David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 8:46 AM Bob F spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/17/2010 7:40 AM Bob F spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/16/2010 4:23 PM Bob F spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering
methane from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good
thing overall, the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with
saying that this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course
this is totally untrue: while the methane would be captured
instead of simply venting to the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide
would be released later when it was burned. All that's being done
is delaying the release of the CO2. Sheesh; are we *really* that
much a nation of idiots?
Nope. Just you.
Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or
gasoline.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html
Plus, recovering methane and using it to create energy prevents the
methane from escaping to become a greenhouse gas. The energy
produced is a bonus.
Totally beside the point; the news report said specifically that
capturing the methane and burning it would mean that the carbon in
the methane wouldn't be released into the atmosphere. The CO2
released when the methane is burned is most definitely a greenhouse
gas. (Remember the formula from high school chemistry? CH4 + 02
-- CO2 + H20)
Try to read more carefully.
Try to write more carefully then.
"this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is what you said. And
it clearly will, by reducing the production of the equivalent power
burning coal. Less CO2 is produced with the methane.
Except that this is the wrong comparison: the methane is being used to
power garbage trucks, so the proper comparison would be with gasoline,
diesel or propane.
So the only carbon that's being kept out of the atmosphere is the
marginal difference between the carbon emitted by burning one of these
fuels and the carbon emitted by burning methane. Not at all what the
TV news report said.
So, if the methane had just wafted off into the atmosphere, you are
saying the carbon wouldn't have ended up in the atmosphere?
What are you, an *intentional* ****ing idiot? Really.
READ WHAT I SAID. Let me paraphrase and try to explain, this time with
SMALLER WORDS that you might UNDERSTAND.
The carbon contained in the landfill will reach the atmosphere in both
cases: if the methane is allowed to waft into the atmosphere, or if it
is captured and then burned in an internal-combustion engine (in a
garbage truck). THE CARBON WILL ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE IN EITHER CASE. If
it's captured, the release of the carbon is merely delayed.
And yes, there may be a SLIGHT reduction of the total amount of carbon
released by burning methane as opposed to other motor vehicle fuels
(gasoline, diesel, propane), but the reduction is marginal at best.
But pound for pound, isn't methane a 'worse' green-house gas than CO2?
I understand that methane released into the atmosphere is more
detrimental to 'global warming' than CO2.
So converting the methane to CO2 before releasing it still puts the same
amount of carbon in the air, but in a form that is less detrimental.
daestrom