untitled

Pub #brownchem: @alpha137

*** #brownchem :End of /NAMES list.

*** Mode is +

*** Channel started at Thursday, July 23, 1998 1:18:46 PM

comments in blue

corrections in red

*** LizK (gloworm4@200-15-227.ipt.aol.com) has joined channel #brownchem

LizK: hello

alpha137: hello

alpha137: I was making a summary of global warming and expected IRC to make a sound when you logged on. It did not for some reason.

Here are some summary comments on global warming.

alpha137: I would like to continue a bit with the global warming topic.

alpha137: hello?

LizK: Oh, I'm so sorry, some how the screen shifted up so I could't see that you typed anything

LizK: IT didn't make a sound either

LizK: thats strange

LizK: But back to the Global Warming

alpha137: Lets consider water as a greenhouse gas.

LizK: Ok

alpha137: Do you know about "feedback?"

In this link feedback is discussed in terms of an electrical circuit analog.

LizK: somewhat, as in "feedback mechanism"?

alpha137: Yes.

alpha137: We know that a degree increase in temperature will increase the vapor pressure of water by a few hundred ppm.

LizK: Yes

alpha137: According to physical chemistry the dependence on temperature is exponential.

This is very non-linear!

alpha137: That was that equation from last time.

LizK: That makes sense

alpha137: So, fractional temperature increases would have a noticable effect on the ppm of water put into the atmosphere.

LizK: Yes,

LizK: and, have scientests recorded an increase in the ppm of water in the atomospher in the past years?

alpha137: I think that is very difficult to do.

LizK: ok

alpha137: We will have to rely on theory.

LizK: I see

alpha137: What we are doing here is making a model.

LizK: Yes

alpha137: I was talking with the geologist Clemens yesterday after our discussion and we were considering this water question. Why is it not the largest effect!

LizK: I don't know, but if we still can't measure it then it can't have made that much of an effect already

alpha137: We know that there is more water than anything and that water absorbs IR radiation.

alpha137: We can measure the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, but it may be difficult to measure a small change.

LizK: Maybe it doesn;t warm it as much, like there was that scale of "Warming Potential" if water is much lower than all the other greenhouse gases, then it isn;'t as much of a problem

alpha137: I think we can even measure a small change come to think of it.

LizK: Also. doesn't water absorb heat with out changing temperature, thats how the oceans stay cold

alpha137: There is so much water that even if it were not as "effective" as carbon dioxide in absorbing IR radiation it would be the dominant greenhouse gas.

LizK: I mean, it does change temperature, but it takes a long time - more heat

alpha137: No, water cannot absorb heat without changeing temperature unless the exact amount of WORK is done to consume all that heat. (First Law of Thermo)

alpha137: We are not getting where I want to try and go fast enough

LizK: I'm sorry

alpha137: Here is the idea. Since the industrial revolution the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is perhaps 100 ppm.

LizK: ok

alpha137: This we know from measurements of ice cores, etc.

LizK: yes

alpha137: This 100 ppm CO_2 causes a fractional heating of the earth and its troposphere.

LizK: yes

alpha137: So, what do you think this might do?

LizK: wouldn't it cause the amount of water vapor in the air to increase?

alpha137: Precisely.

alpha137: And what would this do?

LizK: ok, so it all goes back to the CO_2

LizK: that would cause the earth to heat up even more

LizK: its a cyce

LizK: cycle

alpha137: Would we call this a feedback mechanism?

LizK: I suppose so

alpha137: If we look at the chart that Clemens gave us, the one going back 750,000 years, we see a rather constant cycle of temperatures.

LizK: yes

alpha137: Heating and cooling as seen through ice cores.

LizK: Wouldn't that imply that the CO_2 concentrations fluctuate in a rather constant cycle?

alpha137: Perhaps, and also water vapor.

LizK: ok

alpha137: By the way, I was incorrect in saying that the time taken to get carbon to the ocean, or ocean floor is very long. It is very short!

LizK: ok,

alpha137: The mechanism is the injestion of carbon dioxide by the biota in the oceans.

LizK: oh,

alpha137: These living things make CaCO_3 among other things and when they pass on they sink.

LizK: that makes sense

alpha137: I think of the temperature (and therefore water vapor and carbon dioxide) variations as a "dynamic equilibrium."

LizK: yes

alpha137: That is, there are fluctuations about some rather constant average.

LizK: yes

alpha137: As we have seen, the geological mechanisms for all this are complicated, connected and not fully understood.

LizK: ok

alpha137: We have the ocean business discussed by Wally.

