David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth.
(It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but
not too much, of it.



People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

TDD

On 2/17/2010 12:15 PM The Daring Dufas spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth.
(It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but
not too much, of it.

People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

I take "educated" to mean at least some post-secondary education, let's
say a bachelor's degree. And not at some diploma mill where the only
goal is to get a barely passing grade so one can get into business, real
estate, or some other money-grubbing profession.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

wrote:

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of
government. In any country.

The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just
about anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet
regulated CO2.

Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?- Hide
quoted text -

The only way the EPA can regulate CO2 or anything else is if it is
indeed treated as a pollutant. The whole purpose of the lawsuit was
whether the EPA in the Bush administration could refuse to consider
CO2 a "pollutant" because it's naturally ocurring. That appears to be
the losing argument that you are trying to make here, pretending it
has not been decided otherwise.

Here's a Washington Post excerpt on the Supreme Court ruling with a
direct quote from the ruling by Justice Stevens:



"The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for
refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with
environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon
of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency
violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-
vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists
say contribute to global warming.


On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the
court's ruling:

"The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA had the power to
regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but didn't require the agency
to find that it was a danger to public welfare and also didn't require the
agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA was required to
"ground its reasons for action or inaction" within federal law."

So, here's the conclusions:
1. The EPA has the right to regulate CO2.
2. If it does not, if must give compelling reasons for declining to do so.
3. The EPA is NOT required to regulate CO2.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...atestheadlines

Here's the actual decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZO.html

This is a decision from August 2007. You'll note it is replete with
justifications from the IPCC.

Aside:
There is a fundamental principle in law that a plaintiff must have
"standing" in order to place a matter before the court. That is, the
litigant must have a dog in the fight. Interestingly, the five wild-eyed
liberals on the court who were so exercised they painted themselves blue and
began stabbing each other, saw fit to bypass this hallowed tradition so they
could save the planet. Specifically:

"Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument [not
one of the petitioners has demonstrable standing under Article III] and the
absence of any conflicting decisions ... the unusual importance of the
underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.... [and take up the
issue]."

On 2/17/2010 4:14 AM HeyBub spake thus:

wrote:

In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns
about nuclear energy:

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the
environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though
we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty
years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces
no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the
worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our
supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for
example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when
compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars
off the road.

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for implementing
nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

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.

Nope, significant *carbon* is being kept out of the atmosphere. As Bob
said you are *substituting* methane for other fuels instead of just
having the methane (a greenhouse gas) leak out to the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gas emissions are clearly reduced - the major reason for
using the methane.

Not at all what the TV
news report said.

That is assuming you heard right. If the report said "reduce carbon
emissions" [or greenhouse gas emissions] it would accurately describe
what is happening.

"Reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is a misstatement of the major benefit
[but true using Bob's reference]. IMHO as misstatements go, it is
relatively minor. There is a major benefit in using the methane.

In addition, if I remember right, methane is a more powerful greenhouse
gas than the CO2 that the methane is turned into - an additional
excellent reason to use the methane.

--
bud--

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

On Feb 17, 5:17*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of
government. In any country.

The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just
about anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet
regulated CO2.

Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?- Hide
quoted text -

The only way the EPA can regulate CO2 or anything else is if it is
indeed treated as a pollutant. * *The whole purpose of the lawsuit was
whether the EPA in the Bush administration could refuse to consider
CO2 a "pollutant" because it's naturally ocurring. *That appears to be
the losing argument that you are trying to make here, pretending it
has not been decided otherwise.

Here's a Washington Post excerpt on the Supreme Court ruling with a
direct quote from the ruling by Justice Stevens:

"The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for
refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with
environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon
of global warming.

The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency
violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-
vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists
say contribute to global warming.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the
court's ruling:

"The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA had the power to
regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but didn't require the agency
to find that it was a danger to public welfare and also didn't require the
agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA was required to
"ground its reasons for action or inaction" within federal law."

