CO2 Pollution

A wee experiment for you, laddie. Go into a sealed room. Burn a litre of petrol. See if you notice what's missing from the atmosphere.

Yes the O2 is used up,

But the overall total atomic weight in the room has not changed. It just changed composition.

Ok, are you meaning to say that burning the 8 pounds of gas uses up 12 pounds of oxygen? and that's assuming every bit of the exahust was CO2 which it is not, and far from it. Most is CO. so here we go it makes it even worse. 8 pounds of gas where the primary by product is CO, yet they claim that 8 pounds makes 20 pounds of CO2?

It must be from the gas to HHO to energy conversion or from the political debate about it.

Naughty Hendrik <slap>.

NSS said,

On i keep hearing is,, Car Pool! for ever gallon of gas you don't use you don't produce 20 pounds of CO2.

Simple math as it has been stated,

If 5 people get in a car that gets the best mileage of all of those owned by the group of 5 the group will save a lot of emissions and certainly the weight of those saved chemicals. My question to you is " one way or the other not moving a car as much as you can saves emissions yes or no"? If yes then why dwell on the minutia of what others think about a moving target like how much weight was saved or put into the air around us?

Number one ; he is right you can only change the state of matter and energy.

And fool if you burn (oxidize) any amount of petrol in a closed volume you add to the volume but you are adding a gas not a solid therefore the weight would be a difference of '0'. Did you go to school or has it been to long?

First, I have no idea why you would be so utterly rude as to call me "fool". However, I shall not stoop to that level and will answer you.

He asked about the weight of the combustion products. That goes up as C and O₂ combine. The weight of the O₂ in the sealed room goes down. Did you miss the point of the question? Read it again; it is a fairly standard question about exhaust.

Did you perform this experiment?

Ok we are getting real facts here.

I did a quick search (it's 5 am here) but did not find anything, but I'm really sure that CO2 is a minor gas in the exhaust composition. where CO isthe primary. then ya have a whole bunch of other stuff like hydrocarbons etc. but CO2 I thought was a pretty low percentage of the mix yes?

Nicely answered in all comments PW, and refreshingly concise and correct - not often I see that in the environmental context. Enjoy my votes.

This is getting unnecessarily complex.

Your original question addressed the law that energy and matter can be neither created nor destroyed, they just change form.

Your question had to do with that at base and how come when you burn eight pounds (1 gal.) of gasoline, you get the 20 lbs. of CO2 you were told would be the result.

The question ignored the fact that the original eight pounds of fuel, when burned, in burning combines with oxygen (That combining the definition of combustion) and thus the burn product of necessity must be more then the original eight pounds.

That is all that is necessary to explain why the burn product of a gallon of gasoline, despite the quibbles about the actual chemical nature of the burn product, comports with the law that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.

All the rest is beside the point.

j.

but I'm really sure that CO2 is a minor gas in the exhaust composition. where CO isthe primary.

You have that backwards. In general, any hydrocarbon burns to form water and CO2. A car emits huge quanities of CO2 and water vapor, and extremely small amounts of other regulated and unregulated compounds, with the criterion emissions, CO, HC, and NOx, being in the grams or fractions-of-grams per mile range.

GA for a good point, and the two halves of the energy process are the basis of many schemes, including solar stripping of CO2 to CO, to reduce atmospheric levels, alluded to previously. Amusingly, most schemes then sell the CO as fuel.

Yea I think you forgot to consider the weight of the air involved in the combustion process.

A gallon of gas wheighs what 8 pounds MAX!

I think the fuel-air ratio is somewhere around 15:1 (air to fuel).

True. One has to allow for the nitrogen present, as well as the small amount of argon and the increasing though tiny levels of CO₂ already present in the air, which contribute very little to engine power. Combustion uses mostly only the oxygen present in air, though a small level of nitrogen oxides is also produced.

Can't see the forest for the trees. You forgetting the CO2 produced in extraction, refinement and distribution.

