NEW YORK -- A new study by an independent think tank names and shames the power companies responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States and abroad.
Releasing its findings Wednesday, the Washington, DC-based Center for Global Development (CDG) said that electricity generation is responsible for one quarter of the world's total CO2 emissions -- the main cause of global warming -- and U.S. power plants account for fully 25 percent of the emissions generated by the power sector worldwide.
A dozen power plants in the United States were singled out as the "worst" CO2 emitters; six of which are located in just three states -- Georgia, Texas, and Indiana. All 12 are coal-fired plants.
Based on the first-ever inventory of the world's 50,000 power stations, the Center's research shows that in the United States the biggest CO2 emitter is Southern Co., which annually releases 172 million tons into the atmosphere.
The second largest polluter is American Electric Power Company Inc., followed by Duke Energy Corporation and AES Corporation. The Center has listed all the other names on its new Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) Web site.
"CARMA makes information about power-related CO2 emissions transparent to people throughout the world," said Dr. David Wheeler, a senior researcher at the Center and leader of the team that compiled the data on power stations.
Wheeler hopes that investors, insurers, lenders, and environmental experts will use the CARMA data to encourage power companies to turn to renewable and clean energy sources, such as wind and solar.
"It is unique, one of a kind -- a world standard," said CGD president Nancy Birdsall of CARMA. "Never before has this kind of information been made available on a global scale. Not only it is likely to catalyze action to cut emissions now, it also strengthens the knowledge base for monitoring any future market-based agreement."
Birdsall may be right, as the Center's early research is already being used by environmental communities and lenders in the power sectors in large developing nations, such as Indonesia and China.
CARMA reveals that, on a per capita basis, Australia has become the world's number one carbon emitter in the power sector, although, in overall terms, the United States still remains the largest polluter.
The list of emitters shows that, on average, each individual in the United States is responsible for no less than 9 tons of emissions per year, whereas the average Australian's emissions amount to about 11 tons in the same span of time.
According to the CARMA database, populous developing nations have far lower per capita emissions than the richest countries. For example, the average Chinese citizen produces just 2 tons of CO2 emissions from power generation annually, and Indians emit only half a ton per person per year.
In terms of total CO2 output, however, China is the only country to approach the 2.8 billion tons of CO2 produced annually by the U.S. power sector.
Following China (2.7 billion tons) on the list are Russia (661 million tons); India (583 million tons); Japan (400 million tons); Germany (356 million tons); Australia (226 million tons); South Africa (222 million tons); the UK (212 million tons); and South Korea (185 million tons).
Though the United States and Australia are, in their respective categories, the world's largest emitters of CO2, both countries remain reluctant to join any international pact to agree on definite cuts in emissions. Neither has signed nor seems willing to endorse the 1997 Kyoto treaty, which is due to expire in 2012.
That, despite the fact that there is no longer any serious doubt among climate scientists that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are altering the Earth's climate.
In fact, now there is also broad consensus that controlling emissions will require so-called "carbon pricing," a market-based system whereby carbon polluters are charged a fee and those who help clean carbon from the atmosphere reap economic benefits.
CGD's Wheeler said he wants to see the world community set up an institution to collect, verify, and publicly disclose information about emissions from all significant global carbon sources.
In his view, this would help implement a market-based system to regulate emissions from every source worldwide. "This would help reduce carbon emissions by focusing stakeholder pressure on major emitters and providing reputational rewards for clean producers."
© 2007 One World
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
40 Comments so far
Show AllAfter pondering the issue mightily, pacorabo pointed out "It is NOT population increase, it is ecological footprint!!!!!!!!
True. However, increased population translates into a larger ecological footprint, all other things being equal. I thing this is the point Darryl was making.
pacorabo went oin to say "NOW blame the billions in bangladesh, africa and elsewhere for surviving on meager rations and stunting life conditions. Even you, the progressive and enlightened ones, are beyond belief."
Now, now. No need to be insulting. I don't recall anyone here blaming the billions in Bagladesh or Africa for America's ecological footprint. In fact, I assumed that it was the population of the US and the "developing economies" in India and China that Darryl was referring to.
The fact remains that the solutions to all problems being discussed here, regardless of what those solutions are, will eventually be swamped by unchecked population growth. If you want to see where that train is headed, meditate on Darfur. While we view the situation there in political terms, the root cause of the problem there is a population burden that outstrips the resources available to sustain a decent standard of living. Ditto Israel/Palestine. Ditto Europe in the 14th century. Ditto the steppes of Asia during the times of Attila the Hun, and again during the time of Genghis Khan. In all these cases, excess population led to violent conflict.