So, here's the conclusions:
1. The EPA has the right to regulate CO2.
2. If it does not, if must give compelling reasons for declining to do so..
3. The EPA is NOT required to regulate CO2.http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...l?mod=WSJ_late...



Everything you've just posted above is consistent with what I said
from the start. Of course the Supreme Court did not thell the EPA
that they HAD to regulate CO2. They told the EPA they could not
ignore CO2 and had to determine if it was harmful in excess amounts as
they have done with all the other pollutants. The EPA proceeded to
do that and said, once again:

"(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific
review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse
gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or
welfare. The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment
period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat."


So. like I said with my initial post, if you want to argue that CO2
emissions aren't a pollutant, you need to take it up with the Supreme
Court and the EPA, at least as far as the USA is concerned. I don't
understand why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying any govt should
or shouldn't be treating CO2 as a pollutant. Only that they are. I
don't see how any rational and intelligent person today could say that
CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant both by the USA and
internationally.

On Feb 17, 2:10*pm, 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.


Another comparison in general would be with natural gas. Here in NJ
at the local landfill we are already doing exactly what the news
report talked about. The methane is being captured at the landfill
but here it's used in a small gas turbine to generate electricity.
Look at any other similar small turbine facility and they typically
use natural gas as a fuel. And the amount of CO2 released by either
fuel is exactly the same.

If you compare the methane to gas, diesel, etc, fuels, it's anywhere
from 4% to 15% less CO2 emissions. But it's so small it's clearly
not worth mentioning in the news story. Or if they did, they should
say it will reduce CO2 emissions by that amount. But by reporting
it the way they did, I agree, it's very misleading and really the
typical junk journalism. The typical buffoon listens to that and
thinks it's some great achievement relative to CO2.




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.

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Daring Dufas wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on
earth. (It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just
enough, but not too much, of it.



People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

I was educated in government schools and got a fine education. As were a huge
number of
Americans.

One idiot shouldn't condemn a whole system. By the way, what public school did
that person go to?

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?

On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always used
to say.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

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.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always used
to say.


That's all changed. The best way to rob a bank now is to own it!

--
Virg Wall

On 2/18/2010 12:29 PM VWWall spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always used
to say.

That's all changed. The best way to rob a bank now is to own it!

Don't even have to do that; just become a derivatives trader.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 2/18/2010 3:29 PM, VWWall wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always
used to say.


That's all changed. The best way to rob a bank now is to own it!

And the Congress too of course. That way when your aggressive pirate
activities screw too many people and things get wobbly you can summon
Congress to launch an aggressive spin campaign that you are "to big to
fail" and have them pull money out of everyone's pockets to help poor you.

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

On 2/18/2010 5:40 PM daestrom spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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.

That's another issue entirely. So far as the "badness" of CO2 vs.
methane goes, I simply don't know. If you say methane is worse, I'll
have to take your word for it.

But even if that's true, it's simply another *marginal* difference.
Doesn't change the point I was making, which is that the mainstream
media often portrays things like this (capturing methane from landfills
and burning it) as somehow completely *eliminating* that release of carbon.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?
---------
Aw, shoot, a sensible response- you could get blackballed for that!
-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
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.

----------------------
Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time land
fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means that
this replaces the burning of natural gas or other fuels.
sum x units
x+y x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into the
atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Essentially, assuming equal conversion efficiencies (admittedly not true but
also not actually germane to the issue) using the landfill methane alone
produces half the carbon that would be released by burning natural gas AND
letting the methane "waft into the atmosphere".

The "illogic" is that you are comparing one "carbon source " with the other
"carbon source" which is not the situation, rather than one such source
with both such sources -which is the situation.

-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply

Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Co2 (carbon dioxide) or whatever ..........................

Under the right (or is that wrong?) circumstances even oxygen,
essential for human life can be toxic!

And if one tries to live on good food, but of one kind only, health
can be affected, even to death!.