LizK: yes

alpha137: That is not understood.

LizK: thats too bad

alpha137: We have the tectonic business (uplifing of the mountains) causing exposure of calcium carbonate and its transport into the oceans and connection with carbon dioxide.

alpha137: That is not understood either.

LizK: ok

alpha137: All that said, you are right we are back to CO_2.

LizK: ok

LizK: so, what to do?

alpha137: After all this discussion, both on IRC and with Clemens, and reading stuff I believe we have to attack the carbon dioxide production.

LizK: ok

alpha137: As you pointed out earlier, there is the industralization in the developing world to contend with.

LizK: yes

alpha137: We discussed the development of a fuel cell driven car and a vehicle using a combination of technologies. Remember Ed Clark thought 100 - 500 mpg possible?

LizK: yes

LizK: THat would reduce CO_2 emmissions

alpha137: Therefore, in the US, how large a contribution of the total man made carbon dioxide is due to cars?

LizK: probably not most of it, but a good amount

alpha137: What are the sources?

LizK: of CO_2? as in like fossil fuels and hydrocarbons etc?

alpha137: Right.

alpha137: The various uses of carbon containing compounds.

LizK: ok

alpha137: Make a list-"and check it twice."

alpha137: First, let us work on the auto question?

LizK: ok

alpha137: How would you go about making an estimate of the CO_2 produced by all the cars in the US per year?

alpha137: There are two points to this exercise. First, is the importance of making estimates. Second, we are really interested in the impact of cars on greenhouse effect.

LizK: well, you could find the number of cars, then find the average number of miles driven per car, then find the amount of CO_2 release in burning enough fuel to go one mile on an average gas mileage car

LizK: and then multiply it times the number of miles driven by americans in one year

alpha137: OK, good. There are more cars in the US than there are people.

LizK: that is disgusting

alpha137: So, let us say 250,000,000 cars.

An assumption that could be off!

LizK: ok

alpha137: How far does the average car go per year?

LizK: say about 10,000 miles?

alpha137: I would say 20,000 miles

Another assumption that could be a bit high.

LizK: ok

alpha137: But 10,000 miles is the right order of magnetude.

LizK: ok

alpha137: I say 20,000 miles because I do not know anyone who has driven that few miles.

alpha137: This is 20,000 miles/year - have to keep track of units.

LizK: I asked my mom, and she said that she drives about 14000 miles/year

LizK: but whichever, it still going to end up being a big number

alpha137: Your mom is a good citizen.

LizK: ok,

alpha137: How many miles per gallon of gas?

LizK: say, 20

Yet another guess.

alpha137: That is my guess too.

LizK: ok

alpha137: 20 miles/gallon

LizK: yes

alpha137: We can divide 20,000 miles per year by 20 miles per gallon and get?

LizK: wouldn't you multiply?

LizK: oh, nevermind, \

LizK: 1,000 gallons a year

alpha137: No, we want the miles to cancel.

LizK: so its about 1,000 gallons a year?

alpha137: Right. Now I just looked up the density of octane (not such a good gas, but it will do) and find 0.716 grams/mL.

We are using gasoline, not octane and the "molecular weight" of the mixture called gasoline and its density will be different from octane.

LizK: ok

alpha137: We need to convert gallons to mL.

LizK: alright

alpha137: I just looked it up. 1 gal US = 3,785 mL

LizK: ok, thank you

alpha137: How many grams is in that 1000 gal/year of gas?

LizK: I get 2710 grams

alpha137: I think you are off by 1000.

LizK: thats very possib;e

LizK: yes.

alpha137: If the molecular weight of octane is 114 g/mol how many moles do we have?

LizK: I get something abut 23,772 moles

alpha137: Looks about right. Remember, this is per year per auto.

LizK: and athen you have to multiply that by 250 million to get for the country, that will be a staggering number of moles

alpha137: If this octane is completely burned how many moles of CO_2 do we get per octane?

alpha137: This is simple chemistry.

LizK: yes, but I have to remember octane

alpha137: How many carbon atoms in octane?

LizK: 16 moles per mole of octane

alpha137: No, it is all in a name.

LizK: 8 carbon atoms in octane

alpha137: Right. How many moles of carbon dioxide produced per car per year?

LizK: like 190179

alpha137: looks right.

LizK: oh good

alpha137: How many grams if the Mw of carbon dioxide is 44 g / mol

LizK: 8,367,905 grams/year

LizK: per car

alpha137: Right.Per Car!!!