So I agree with your point, which is that the ecological footprint is indeed the issue. I also agree that the US lifestyle exacts a disproportionately large footprint. But this does not detract fromn Darryl's point that unchecked population growth will eventually impose an intolerable ecological footprint no matter how small the toll due to each individual.
Darryl pointed out "An increasing, unsustainable population growth is the main problem facing life on earth."
"The crux of the problem, indeed. It is apparant that we as a species will need to wake up to stringent realities and make adjustments if we are to avoid a future of chaos."
It is NOT population increase, it is ecological footprint!!!!!!!!
The USA is a society reared on Super-Sized EVERYTHING (hamburgers, mchouses, SUVs, ad infinitum) that consumes & pollutes 40% of the world with about 5% of the population. Check out the fat laced around your neighboors' bodies. Check out your bumper to bumper traffic and your malls filled to capacity with zombi shoppers. Check out your corporations siphoning off the world's real wealth to feed the casino in wall street. Check out your soldier-heroes enforcing this regime by obliterating entire countries who dare to oppose the system of insanity. NOW blame the billions in bangladesh, africa and elsewhere for surviving on meager rations and stunting life conditions. Even you, the progressive and enlightened ones, are beyond belief.
In re-reading this thread i think i might have been confused about Tesla and decentralized power. Oh well. I still think decentralized power is a most important issue.
Helix - what you say makes sense to me. Also, in Charlotte during the last major election the voting machines printed out a reciept of some sort and you could see a hard copy being made inside the machine. Is this sufficient? It seems like it could still be manipulated.
What about the possibility of just agreeing up front: We will not necessarily have the results in a few hours -- it may take a few days to make sure all the votes are properly counted. What is a few days when major elections only happen every few years -- especially when the office holders won't even be in office for a few months?
Anyhow, isn't the main advantage of the machines supposedly speed? When it comes to voting, greater speed at the "expense" of accuracy seems foolish to the extreme for the sake of democracy. So why even use machines in the first place if they are not going to be accountable? Of course, this is what i suppose you have been saying all along.....
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Thewonderingyou,
Thanks for straightening me out. I would have sworn the only post I made that includes a reference to CO2 acknowledged that nuclear power does emit CO2 in a life cycle analysis.
It have been a busy day, but I was able to put down my cheerleader pom-poms long enough to look up several life cycle analyses and comparisons of nuclear power:
From IEA-2000: (in grams CO2/kwh)
Wind: 7-124
PV solar: 13-731
Nuclear: 2-59
Nat. Gas: 389-511
Coal: 790-1182
British Energy-2004, Based on Torness Nuclear Plant
In grams/kw-h
Torness: 5
Typical Coal: 900
Typical Gas: 400
Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison-2002
In grams/kw-h
Wind: 14
PV solar: 39
Nuclear: 17
Gas: 622
Coal: 1041
Vattenfall's LCA for Forsmark Nuclear Plant
(Swedish study-1999)
Forsmark: 3.1 grams/kw-h
There is a series of papers by vanLeeuwen and Smith. Originally published in 2001 and revised in 2002 and 2005. These papers have been completely discredited by knowledgeable analysts. See "Life Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia" Univ. of Sydney, 2006. These papers assume that only uneconomic uranium is available and the useful life of a nuclear power plant is 12 years. With their faulty assumptions, vanLeeuwen and Smith say that nuclear power is equivalent in CO2 to a gas fired plant.
I feel another hallucination coming on - got to go take my meds.
Cheers,
Bill
PJD meditated, cogitated, and finally came out with "only a small minority can live in area amenable to erecting a wind turbine tower."
This may be true at present, but I'm not sure it will remain this way indefinitely. The point that I was trying to make was that there are ways that every one of us can help solve this problem. For some people, this may mean just replacing the lamps in frequently used lights with high-efficiency bulbs. For others, it may involve photovoltaics on the roof or a windmill on the back hill. Others may use wood stoves or install ground heat systems. And anyone who builds a new residential structure without at least considering passive solar heat is an idiot.
The energy problem is not going away For the rest of our lives, we will see increasing pressure on energy resources, and the cost of acquiring that energy is going to keep on rising. This is going to have a direct economic impact on our lives -- particularly inthe area of transportation. And while I would love to see government support for large-scale wind farms in suitable areas, I see no hope of this happening as long as the electoral apparatus now commonly used in many states can be compromised by knowledgable operatives. The coal, petroleum, and nuclear industries have a huge vested interest keeping such technologies from being seen as credible alternatives, and about the last thing they want to see is a large-scale demonstration wind plant in Wyoming. And seeing to it that sympathetic politicians are in office to block such projects helps immeasuarably in this regard.
Nuclear power is another issue. I am not opposed to nuclear power plants in principle. However, in our present deregulated (i.e, lax) environment, I fear that the stringent standards necessary to ensure safety, security, and proper disposal of waste will be neither adopted nor enforced.
