http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/grab-the-oil-pollution-absolution/ Whiskey and Gunpowder features articles on gold, oil, currencies, emerging markets, energy, and more. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:22:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/grab-the-oil-pollution-absolution/comment-page-1/#comment-4685 John Nelson Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:50:31 +0000 http://agoratestsite.com/wordpresswhiskey/?p=33#comment-4685 Regarding your first point -- The United States produces far less greenhouse gasses per barrel of oil burned than China, etc. Since you claim to have a nose for bullshit, this claim bears some looking into. If you combine oxygen (air) with a hydrocarbon (really, really clean oil or maybe NG) and you do it a really, really well you get out carbon dioxide and water in a specific ration and volume which depends only on the quantity and type of hydrocarbon. This is a very simple, easy to understand and correct concept. Also, the same result will occur whether you do it in Akron or Ankara. If the combining/burning is not done really, really well you can get carbon monoxide, NOX, and unburned hydrocarbons, perhaps. (Forget about the sulfur dioxide and mercury, because the oil is really, really clean). The statement is not even correct if one takes into account the greenhouse effectiveness of the species produced, because the claim was “less gasses”, not “less greenhouse effect”. Bottom line -- you burn a ton of oil that contains a .85 tons of Carbon atoms; you will get .85 tons of Carbon atoms out the tailpipe. If you combine the carbon atoms with only one Oxygen, instead of two, you make less tons of gas product (but it's lethal CO). If you don’t burn completely and emit methane, you also put out less tons of gas (methane is lighter than CO2). Now, if you make a lot of particulates (clumps of Carbon) you also produce less tons of greenhouse gas (because some carbon is unburned/unused and falls on the ground). So it would seem that the goal is to produce more greenhouse gasses per ton of oil consumed not less. What do you think? Regarding your first point — The United States produces far less greenhouse gasses per barrel of oil burned than China, etc.
Since you claim to have a nose for bullshit, this claim bears some looking into. If you combine oxygen (air) with a hydrocarbon (really, really clean oil or maybe NG) and you do it a really, really well you get out carbon dioxide and water in a specific ration and volume which depends only on the quantity and type of hydrocarbon.
This is a very simple, easy to understand and correct concept. Also, the same result will occur whether you do it in Akron or Ankara.
If the combining/burning is not done really, really well you can get carbon monoxide, NOX, and unburned hydrocarbons, perhaps. (Forget about the sulfur dioxide and mercury, because the oil is really, really clean). The statement is not even correct if one takes into account the greenhouse effectiveness of the species produced, because the claim was “less gasses”, not “less greenhouse effect”.
Bottom line — you burn a ton of oil that contains a .85 tons of Carbon atoms; you will get .85 tons of Carbon atoms out the tailpipe. If you combine the carbon atoms with only one Oxygen, instead of two, you make less tons of gas product (but it’s lethal CO). If you don’t burn completely and emit methane, you also put out less tons of gas (methane is lighter than CO2). Now, if you make a lot of particulates (clumps of Carbon) you also produce less tons of greenhouse gas (because some carbon is unburned/unused and falls on the ground).
So it would seem that the goal is to produce more greenhouse gasses per ton of oil consumed not less. What do you think?

]]>