't the particulate matter heavier than air? hence doesn't is just fall back to the ground?

and isn't diesel fuel inherently cleaner burning as far as NOx gasses?

Maybe I am just being ignorant here, but I wish someone could give a reason instead of an excuse.

9812vram

They don't seem to care wether it messes up the air or not - they just did a study that says it's bad, so they don't want it coming out the tail pipe - at the cost of using more natural resources to clean it up!

Great info on here guys! I appreciate the fella's that dig into this stuff and run numbers to come up with real facts.

j_martin

The high cylinder pressures of a diesel engine produce some NOx, as does a well tuned gasoline engine. High cylinder pressures are the efficient way to run these engines.

First thing to do (if yer a guvmint burrocrat) is run it rich, so combustion is not complete. You can also do it by mixing some exhaust in with the incoming air, limiting the oxygen and cooling things down.

That produces some unburned fuel. In a gas engine, this is handled by mixing in some fresh air and burning it in a cat converter. Diesel, however, produces long carbon chains called soot. The DPF gets what isn't used fuddling up everything else on the otherwise near perfect motor.

A well tuned diesel produces a small amount of NOx, hardly any CO, microscopic amounts of carbon particulates, CO2, and water.

hope it helps

j-fox

I've been leaning out the FI gas motors for years.
It is a substantial improvement in fuel efficiency.
I have a durango that gets 19-20 highway.
Going to make another change soon, looking for another 10%.

The EPA does NOT care about fuel efficiency.
I've never seen any evidence of it, but plenty that shows the opposite. Gas or Diesel.

j_martin

Burrocrat
1 part burro stubborn
1 part crab not easy to get along with
1 part cat looks out for #1

So what would you expect from that?

infidel

Guess that's what I get for trusting the internet but then again should I trust an engineer with an obvious agenda's math either?

Like I said, no one will ever know if accelerated climate change is influenced by man but my feeling is why gamble with it?

Circle B

Good numbers JMartin and I'm in total agreement. IMHO, those promoting the global warming idea keep it alive to procure more funding for their pet projects and are making assumptions with incomplete data. They really have less than 100 years of usable data for an atmosphere that's how many millions of years old???
Many reputable Climatologists and even more Forensic Climatologists agree that the effects we are currently seeing are cyclic with little or no impact from our machinery. My guess is we impact the atmosphere more with deforestation than with diesel engines.....my 2 cents.

j_martin

No you shouldn't trust me. It's elementary math, although the numbers are big. You can do it.

As for the gamble. Do you drive a car? There are definite possibilities of serious harm or even death when you drive a car. Why would you do that?

Hint, that's a rhetorical question to get you to think about odds and trade offs.

Now, consider this. We are expected to believe certain highly contested theories, ie that man is causing the world to heat up, and that it would cause great harm. The "science" is so difficult that only the elite can figure it out, and to even dispute something obvious, (like if you have a weather station that's recording data, then build a blacktop parking lot right next to it, the data will shift) is not allowed. The obvious notion that the sun might have more to do with the temperature of the earth than an inert gas that comprises 0.035% of the earth atmosphere is totally ignored in the "scientific" proceedings about anthropogenic global warming.

Figure some odds that they (the elite coupla thousand, whose pay depends on supporting the theory) might be wrong, and the 31,000 scientists might be right, just for the sake of thinking it through. I won't tell you what the odds that they are right are, but they hit tomorrows weather about 70%. They're telling us what the weather will be in 100 years.

Now, against those odds, we are supposed to attempt to reverse the trend by shutting down society. Here's what I mean by that.

If you look around, doesn't even have to be formal, just a casual look, you will discover that good health, clean environment, long life, and other markers of the good life occur where fuel is used. (Europe, America) Without fuel you have poverty, spoiled food, no services, etc. (Bangladesh)

Now I don't claim to be an esteemed scientist, or even a great engineer. I do, however, claim that I am able to think for myself.

BTW, I sincerely would like to know where you got your numbers. I'd just like to see how you can get so far off. I can see it happening. As I was researching, I started to use a chart for coal labeled in teratons, when it should have been kilotons. That's only a six place decimal error. That sort of thing is smoked out by proving the calculations, (ie running them from the back to the front) and cross checking conclusions (ie percentage claims) The research and calcs I did for my original post took 3-4 hours before I was satisfied that I wasn't missing something. They could be off by several percent because the target is constantly moving, but they're good enough to make the point

DBLR

Interesting post

9812vram

I like the part where he says "I can think for myself", implying that most of the rest of us can't or don't....

It is a fact. We are far to influenced by media etc. and forget to think when we are told these things by "specialists", or "scientists", people designated as "in the know"... But most of us are too full of pride to admit we've been duped...

A good example of being trained not to think is when they tried to teach me the Pangaea theory in our school. Familiar with that? Over hundreds of thousands of years one big super continent busted all up and moved around into what we have now, but used to be all one piece right?

Whadda ya mean they all used to be connected? They still are! What's under the oceans? Dirt.... The continents are not floating on water... So if they moved around, where'd all the dirt go in between them while they were moving around? Over/under? That would still leave a huge gap in the dirt somewhere... They also don't tell you that you have to shrink Africa almost 50% to make it fit in the puzzle. Cut up a map and try it - it don't work. They show some parts going clockwise while other parts went counter clockwise. How does that happen?
Oh yeah, and if you raise or lower the water level a hundred feet, the continents look completely different too - and they don't even come close to fitting the Pangaea puzzle!

Amazing what you can come up with if you think for yourself. Maybe the damage we're doing to our environment isn't quite as bad as "those who's pay depends on it" say?

Just a couple thoughts to munch on....

scuzman00

Methinks that we are all missing the point...... Just remember that our venerable ex-vice prez Al Gore leads the heatem-up movement and HE "invented" the internet!!!!! With such "KNOWLEDGE" trying to run the show, us peons should believe them wholeheartedly like the sheeple they think we all are

Gary