No, nor in creating the car, road, and all consumables over X life of both. Nor the energy of redesign of both as needs and/or technology and or social structure change. Big forest - question about 1 tree.

But if you have a figure for extraction, refinement I would be pleased to know it and how it derived, as the range of variables in 'finding energy' and 'well CO2 component' and product characteristics and refinery logistics/technology, rather complicate a "CO2/gallon delivered" number.

It hard to speculate on unknown unknowns, but here's a reference from "CO2 management in refineries."

91.72%Oil products combustion

4.95% refinery

2.29% crude shipping

1.03% product shipping

http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/fichier/78901/co2_management_in_refineries.pdf

Altering the subject slightly but still on the subject of CO2. I saw a documentary on television last night that stated that the CO2 levels on the Mediterranean Sea had risen by 30% in the past 200 years (I don't know how or even if they measured CO2 levels in seawater 200 years ago).

The CO2 debate has focussed on global warming and lately, the validity of this resaerch, but the show last night indicated an impact that not many were aware of but could have significant repercussions on society.

It doesn't alter the fact that we need to reduce CO2 emmissions though

Beware of documentaries. The repercussions extrapolated in that one are indicative rather than defined outcomes.

Typically documentaries start on a process mid point and jump to the most dramatic outcome. However it is logical that a body poorly circulated, such as the Mediterranean, is higher in CO2 that the oceans in general. CO2 is quite soluble and Europe produces as much as America, or around 1/4 each of world total.

But also due to documentaries, is awareness that man can make his climate unlivable for man. But equally the part centering on CO2 is only part. This is why many attack the 'research', which does not in fact 'fully explain' the warming process. It is a bit like holding your speedometer responsible for the speed of your car, not your foot on the pedal.

The root cause is re-release of 'solar' energy buried previously (to enable this man compatible climate). An additional factor is the change in radiation to space by a "greenhouse" blanket. CO2 is a factor. An additional factor is methane re-release and man made creation on top of natural evolution (garbage, thawing deposits, through to making "S gas"). An additional factor is increased evaporation (by man released heat) as water vapor is by far the most powerful "greenhouse gas" of all.

It seems the biggest problem is politicians and lobbies can not understand more than one thing at a time and burning makes 2 things. So yes "CO2" is the culprit/argument of the day. And in general, a climate destructive idea makes more of it than an idea that is climate neutral.

But maybe if enough documentaries yell about the speedometer, perhaps the sensory over load will drift their gaze down to their feet.

OH please please wake up!. If you want the truth about CO2 , global warming & cooling (currently) & climate change- please read this new book by Australian Professor Ian Plimer -Heaven And Earth- well written with refs every page. My copy from Boffins Bookshop, Perth West Australia- www.boffinsbookshop.com.au- cost A$39.95. This book is selling extremely well & into 3rd reprint in several months (&no I have no vested financial interests here)- I just want everyone to find out what is really happening- not what govts & ipcc SAY is happening- so can tax us all even more!.

the gasoline is not the only combustion ingredient going into the engine is it. there is a lot of air going thru the engine along with the gas. weight of the fuel & air being burned thru the engine? one by-product among several is co2. look at the entire picture. the gas is only the stored energey. one gallon of gas is evaporated into several hundred cubic feet of vapor combined with several thousand cubic feet of air. only part of that is made into carbon monoxide & carbon dioxide. the rest, hydrogen compounds, nitrogen & other stuff. the co2 is only part of the exhaust. the total poundage is higher yet.

Does any of this answer your question about where the extra matter "seems" to be coming from?

By the way (at least in California), the average car puts out so little CO and other poison gasses that the old hose-in-the-tailpipe way of committing suicide doesn't work anymore - except, of course, by possible asphyxiation.

CO poisoning is asphyxiation.

No it's not. Asphyxiation is death caused by a non-toxic (is not internally harmful) gas that displaces all oxygen-containing air. CO is toxic. You can be in a bunch of air, but breathing CO will still kill you.