LizK: that is terrrible

alpha137: Multiply by 250,000,000

LizK: 2.092 * 10^15!!

alpha137: WoW!

LizK: That is so many grams of carbon!!

Carbon Dioxide!

alpha137: We can divide by 454 g/Lb and by 2,000 Lb/ton to get 2.3 billion tons per year carbon dioxide US

LizK: Goodness gracious, that is so much

LizK: And we just pump it out into the atomosphere

alpha137: It is large to say the least. But what about the other sources?

alpha137: Home heating. Make that list. We need to do an accounting.

alpha137: The low end of Ed Clark's 100 mpg auto would make a difference!

LizK: well, there is both AC and Heating, and some people have gas while others have oil and that depends, and different furnaces have differnet efficiencies

LizK: Yes, definitely,

LizK: to your last. stmnmt

alpha137: We could lump heating and air conditioning into one.

LizK: ok

LizK: but what about gas.vs oil, isn't there a difference in what is released?

alpha137: On the other hand, air cond. is usually electrically driven and heating is by burning oil at the home.

LizK: yes

alpha137: Gas vs oil they are both hydrocarbons and release carbon dioxide. The question is on a energy basis how much CO_2 do you get from these two different HC's?

LizK: ok

*** thYaTworK (danp@public4.jri.org) has joined channel #brownchem

alpha137: It is going to take the same number of kJ to heat the home.

LizK: hello]

thYaTworK: hey

alpha137: hello ThYaTworK

LizK: ok

alpha137: We are discussing global warming still. We are at the point where we think that carbon dioxde is indeed a problem - as best we know - and are trying to figure ways of reduction.

alpha137: We are considering cars and have just estimated the amount of carbon dioxide produced by cars US per year

alpha137: This number is 2.3 billion tons/year US.

thYaTworK: wow

alpha137: That is what I said.

LizK: exactly, thats huge

alpha137: So, we think that if we could develop a combination car (fuel cell, etc.) we could make a 5 fold reduction here at least.

alpha137: The bottom line is, can we make an impact on this global warming problem?

LizK: I think so, if we don't wait to long

thYaTworK: i remember a little about alternative energy sources for more efficient cars...

thYaTworK: but i think that industry is a better place to start tackling the problem

alpha137: Cars are one thing, what are the magnetudes of the other sources of carbon in the atmosphere?

alpha137: Power plants is one. Others?

LizK: Well, factories

thYaTworK: garbage incinerators and recycling plants?

alpha137: OK, factories would use oil heat and electricity from those power plants.

alpha137: If we get data on power plants in the US we will have a handle on a large part of the enery uses that produce carbon dioxide.

LizK: yes

alpha137: We need this data.

alpha137: We already mentioned home heating. So we need figures on fuel oil for home heating and industrial heating.

LizK: where would you find those

alpha137: That book?

alpha137: The energy chapter? Chapt 5?

LizK: What book? the text?

alpha137: That ACS book I gave you.

LizK: let me go get that, i already packed it

alpha137: Any book on the environment.

thYaTworK: i have none of those at work...ah well

alpha137: What about the use of nuclear power as a green house gas solution?

LizK: i dont see any

alpha137: I could not find an appropriate table in the books here either.

thYaTworK: try and convince the general public of that!

LizK: yes, that wouldn't go over real well

alpha137: Why?

thYaTworK: oh...i have a good one!

LizK: Because everyone would be afraid of a CHernobyl

thYaTworK: grazing!

alpha137: Why, cause if not we are going to fry.

alpha137: Fry the greenhouse way.

thYaTworK: i don't think the public has a good impression of nuclar power

thYaTworK: NIMBY, for example

alpha137: I think you are right and for good reason.

LizK: But that won't be until we are already dead, if a nuclear pwr plant blows up then everybody's gone right ther

thYaTworK: is grazing (i.e. cattle) a major contributor for co2 emissions? =)

alpha137: Let us not eat meat then.

LizK: That would go over real well

LizK: !

thYaTworK: that wouldn't affect it much

thYaTworK: in my enviro class last year we had a big discussion on vegetarianism and how it didn't really affect the meat industry that much

LizK: I know,

alpha137: We need some quantitative answers to these sources of carbon dioxide in order to make a sound policy.

Here is a link to a tables of data in the web site listed below.

Here is an executive summery from the EPA about greenhouse gases this is an Adobe Acrobat PDF file

LizK: ok

LizK: EPA probably has lots of figures

alpha137: I have this intuitive feeling that the number of cattle, US, is not a significant contributor of carbon dioxide. I would easily be wrong, because the decaying of organic (vegetable) matter does add a significant amount.

thYaTworK: here

thYaTworK: do you have netscape running?