Thus I reiterate my position: right now, we ourselves have the best shot. The only sure thing we can do to put a dent in this problem -- other than agitating for a sound electoral system -- is to look at our own energy budgets: do whatever we feaasibly can to meet our own energy needs, and at the very least conserve wherever possible.
So is my suggestion elitist? Maybe it is. But I see very little else that I can personally do to put a dent in the problem. I might not be able to address the problem at the national or global level, but I can address it at my own personal level.
Now, about voter-verified, human-readable, indelible ballots...
Also, i think the $5,000 i referenced earlier corresponds to about 3 or 4 days pay from the US of A (that is all of us taxpayers) for a Blackwater employee. But to be generous lets just say one week - plus, i ask for the benefit of the doubt regarding my cost estimate. I'm sure for $5,000 i could come up with a few solar panels, batteries, and even an inverter if necessary.
So anyhow, here is poll question:
1. Would you rather pay for a week's salary for a Blackwater employeee or provide an opportunity for a poor community to have some self-sufficiency when it comes to energy???
Is that question too complicated? It begs another question - what has happened to our priorities????
I think we need more People who want to build together and who want to find solutions (just like it seems it might be happening in Korea), and if this is our motivation and good intent, then we just need to be persistent, and perhaps things will turn around. That is what i'm going for.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Thank-you GoGreen88.
I do not think i would want to do business with someone who would electrocute a cat to make a point. Seems kind of sick.
I think decentralized power is something folks should be really thinking about, and it sounds as if Tesla advocated this from the beginning, but maybe i'm reading too much into it.
Anyhow, thanks again.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Ken, there was a huge battle between Edison's D/C and Telsa's A/C, and A/C won. D/C would have required a power plant in every neighborhood as it is not a good long distance transmitter of power.
Clearly, it is Tesla and not Edison that should be remembered as the father of modern electricity.
Edison is not the nicest guy either, he told Tesla he would give him $50k if he fixed his generator issues, which Tesla did, but Edison wouldn't pay up. And Edison would do live demonstrations where he personally electrocuted stray cats to show how "unsafe" A/C was.
Ken Hausle, I wish I knew more about the technical details of how/why his technologies worked. From what I do understand somehow he was able to transmit electricity over long distances without wires and with enough power to be useful in commercial applications. This is something I would also have to do more research on to give a better explanation.
How is it that Kazakhstan can have a plant that produces no-more than the CO2-tonnage of the Gibson/Indiana-plant, yet render nearly TWICE as much MHw energy from it?
[It's a 'shame before the Goyim'...!]
BTW, "the 'future', young-man, is in Fusion...".
Twister22 - wasn't there some huge "Edison/Tesla" conflict regarding AC vs. DC? I don't know that much about this except that many think Tesla should have prevailed. Oh well, something else to look up.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
It does seem there are definitely some energy efficiencies available when population density is increased.....
But, there may also be some "models" for groups of homes to become more energy efficient/sustainable. One idea i have been thinking about is "battery banks" on a "local level" as a way of achieving some decentralization of power, plus localized wastewater treatment plants and landfills so that the local area is responsible for handling their own "waste" (which can really help create an incentive to reduce the waste). In many parts of the world battery banks could become a community effort that everyone in the community would want to see succeed.
For Example: Individuals who currently have no job could be responsibe for a solar panel and a battery. When the battery is charged it could be deposited to the "battery bank" and exchanged with an uncharged battery. Many batteries together could provide sufficient energy for the most important community needs. I consider this an "appropriate technology" that could be setup in a community for probably around $5,000 or so.
Anyhow enough of my rambling.
Ken Hausle
If we had started using Tesla's free energy devices a hundred years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. But due to his being way too far ahead of everyone else, and the suppression of his technologies, we have to have discussions like this one on whether coal or nuclear or oil is the best choice for our energy needs.. I say none of the preceding are.
Let's get our heads out of our asses and demand that the technology that Tesla developed, again I say 100 YEARS AGO, should be released via FOIA or whatever so that we can unbind our civilization from fossil fuels.
This topic hits close to home for me. I have submitted comments to the state permitting agency opposing Duke Power's proposed brand spanking new coal-fired facility in Cliffside, NC. In fact i posted them on one of my websites:
http://www.co2-trading.us/
Many are getting personally involved in this effort to oppose an ill-concieved idea. In fact some college students were just arrested yesterday when they were protesting. In North Carolina, some of us are starting to wake up and take local peaceful action, or at least we are trying.
As an aside, i think there may be some solutions associated with "CO2-trading", and this needs to be discussed more openly. Let me fully disclose though that i have registered several websites with a "CO2 Trading" name.