"If chemicals such as carbon monoxide are inhaled, they will result in asphyxiation. A common suicide is death by carbon monoxide poisoning, the result of breathing car exhaust fumes in an enclosed area."

- src: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-causes-of-asphyxia.htm

One of many references to asphyxiation by carbon monoxide out there. Quite simply inhalation of carbon monoxide prevents oxygen from bonding to red blood cells causing ashyxiation.

Guys, both are technically correct

Asphyxiation

Oxygen starvation of tissues. Chemicals such as carbon monoxide prevent the blood from carrying sufficient oxygen to the brain and other organs. As a result, the person may lose consciousness, stop breathing, and die without artificial respiration (assisted breathing) and other means of elevating the blood oxygen level.Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

asphyxiation Etymology: Gk, a + sphyxis, without pulse a state of asphyxia or inability to breathe.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Or the Greeks had a fairly broad brush when they invented the term.

But to clear up "where the extra mass comes from" - it's from using the energy that is released by adding two oxygens to each carbon and one oxygen to each two hydrogens and frequently one or two oxygens to a nitrogen. Or cars and people are both run on internal combustion and both breath out converted mass equal to the energy released. Neither are particularly efficient at converting that energy to 'work'.

Ref the books recommended, I concur, but the part of climate decay you will not yet find in books is how mankind traditionally solves resource problems. Or expect WW3 to pre-solve the demand on resources problem as equally as the climate outcomes solve the mankind problem. It's a choice.

I think you're right.

I think the word vermin was looking for is "suffocation".

We all quite happily breathe an air mixture with ~70% nitrogen. We all agree it's not toxic, therefore you can not be asphyxiated by it.

However, if I put you and vermin a a box filled only with that nice non-toxic nitrogen, you will both suffocate.

Now play nice.....

Yep. That's a pretty good word for the issue. Although, you will see signs all over the Valley near large tanks and pipelines of non-toxic gasses that have the word "Asphyxicant" on the warning signs.

So... Go figure. Now, what about your sleep apnea?

It's a rather poor choice of words by your source... You breath CO₂ and nitrogen all day, but they don't react toxically in the body (blood stream or otherwise). Asphyxiation is truly more like getting a pillow put over your face. Here in the Valley, there are large tanks of non-toxic gasses that still display warning signs because if they spring a leak, they're large enough to displace all of the air around you, resulting in asphyxiation.

However, even if the amount of CO is not enough to displace all the air, it can still kill you because it chemically reacts within your body to cause a "toxic" effect. Cyanide, I believe, is considered a toxin, yet it kills by a similar means - specifically, I think it removes all of the oxygen from your blood stream almost instantaneously.

Yes, we're splitting hairs here, but the point is that putting a plastic bag over your head will asphyxiate you, though just being in the same room with a plastic bag (not burning ) will not kill you.

What the heck "potato-pototo."

Check out this site:

www.withouthotair.com. and download this free book on "Sustainable energy without the hot air". A good friend and retired pertrochemical engineer forwarded it to me. I've read about a third of it and there are some serious wake up calls put in real and of all the accounts I have read so far, this makes the most sence. Judge for yourself. It is written by Dr David McKay.

Here's a comment made on it:

At last a book that comprehensively reveals the true facts
about sustainable energy in a form that is both highly readable
and entertaining. A "must read" for all those who have
a part to play in addressing our climate crisis.
Robert Sansom
Director of Strategy and Sustainable Development
EDF Energy

I'll just add some fool to the fire here.

Last I read, cars are responsible for less than 40% of all CO2 emissions.

The majority of CO2 comes from electricity generation and industrial processes.

So turn them off, then!

Phantom,

I will take it a giant step further...

All anthropogenic (human-source) carbon dioxide emissions COMBINED adds up to about 5% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide present.

The majority (>>90%) of atmospheric carbon dioxide has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

(OK, I'm done shouting now).

-----------------------------

Regarding the other discussion about suffocation/asphyxiation, and CO vs. CO2...