LizK: ok

thYaTworK: http://www.globalchange.org/dataall/96eiaf6.htm

alpha137: yes

thYaTworK: sort of old table, but it has some figures

alpha137: Great. But they have lumped transportation and industrial together.

thYaTworK: or this:

thYaTworK: http://www.preen.org/eiagg97/chap2.html

thYaTworK: More than two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is for transportation, which accounts for about one-third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions

thYaTworK: Motor gasoline accounts for nearly two-thirds of transportation sector energy consumption.

alpha137: We need to square these figures with our estimate of the carbon dioxide from autos.

alpha137: I think we may differ by a factor of 10 too high.

No, the figures are metric tons of Carbon and we are using Carbon Dioxide. There are 2,200 Lbs/metric ton so this increases the figure by 10%. The molecular weight of Carbon Dioxide is 44 while the atomic weight of C is 12. This figure of 469 metric tons C from transportation turns into 1.8 billion tons CO_2/yr pretty close to our off the top of the head estimate of 2.3 billion tons/yr.

thYaTworK: when determining what courses of action to take, we also need to look at trends...

LizK: Thats quite possible

alpha137: No, about a factor of 5 too high.

Not so, read above.

alpha137: In any event, transportation efficiency would have a significnant impact.

LizK: yes

thYaTworK: what was your figure, again?

alpha137: I think I had 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide produced per year US from cars.

Again, this figure is not so far off considering our guesses.

thYaTworK: the projected 1996 emissions from motor gasoline was 286.7 million metric tons

Using this figure, 1.2 billion tone/yr CO_2 still the right ball park. The point of the exercise is to estimate. Nothing beats the actual data!

thYaTworK: so there is a disparity

thYaTworK: but what matters is that this number is rising

LizK: yes

thYaTworK: due to less efficient SUVs and sports cars and the likes

thYaTworK: and mad cheap gas

LizK: and more cars too

alpha137: Ours was an estimate based on guesses of the number of autos, the mpg, and miles traveled.

thYaTworK: if they taxed gas here like they did in europe, we could have a lot more money to spend in trying to clean up the problems it causes ;)

alpha137: That is certainly true.

LizK: yes

alpha137: The gas tax in europe and in asia is used for social programs.

alpha137: This is a huge political problem here.

alpha137: I like a car too.

thYaTworK: yeah

LizK: yep

thYaTworK: it is nearly improbably that a gas tax would ever fly here

alpha137: If I ride the bus I see lots of poor people on it.

LizK: yes, I thought they were considering it last year, but it didn't go throught

alpha137: If I go to an industry I see lots of poor people in junky cars driving to work.

thYaTworK: the big guns of industry (i.e. auto manufacturers, oil companies) have too much power in congress to pas a bill to tax gax

LizK: Yes

thYaTworK: and plus taxpayers wouldn't want gas prices to go up, cuz then they'd have to pay more

alpha137: If we tax gas we will disproportionally impact the poor.

alpha137: What do you say about that?

LizK: yes, and so of course it won't fly, but in CA they have been able to pass some regulations because the smog was so bad

alpha137: The oil companies are keeping the gas prices low to help the poor?

LizK: Yes it will impact the poor so public transportation is important, plus, if it is a good system even people who could afford to drivee a car would use it

LizK: I think they are keeping them low because they get mor eprofit

alpha137: It would appear that the only way to get some progress in curtailing gas use is through environmental regulations (based on health).

LizK: YEs, if you play up the detrimental effects on health people wiull care, it will be all over the media

LizK: And if it effects them immediately

thYaTworK: gas is cheap, SUVs get much less MPG than smaller cars, people like SUVs, people spend lots of $$$ on SUVs, car makers happy

LizK: YEs

thYaTworK: it's a vicious cycle =)

alpha137: It has been true for many decades that there is more profit in more expensive cars.

LizK: Yep

alpha137: The SUV's are a passing fad so I do not think we will have to worry about those gas guszlers for long.

LizK: IF you could say that breathing polluted air causes obesity and if we clean up the air people will lose weight and all the probs that go with it (ie heart disease and stroke and cancer) then you would get enviro. regs immediately

LizK: But that would be lying

alpha137: I have one, buy the way. It is a 1980 Surburban used for hauling stuff-4X4. Gets 13 mpg.

LizK: Shame on you!

alpha137: I know.

alpha137: If you breath polluted air you do loose weight.