It's all about the right amounts in the right measures and right
places. Correct?
Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on
earth. (It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just
enough, but not too much, of it.


People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.

I was educated in government schools and got a fine education. As were a huge
number of
Americans.

One idiot shouldn't condemn a whole system. By the way, what public school did
that person go to?


I'm not sure, I'm more worried about where she was trained as a
respiratory therapist.

TDD

On 2/18/2010 6:35 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 12:29 PM VWWall spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for
implementing nuclear power.

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always
used to say.

That's all changed. The best way to rob a bank now is to own it!

Don't even have to do that; just become a derivatives trader.


You would still need to purchase the appropriate politicians because
after you get really greedy you might loose money so you will want
someone on your side who can pull money out of everyone else's pockets
to cover your gambling losses.

On Feb 19, 1:03*am, wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message

.com...



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.

----------------------
Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time land
fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means that
this replaces the *burning of natural gas or other fuels.
*sum x units
x+y x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into the
atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Essentially, assuming equal conversion efficiencies (admittedly not true but
also not actually germane to the issue) using the landfill methane alone
produces half the carbon that would be released by burning natural gas AND
letting the methane "waft into the atmosphere".

The "illogic" is that you are comparing one "carbon source " with the other
"carbon source" *which is not the situation, rather than one such source
with * both such sources -which is the situation.

-----
Don Kelly
cross out to reply- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have to agree with your excellent point. If you focus only on CO2
emissions, then it doesn't make any significant difference. But if
you factor in that you would not only be using the other fuel but also
that the methane from the landfill would be escaping, you are right,
you are significantly reducing the greenhouse gases. Also, I don't
know what the exact economics of the situation are, but it would seem
that you are getting some very cost effective energy.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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.

Nope. Burning the methane will reduce the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere
by roughly half.

You are correct when you say NOT burning the methane will result in the
methane still getting into the air eventually.

But burning the methane means that something else will not be burnt. It is
the absence of the carbon contribution by this "something else" that you
didn't count.

I'm just waiting for the eco-freaks to mandate methane capture for
cemeteries.

On 2/18/2010 10:03 PM spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

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.

Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time land
fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means that
this replaces the burning of natural gas or other fuels.
sum x units
x+y x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into the
atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Got to admit you seem to have hit the nail right on the head here. I
accept your explanation.

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading. They
didn't explain things the way you did, and left the impression that the
methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being released.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

David Nebenzahl wrote:

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading. They
didn't explain things the way you did, and left the impression that the
methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being released.

In a way, they're right. The carbon in the landfill and the released methane
are already part of the earth's carbon cycle. Natural as the CO2 we breath out.
The problem with carbon, if there is one, is carbon released by burning fossil
fuels. That carbon has been out of the cycle for millions of years.

So burning the landfill methane does release zero additional carbon.

-- Doug

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 5:40 PM daestrom spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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.

That's another issue entirely.

But for a non-scientific publication by a non-science journalist, it may
be the point they were going for.

So far as the "badness" of CO2 vs.
methane goes, I simply don't know. If you say methane is worse, I'll
have to take your word for it.


Here's the EPA's and IPCC's 'word' on it. Methane has a GWP more than
20 times that of CO2 (see sidebar in middle right side of page)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP

But even if that's true, it's simply another *marginal* difference.
Doesn't change the point I was making, which is that the mainstream
media often portrays things like this (capturing methane from landfills
and burning it) as somehow completely *eliminating* that release of carbon.

Reducing the Global Warming Potential by a factor of 21:1 may not be
'eliminating' it, but it is far more than just a 'marginal' difference.

daestrom

On 2/19/2010 3:43 PM Douglas Johnson spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading.
They didn't explain things the way you did, and left the impression
that the methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being
released.

In a way, they're right. The carbon in the landfill and the released methane
are already part of the earth's carbon cycle. Natural as the CO2 we breath out.
The problem with carbon, if there is one, is carbon released by burning fossil
fuels. That carbon has been out of the cycle for millions of years.