There IS a difference. CO2 is known as a "simple asphyxiant", and will you by displacing the oxygen in the air. However, CO actually binds with the active sites for gas exchange on the hemoglobin molecules in the bloodstream, making the blood incapable of transporting oxygen. This is known as carboxyhemoglobin. Hemoglobin has a 200x stronger bonding affinity with CO versus oxygen.

That's the problem with CO. "It sticks to blood"...

=============================================================

Just my $0.02...

How much CO2 comes from rotting wood then? Wood that was not harvested and left to rot on the forest floor. As long as we are discussing chemical change of combustable material, why not include wood?

Sure lets go the forest! Please be informed large volume of carbon dioxide is required to grow plants, trees, grass, tomatoes, potatoes, and all others plants. The "greenhouse effect" is cute excuse to trade job for the US to others, like China, how does not scare of the climate worming and develops its industry as much we are dropping off; by the way lately we have significantly colder summers and colder winters too.

Yes, all transportation together, SUV's or matchbox cars, produce less than half of the man-released CO2, and all man-released CO2 is only a fraction of all the CO2 released.

Following that, CO2 is about 1% of the total 'greenhouse effect' of all gases and molecules.

Therefore, we could all stop breathing, stop driving, stop making electricity, stop heating our homes with burning peat moss, kill all mammals on the planet, stop all forest fires, and only affect "greenhouse warming" by a tiny fraction of one degree temperature.

That would also put a LOT of politicians and politically-connected research grants out of business, not to mention all the trees that would be saved by not printing that Global-Warming trash.

Of course, all the CO2 released around the planet gets absorbed by the plants, making them greener and grow faster, storing it once again in bio-matter just as it once was before rotting into oil, gasifying into methane, or drying into coal. Basically, hydrocarbons are the original bio-fuel, just not 'rapidly renewable' so we still need to continue inventing more efficient ways to use what's available.

So for a greener, healthier planet, do your part and search out ways to increase your CO2 production. Biology Carbon-Cycle 101.

Of course, for the sake of our grandkids, keep working to save money for the purchasers of energy-dependent products, as the market (profit motive, not cap-and-tax and corrupt political penalties) is what drives innovation. This means increasing the efficiency of everything, as we will need to extend the availability of easy-access hydrocarbons as long as possible. You know, alternatives to ICE's for transportation, nuclear for electricity, geothermal where suitable, etc.

I just hope that as the world populace become aware of the man-caused-Global-Warming-Political-ponzi-scam, that the inevitable backlash against 'green' doesn't harm our fruitful efforts toward investing in efficient and environmentally sound ways of supporting more modern lifestyles, and the virtues of allowing people and companies to make money doing so. It's the only way that works.

Oh - and continue to prepare for the rest of this current SOLAR ACTIVITY temperature cycle - the Global Cooling trend we've been in for the last several years.

Unfortunately, the 5% anthropogenic figure is preposterous. It is widely circulated by critics of climate change and has no apparent basis in fact. There are literally a dozen or more well-documented opinions on the percentage, and those vary from the equally crazy 100% to an extremely optimistic 20%. Most scientists, as opposed to politicians, believe the number to be somewhere near 50% +/- 20% (the uncertainty was added by me).

Gasoline is a mixture many of hydrocarbons. For the purposes of this answer I will estimate that it consists of iso-octane, which has the composition C8H18. There is combustion formula: 2C₈H₁₈ + 25 O₂ → 16 CO₂ + 18 H₂OTwo moles of isooctane produce during complete combustion 16 moles of CO₂One mole of iso-octane has a volume of 0.165 L; in is 22.91 moles. Now is simple: two moles of C₈H₁₈ produce sixteen moles of CO₂, accordingly 1 gallon of C₈H₁₈ produce 183.3 moles of CO₂. The molar mass of the carbon dioxide is 44.0095g/mol consequently 44.0095x183.3= 8066.94 g = 17.749 lb.I agree with YOU, there is even not 18 lb.