LizK: But then, we have a Minivan, it gets better mpg than that, but its not great either

alpha137: But of course it is by dying early.

thYaTworK: the truck we use to tow our boat trailer (for crew) got about 7-8mpg on the way back from philly...we had two 20 gallon tanks that we had to continually fill the whole way home.

thYaTworK: of course we always stopped at the cheapest station =)

alpha137: But still we can make a significant impact on carbon added from this source I believe.

alpha137: By the way, thVaTwork, Geo 22 is NOT the course to take, but Geo 5 would be.

thYaTworK: the concept of an environmentally friendly car needs to be introduced to the mass market and gain widespread acceptance for it tot have any effect

thYaTworK: yeah, i think i decided to do that

LizK: Yes, deffinitely

thYaTworK: that is probably the hardest part

LizK: yes

thYaTworK: once a car is introduced into the marketplace, AND gains consumer acceptance, then we are on the road to reducing auto emissions

thYaTworK: but right now it seems we are a far cry away from that

LizK: but that will take a long time

alpha137: I think the way this is going to work is that Calif will require better, non-polluting cars and the rest of the country will follow.

LizK: Thats what I was thinking

thYaTworK: yeah--CA definately can set thge precedent for this

alpha137: If the auto industry is producing the numbers of cars for the Ca market then they will like to sell them everywhere.

LizK: yes, they will have to to make it worth their while to produce them

alpha137: The chemical principles of the fuel cell driven car and the engineering principles of the combination vehicles seems sound.

LizK: yes, they will have to to make it worth their while to produce them

alpha137: The modern combination gas/electric car seems very feasible and Calif is the place for it to occur if it is going to make it.

LizK: yes

alpha137: My great uncle invented an electric car in Detroit, Mich.

LizK: Wow

alpha137: It was called the Anderson Electric Car.

LizK: What happened

alpha137: He was a friend of inventors of that day-1900 or so.

LizK: If they could invent Electric cars all the way back then, why are we still driving gas guzzling SUV's?

alpha137: I saw a picture of it in the New York Times mag many years ago.

alpha137: Batteries!

LizK: THats pretty neat

alpha137: Batteries/fuel cells are the answer.

LizK: ok

alpha137: There have been improvements in battery technology.

LizK: yes

alpha137: We had decided that a battery WAS a fuel cell.

alpha137: Generalizing the idea.

LizK: yes

alpha137: It sounds as if the best battery/fuel cell requires a combination of other technologies to give the response and the distance american drivers expect.

LizK: yes

LizK: thats probab;y the best way to go, especially in the beginning\

alpha137: Also, Volvo engineers completely redesigned a car from the tires up.

LizK: really

alpha137: That is, they took a look at wheels, materials engins were made of, etc.

alpha137: The reduced weight and make a high millage, "conventional" car that got 100 mpg.

thYaTworK: i have a volvo

thYaTworK: wow

LizK: WOW

alpha137: Does your Volvo get 100 mpg?

thYaTworK: not even close ;)

LizK: I would take a Volvo

alpha137: But Volvo did not market the car!

LizK: Why not?

thYaTworK: maybe it gets 20+ on the highway...

alpha137: They gave some business reason, but the point is that there is practical engineering to lower gas milage.

LizK: yes

alpha137: So, where are we on this greenhouse effect thing?

LizK: If we use more efficient cars lessCO_2 will get pumped into the Atomosphere

alpha137: OK

thYaTworK: if we reduce industrial emissions, again less CO2 in the atmosphere

LizK: YEs

alpha137: OK

thYaTworK: however, we still need to reduce what is up there

LizK: bUt thats nearly impossible

thYaTworK: and it will take a while fo rthe effects of our reductions to be noticeable

thYaTworK: just increase the number of algae in the ocean

alpha137: Geological processes will eventually reduce what is up there.

LizK: easier said than dobe

LizK: done

alpha137: Exactly, increase the number of algea.

thYaTworK: and basically sit on our thumbs and wait ;)

LizK: yep

alpha137: I am told by the geologist Clemens that the response of the algea is pretty fast.

alpha137: Seasonal!

alpha137: They are a sink for carbon.

alpha137: Their growth rate, another chemical principle, is temperature dependent.

LizK: but how can you just increase the number of algae?

alpha137: Algea multiply. Need to study biology too.

alpha137: They need some food and CO_2 can be considered.

LizK: yes, but they are multiplying right now too, it is natural for them to increase in numebrss

alpha137: What we do not understand in enough detail is the relationship between the alge and the CO_2, but it is a tight coupling.

LizK: ok