So burning the landfill methane does release zero additional carbon.

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?

Again, at the cost of belaboring this point, the news report left the
impression that capturing the landfill gas would *eliminate all* carbon
emissions from the trash. It would do no such thing.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?

Sure. So is exhaling. But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings, etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. Net balance to
the planet is zero (more or less).

The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas.


Again, at the cost of belaboring this point, the news report left the
impression that capturing the landfill gas would *eliminate all* carbon
emissions from the trash. It would do no such thing.

I didn't see the report, so it didn't leave any impression with me. But if our
landfills emitted enough methane to power the planet, there would be no global
warming issue.

Plants would grow, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we would throw them in the
landfill, capture and burn the methane, return the CO2 to the atmosphere. Net
balance zero (more or less).

-- Doug

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 2/18/2010 10:03 PM spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

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.

Nice but illogical.

Burning natural gas releases y units of carbon and at the same time
land fill methane wafting into the atmosphere releases x units of carbon
sum x+y
Burning the landfill methane releases x units of carbon but also means
that this replaces the burning of natural gas or other fuels.
sum x units
x+y x

By using the methane, you are eliminating the carbon introduced into
the atmosphere by burning other fuels.

Got to admit you seem to have hit the nail right on the head here. I
accept your explanation.

But I still say the TV news report I heard was highly misleading. They
didn't explain things the way you did,

Don was the third person who made essentially the same point. We have no
idea whether the news program did or not - you seem to not catch on.

and left the impression that the
methane capture would somehow result in ZERO carbon being released.

Using the methane results in ZERO *additional* carbon being released.

Your post that started this said "reduce carbon dioxide emissions". If
you misheard and they said "reduce carbon emissions" the report was
accurate. If they did say "reduce carbon dioxide emissions" the report
misstated the effect, but was close - as understanding of science goes
today. Using the methane reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Three people
who posted here understood that and tried to tell you, starting with
Bob. Your understanding of science, at best, does not appear to be
better than the news program.

--
bud--

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:51:43 -0000, "Cwatters"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

If you use the car mainly as a second car for short drives
around town, driving to a commuter lot, etc., it sounds viable.

I agree. Electric cars are perfectly viable as second cars in a two car
family.

When we were younger, out "second car" was an old version of the
"first car". IOW, we kept the old one. Now they're quite different
vehicles (one car, one truck) for different purposes, in addition to
commuting. A "second car" costing as much as an electric car is a
non-starter.

For many it would also be viable to use one to commute to work. Many people
commute less than 30 miles and the car sits idle all day in the car park.

If you're foolish enough to buy an *expensive* new car as just a
commuter.

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.

LOL! You really just can't figure this out, can you. Well, lots of others are
telling you the same thing.

In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?

Sure. So is exhaling. But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. Net balance
to
the planet is zero (more or less).

The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas.

That glosses over a very important issue. Organic carbon is taken from
the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into sugars,
cellulose, etc. The key fact is that it's CO2. Convert it to methane,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it was
CO2.

On Feb 27, 11:37*am, Hope for the Heartless
wrote:
In article ,
*Douglas Johnson wrote:





David Nebenzahl wrote:

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?

Sure. *So is exhaling. *But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. *The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. *Net balance
to
the planet is zero (more or less). *

The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas. *

That glosses over a very important issue. *Organic carbon is taken from
the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into sugars,
cellulose, etc. *The key fact is that it's CO2. *Convert it to methane,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it was
CO2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

wrote in
:

On Feb 27, 11:37*am, Hope for the Heartless
wrote:
In article ,
*Douglas Johnson wrote:





David Nebenzahl wrote:

Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that
are no
t
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a
big p
it
is a human activity, yes?