There are so many mixed units there I wonder that even you can follow the logic - I certainly can't.

One mole of iso-octane has a volume of 0.165 L; in is 22.91 moles.

Please explain this sentence - I can't untangle it.

If you want an example of how to layout the answer, I suggest you look at post #4

This will also explain why both you and the OP are/were off the mark in your qualitative analysis.

Quantitatively, you appear to agree with the "other" point of view in that if we take NSS's assumption that 1 gallon = 8 lb and your calculation that 17.7 lb of CO₂ are produced, then you are stating that just over twice the weight of CO2 is produced as there was fuel to start with...which isn't far off of the 20 lb comment in the OP (let's allow rounding).

I'd trust #4's calculations more

Actually, gasoline weighs about 6lbs per gallon. Plus 17.749 lbs per gallon of gasoline is more than 10% less than 20 lbs, which is very far off the mark.

One mole of iso-octane has a volume of 0.165 L; in is 22.91 moles.

22.91 moles- in one UG gallon. It is very basic calculation.

I made this response earlier but I'll make it again here because it looks like you made the same mistake.

Essential components for combustion are oxygen and fuel. You have accounted for the weight of the fuel but completely ignored the weight of the oxygen. If you burn 8 lbs of gas (or some sort of hydrocarbon), you are burning some air with it. I didn't do much research but I believe the air-fuel ratio is 15:1.

Without doing any calculations, I can look at the atoms involved in this reaction (carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen). You are removing a very light atom (hydrogen) and replacing it with a relatively heavy one. Seems to me that weight will increase.

I suspect there is some degree of overstating problems or making up problems in the green histeria.

I don't know what a green histeria is, but the question is a very straightforward combustion engineering calculation. The only question is what gasoline is made of; that varies by season and locality. But several posters have answered this quite clearly by rounding off. Burning a gallon of gasoline produces almost 20 lb of combustion products. No overstating. No hysteria. Just plain engineering.

Whitewash Greenwash?

The chemical bond in CO2 is the strongest bond in chemistry. As such, if there is any CO and O present, the tendency will be for these components to bond into CO2 to the extent that there is enough oxygen available. Breaking the CO2 bond requires huge amounts of energy in the form of heat and, when that process is performed in the presence of water, the products are O, H, and CO, which quickly bonds with any available O to produce some amount of CO2. This process can be repeated, including the re-introduction of the resulting CO2 into the reduction over and over, creating hydrogen and ogygen and depleting CO2. This very process has been in development for several years, using the sun as focused on a combustion chamber with the use of mirrors, and it is near the commercial stage for wider use.

Remember, you are burning the fuel by combining it with oxygen in the air. Therefore the answer lies in the chemistry between breaking down a hydrocarbon [fuel] via heat and combining the carbon (C) with oxygen in the air to form other compounds including CO2. When Oxygen in the air combines with the carbon, the CO2 weighs many times more; thus the seemingly suspicious and surprising weight increase. Tom Coulson

Yes Tom, you are right: combustion is nothing else as OXIDIZING process. Products of oxidizing fuels are: carbon dioxide, water and HEAT. Gasoline we have in the jar (only one gallon) and a lot of oxygen around us. If somebody like to check it please calculate follow the combustion formula – before the process (left side) with final result (right side); this link might be useful: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stoichiometric-combustion-d_399.htm

The specific gravity of 'vehicle gasoline" is about 0.739 g/ml (87 octane)

It varies with type and nature of additives.

The additives have various numbers of C, which alters the number of O combined in combustion, so the CO2 grams exhausted per 'gallon'.

Given these variables it is understandable that PWSlack nominated Isooctane (100 octane standard) and presumed a US gallon.

Some data;

Us gallon is 3.78541liters, Imperial gallon is 4.546 litres.

