Carbon Footprint - CO2 Reduction

You'll need to find out exactly how much fuel you have saved first, then the chemical structure of the fuel to determine how much carbon is in it. Since it takes 2 oxygen atoms to completely burn 1 atom of carbon to form CO₂, you can work it out from there, but of course, it's going to be a pretty tall order.

Have fun, anyway.

I report carbon reporting at my job. The CO2 emission for electricity depends on the technology use for electricity generation. Thermal energy for electricity would mean more CO2 and techology like Hydro power would mean very low CO2 emission.

The kilowatt-hour conversion is based on the actual amount of energy needed to produce that kilowatt-hour at the power plant, including transmission and generation efficiency losses.

We use following formulas for conversion of electrcity to carbon di oxide.

AFRICA - 1 kwh = 0.0116 Million BTU and 1 Gigajoule = 0.94786 Million BTU.

ASIA/PACIFIC - 1 kwh = 0.0116 Million BTU and 1 Gigajoule = 0.94786 Million BTU.

CANADA - 1 kwh = 0.0116 Million BTU and 1 therm = 0.1 Million BTU.

EUROPE - 1 kwh electricity = 0.0116 Million BTU & 1 kwh of fuel = 0.003412 Million BTU.

US/PR - 1 kwh = 0.0116 Million BTU and 1 therm = 0.1 Million BTU.

LATIN AMERICA - 1 kwh = 0.0116 Million BTU and 1 GCal = 3.96825 Million BTU.

The CO2 generation for fuel usage depends on the fuel used as follows -

Coal 215 lbs. of CO₂ per MMBtu - 97.5 g of CO₂ per MJ

Heavy Oil 174 lbs. of CO₂ per MMBtu - 78.9 g of CO₂ per MJ

Light Oil 161 lbs. of CO₂ per MMBtu - 73.0 g of CO₂ per MJ

Propane 139 lbs. of CO₂ per MMBtu - 63.1 g of CO₂ per MJ

Natural Gas 117 lbs. of CO₂ per MMBtu - 53.1 g of CO₂ per MJ

You can figure out the savings by measuring the amount of fuel and electrcity you saved.

Thanks guys, turns out through energy management initiatives we reduced our NG and hydro consumption enough to equal 5200 tons of co2 saved

I'd be interested in knowing what figures you used for the CO2 cost of hydroelectric power. Often, we think of hydroelectric power as being carbon neutral, so that reducing hydroelectric power usage would not change your carbon footprint. However, some calculations consider the methane and CO2 given off by the rotting plants at the bottom of the reservoir, etc., etc. Do you have a reference (and perhaps something giving a rationale) for the CO2 saved by reducing hydroelectric usage?

Thanks, Ken

That's great! Quite substantial. Would be interesting to know little details if you do not mind, because for me, this is the most interesting subject. You might email on rsalaskar@hotmail.com.

Thanks

The carbon cost of a hydro plant depends on where it is. For example, the Bakun project on Borneo in Malaysia required the clearing of an area of virgin rain forest the size of Singapore. I don't know what the "correct" figure is for the amount of carbon that this jungle would have been sequestering if it still existed. Making ball park estimates it's fairly obvious that a kW of Bakun hydro electricity "costs" much more carbon than the dirtiest coal plant in all of Asia.

First.... how do you know how much you saved? I suppose that you can look at your utility bill and compare the total cubic ft of natural gas and the total kWh for the year....

Now, how do you know how the electricity you consumed at any given time was produced? If the electricity was generated by burning natural gas then that will add to your natural gas total. If it was produced by coal there will be a different figure for the carbon dioxide produced. If it was produced by nuclear then the carbon dioxide produced would be zero (unless you want to count the emissions of the cars of the people who work at the nuclear plant).

Because of the way the grid works you have likely used electricity from all three sources. Eventhough my utility may be nuclear, they could (and do) buy power from other producers to meet peek demand. That power is wheeled through from one producer to another.

Even after you arrive at how much less coal and natural gas you consumed in the last year and if you look at the combustion reaction and arrive at an amount of carbon dioxide per unit (ton, thousand cubic ft, etc), that's not necessairly going to be accurate because one power plant may burn cleaner than another. One coal plant may burn a slightly different coal than another.

Now the real question. Why care? The time will come when it is clear that the hystaria over carbon dioxide and one's "carbon footprint" is all a hoax put over to largely derail the US Capitalist system.

Travis

(Just remember, one little volcano belch would dwarf the emissions of thousands of people over a lifetime. If a volcano was a factory the EPA would have it shut down and then it would relocate to China.)

Travis, It's fairly clear that the US capitalist system is derailing itself quite adequately without assistance from scientists and engineers who are concerned about the effects of rapidly increased atmospheric C02 concentration on the habitability of the planet.

That CO2 concentrations are increasing alarmingly fast is a fact that is in no more doubt that spherical shape of the earth - go check an ice core. There is certainly realistic doubt about our ability to do anything about it. I am pretty certain that posting banal political comments to serious engineering forums isn't particularly helpful to those who are trying.