Sure. *So is exhaling. *But in both cases, the carbon was taken out
of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. *The methane from the
landfill
is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass
clippin
gs,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. *Net
b
alance
to
the planet is zero (more or less). *

The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans
relea
sing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of
oil
and
natural gas. *

That glosses over a very important issue. *Organic carbon is taken
from the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into
sugars, cellulose, etc. *The key fact is that it's CO2. *Convert it
to methan
e,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it
was CO2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

Later on in this listing, it states that since 1750, CH4 has almost
doubled, CO2 has gone up 25%. Therefore, while still a minor fraction
(and likely to remain so) CH4 is still a gas whose releases probably
should be controlled. Since the use of natural gas will increase out of
proportion to other energy sources and that of animal husbandry too,
let's try at least.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/28/2010 6:58 AM, wrote:

Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

1) CO2 is given in PPM
2) CH4 is given in PPB
3) Thermal conductivity is relative to concentration.
4) At higher concentrations CH4 can be 70 times as conductive
5) CO2 is a crappy forcing agent.
6) CO2 is at an excessivly low concentration, regardless, and used
to be at levels many times current.
7) AGW is a fraud. Always has been, always will be.

wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:37 am, Hope for the Heartless
wrote:
In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:





David Nebenzahl wrote:
Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?
Sure. So is exhaling. But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. Net balance
to
the planet is zero (more or less).
The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas.
That glosses over a very important issue. Organic carbon is taken from
the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into sugars,
cellulose, etc. The key fact is that it's CO2. Convert it to methane,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it was
CO2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases


I'll see your wiki article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
(see table of Global Warming Potentials)

And raise you two EPA citations...
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...alculator.html
(put in 1 metric ton of methane and the results are 19.1 ton of CO2)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
The table to the right of the definition of Global Warming Potential.

Followed by a chapter of IPCC paper...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch02.pdf
(see pg 212 for Table 2.14 for Global Warming Potential of methane)


Your citation only shows the radiative forcing due to the current levels
of each gas, not the GWP.

The marginal increase in RF from a unit mass (not molar) release of
methane versus CO2 is closer to the 20x number than you thought.

daestrom

On Feb 28, 10:13*am, daestrom wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:37 am, Hope for the Heartless
wrote:
In article ,
*Douglas Johnson wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Zero *additional* carbon, if one argues that "additional" means
"compared to the release due to the methane". But the methane is
anthropogenic, no? Yes, there are other sources of methane that are not
human-caused, but you've got to admit that throwing garbage in a big pit
is a human activity, yes?
Sure. *So is exhaling. *But in both cases, the carbon was taken out of the
atmosphere in the fairly recent past. *The methane from the landfill is
generated by the decay of organic material -- food waste, grass clippings,
etc.
All that was created by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. *Net balance
to
the planet is zero (more or less). *
The problem with anthropogenic carbon, if there is one, is humans releasing
carbon that has been buried underground for millions in the form of oil and
natural gas. *
That glosses over a very important issue. *Organic carbon is taken from
the atmosphere in the form of CO2 converted by plants into sugars,
cellulose, etc. *The key fact is that it's CO2. *Convert it to methane,
and it becomes 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than when it was
CO2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which shows once again that at least some of those that claim to know
so much about global warming have the basic facts wrong. * Methane is
about 3X effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. *That's a long way
from 20X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

I'll see your wiki article...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
(see table of Global Warming Potentials)

And raise you two EPA citations...http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energ...alculator.html
(put in 1 metric ton of methane and the results are 19.1 ton of CO2)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#GWP
The table to the right of the definition of Global Warming Potential.

Followed by a chapter of IPCC paper...http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch02.pdf
(see pg 212 for Table 2.14 for Global Warming Potential of methane)

Your citation only shows the radiative forcing due to the current levels
of each gas, not the GWP.

The marginal increase in RF from a unit mass (not molar) release of
methane versus CO2 is closer to the 20x number than you thought.

daestrom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree. I misinterpreted the page I looked at. It appears the same
amount of methane is about 20X the greenhouse effect of CO2. Which
means even if you just burned off methane escaping from a dump you'd
be substantially reducing the impact.