The specific gravity of isooctane (pure) = 0.72 (at 60 F/ ~ 20C) yielding the respective masses of; 3.78.. x 0.72 = 2.72549 kg = 6.0069 lbs/ US gallon

4.546 x 0.72 = 3.27312 kg = 7.2139 lbs/ Imp gallon

Going back to post 4, which has the definitive and correct numbers for isooctane combustion yields, it is simply a matter of dividing the 'gallon' mass (in grams) by the mol figure "114", to find mol/gallon. 2725.49/114 = 23.9. Each mol produces "352" CO2, so 23.9 x 352 = 8415.5 g, or 8.415 kg = 18.54 lbs of CO2/ US gallon.

If you assume the main mass in the fuel is the carbon component, not the hydrogen, or that the difference in specific gravity of the 'ideal' isooctane and the 87 octane blend, is effectively the carbon average increase in by substituting proportions of say Decane (C₁₀H₂₂) SG 0.73 and/or Toluene (C₇H₈ and/or C₆H₅CH₃ ) SG 0.8669 and/or Ethanol C₂H₅OH) SG 0.789 g/cm³ , or other; it is reasonable to substitute the 0.739 SG of 87 octane in PWSlack's calculation.

Doing that produces; 3.78541 x 0.739 = 2.794 (= 6.165 lbs/ US gallon) Divided by "114" = 24.5 mol/gal x "352" = 8.627 kg = 19.037 lbs of CO2 / US gal

And 22.863lbs CO2/ Imperial gallon.

If you like you can average that (20.95015) or assign it proportionally amongst those who still use gallons of one kind or the other and call it 20.

And the"extra mass" gets in via the air filter.

Volume? Ooooooh. Post #4 didn't get that far.....

Virtually all combustion reactions result in an increase in the number of molecules present. In the combustion of C₈H_18, there are 13.5 molecules on the left of the reaction equation. There are, however, 17 molecules on the right, and the heat of combustion renders all of these in the gaseous phase inside an infernal combustion engine. These molecules are constrained within the space provided by the cylinder walls, its head and the face of the piston, which at the same instant as the spark is the same volume as that occupied by the 13.5 molecules before the bang. So 13.5 molecules → 17 molecules at an elevated temperature, which means that the pressure must go up just after the bang. It is the increase in pressure that drives the piston downwards and rotates the crankshaft. Result: usable work!

This thread topic could go on until the fuel tank empties.....

"Volume? Ooooooh. Post #4 didn't get that far....."

Yeah, well, it seemed necessary - the way things were/are going.

I see you'd like to delve into "infernal Combustion', especially into the hydrogen and nitrogen roles – not in this 'question' to date – but 'contained' and bouncing around.

Perhaps, "if all else fails" - call a Physicist?

Why have not subtracted the moles of O2 from the room as the oxidation occurs there for the added wheight is .33% of the 19.o lbs or 6.6 lbs . This is the added weight to the room. Why can you not equate the balance to show this?

If then room is isolated and sealed the total weight of fuel and gases all the time will be the same before and after combustion of the whole fuel. Differents:

before was gasoline , oxiden, nitrogen, and many more gases, and heat energy cumulated demonstrated as temperature and pressure; after the experience: water (please note steam is water too), carbon dioxide, less then befor oxigen, nitrogen, and many more gases and temperature and pressure will be higher then earlier (more heat energy obtain from oxidizing fuel process).

To Guest, I'm not sure what you are asking, but nothing has left the "room". Post 4 (PWSlack) has done this "room balance" on a per mol basis. Notice the O2 has been combined with C and H, or everything is still in the "room".

The O's combining with H's, making water, are not included in the yield, as we were only interested in how much CO2 results, not how much (contaminated) water vapor results – though we should be.

I hope this answers, if not, come back.

Actually the weight of the CO2 should be less Altho the total amt of gasses produced might be a bit more because of the addition of oxygen but not THAT much more. Besides, Global warming and/or cooling has little to do with CO2 production, it is mostly caused by conditions on the Sun and also the earth's wobble on it's axis. This Greenhouse gas/global warming is just a way of gov't trying to get control. Also somebody is making a lot of money Al Gore is making from this. HLG

Ok, livagain1, let's do this bit by bit;

"Actually the weight of the CO2 should be less".

CO2 weighs what it weighs.

"Altho the total amt of gasses produced might be a bit more because of the addition of oxygen but not THAT much more."

C ~ 12 + O ~ 16 + O ~ 16 = 44.

Or 1 CO2 is 3.6666 times heavier than 1 carbon.

Yes it is THAT much more

In the question, the amount of CO2 produced, (assuming perfect combustion), is one CO2 molecule for every carbon present. As the number of carbons is finite – the CO2 amount is finite. Because the fuel is partly carbon and partly hydrogen, (the hydrogen part made a mass of water - also quite heavy compared to the H mass - the remaining mass of carbon gave us the 'CO2 mass result'), so the 'CO2 only' result is less than 3.666 times the 'total fuel mass'.

Were this about a power station burning 'extraordinary pure coal', it would be making ~ 3.7 tons of CO2 per ton of fuel. Normally they use any rubbish coal so make relatively less CO2 and a larger pile of extraordinary toxic waste and then, 99% of the heat goes straight into the biosphere. (The good coal is used for coking – steel production).

"Besides, Global warming and/or cooling has little to do with CO2 production, it is mostly caused by conditions on the Sun and also the earth's wobble on it's axis."

True. The Sun is THE major warmer of the Earth.

True - the Sun changes in radiation spectrum and intensity, so Earth 'cycles' naturally in 'warming/cooling'.

Yes the Earth 'wobbles' on its axis. Once it was more and it is postulated in astronomy that a wobble of some 400 miles (640 km) magnitude, substantially in- phase with orbital period, in the past, caused the Ice Ages.

Now it is about 40 km, or miles, or whatever, and bugger all in effect.

I'd cross "wobble" off your list (until the next giant meteor event).

"Greenhouse gas/global warming is just a way of gov't trying to get control. Also somebody is making a lot of money Al Gore is making from this. HLG"

Government - by definition - is "in control" – get over it.

Al Gore's data is remarkably correct. I would have liked some factual thermodynamics in there but such was thought "too hard for the Masses". But there you go, his project – his choice. I allude to some 'other factors' in post 17

The irony for Al is, it has left particularly Engineers and the Technical sector 'unconvinced' and these sectors are the only ones that can make 'science' into 'practical outcomes'.

Without resorting to numbers, the simplest explanation as I see it is: When you burn gasoline or any matter, that matter is combined with gasoline to produce energy. A combination of energy and matter in equals a combination of energy and matter out.

Combustion Engine and Electric Drive - Partners or Competitors in the Powertrain of the Future?

21st International AVL Conference 'Engine & Environment'

10th – 11th September, 2009
Helmut-List-Halle, Graz, Austria
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I'm not involved or financially connected in any way to this organisation. I'm not going to the conference . I just get the publicity material every month

Is there a discount for arriving there by bicycle?

Good question.

Creating CO2 while driving involves taking carbon ('C') out of fuel and adding two oxygen atoms ('O') to it to make CO2. The oxygen atoms come principally from the atmosphere (engines mix fuel and air in cylinders and ignite them).

The weight of CO2 = weight of C plus weight of (O times 2).

The weight of fuel comes principally from the carbon within it, so we can save roughly that weight of CO2 = weight of fuel (C) + weight of 2xO.

For simplicity's sake, each atom of C weights 12 atomic units. Each atom of O weighs 16. Thus, for each 12 units of C (fuel weight), we add 32 (2xO) units, which gives 44 units.

Thus, eight pounds of fuel (= total weight of C in it) give 8 x 44 / 12 pounds of CO2, so which gives a bit less than 30 pounds. Take some out of that because not all of the fuel's weight is from C, so eight pounds of fuel willproduce less than 30 pounds of CO2.

In this way, we don't get an accurate number for how much CO2 gets generated per pound of fuel burnt, butr we do get an idea of how much it is. Twenty pounds is a plausible number.

Hope this helps! :-)
DZ