Also, i'm not ready to "give-up" on coal, i think if it is utilized in the future, it ought be done with much more care. Coal is "old life" you know - it should be treated with respect rather than just being burned so wastefully. Plus there are many many constituents within coal whose value i think is currently under appreciated. Additionally, there may be more ways to recover CO2 in coal off-gas than just sequestering it somewhere, but i don't want to get to far ahead of myself....
Anyhow....Peace Everyone.
Ken Hausle
"it looks to me like the best shot is for individuals to begin harvesting their own energy - passive solar heat in new home construction, wind generators in suitable areas, wood stoves in forested areas..."
Sorry, but this is a rather elitist approach - only a small minority can live in area amenable to erecting a wind turbine tower. As extremely high fuel costs make car-intensive suburban and exurban living untenable, most people will need to live in urban areas - meaning compact townhouses and apartments - which have large inherent energy efficiencies themselves, especially when much-reduced personal auto use in urban settings is figured in. This means centrally produced power - which also has efficiency advantages.
Note that none of the plants on this "most polluting" list are nuclear...
And the argument that the argument for nuclear power is to be dismissed because it isn't 100% co2 free is ludicrous - these small, incidental uses of fossil fuel (mining, fuel processing, plant constructon, worker commuting) apply to ANY power generation scheme including solar and wind.
Billy_y4,
When you start including the carbon emissions and environmental pollution inherent in the entire cycle of energy production via nuclear fission and stop trying to paint reactor operation as CO2-free, THEN I will stop ignoring you as a naive cheerleader. THEN I will stop laughing at your hapless attempts to champion a technology so fraught with serious problems (fiscal, environmental, and otherwise) as to be laughable at best and suicidal at worst. THEN we can have a serious discussion.
Until then, you're just a bad comedian. I'm sorry about the personal attack nature of this post--really, I am--but I want to snap you out of your hallucination, because I truly believe you're a smart person, and have much to contribute.
I can't tell you all how much I am gratified that there are people like Helix out there to bridge the gap between the "end-result" of scientific information presented in news articles, and the "down-and-dirty-details" of how it comes about.
And in such perfect style, too. Helix, if you're not a teacher, consider becoming one. I don't mean just for students in a school, I mean for the rest of the people. Write newspaper articles--editorials if you need to--and bridge that gap for people who still don't understand things like entropy, feedback analysis, homeostasis, and the like.
This post is meaningless, except for being a big fat KUDOS for people like Helix.
bbr-001 November 15th, 2007 9:30 pm
"Argonne National Lab has been busy over the last 25 years working on new generation breeder reactors. . . .It brings Eisenhower's "peaceful atom" back to life!"
But the real question, bbr, is whether they'll be able to pay for their own liability insurance. Or will they have to rely on their sugar daddy government?
Whatfools,
When Southern built (or the other "bad boys" of this report) its fleet of coal plants a regulated utility's responsibility was to provide electricity in the most economic manner to its consumers. For those utilities that are still regulated, this remains a major criterion.
Except for hydroelectric, coal was, and still is, the lowest cost means of power generation.
There is a need for more baseload electricity in the US. The only reason for not going with additional coal today (other than a few visionary utilities which are truly concerned with global warming) is the utilities know that some form of carbon tax or cap and trade is coming. The form and substance of a carbon tax/cap and trade is now being debated in the Senate.
My expectation is that no significant legislation in this reqard will be enacted under the current administration (but Bush et. al. only have another 14 months).
A minimal cap and trade would merely discourage new coal plants. A truly effective carbon tax would also encourage the early retirement of the existing coal fleet. Encouraging early retirement is important because a typical coal plant has a service life of 60 years.
Bill
Will the lord forgive us if we pray for drought?
US power company linked to Bush is named in database as a top polluter
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 16 November 2007 (Independant)
An American power company with close financial links to President George Bush has been named as one of the world's top producers of global warming pollution.
The first-ever worldwide database of such pollution also reveals the rapid growth in global-warming emissions by power plants in China, South Africa and India. Power plants already produce 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas and 25 per cent of the world's.
But it is the enormous carbon footprint of Southern Company – among the largest financiers of Republican Party politicians – which has raised eyebrows. Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990.
A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia already emits more carbon dioxide annually that Brazil's entire power sector. The company is in the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters and sixth worst in the world.
Apart from vague promises by the Democratic presidential hopefuls, there is no pressure on this or any other power company to clean up their act and cut back on CO2 emissions.
With solar power being so low yield I'm surprised that NASA and their partners still use it to power their space station. And here that NASA outfit likes to brag how they use high-tech! Somebody ought to send them an e-mail and let them know just how expensive all those photons are. Who's got the contract for delivering those photons, anyway? And can you buy those photons in singles, or do you have to buy them by the barrel?
One of the worst and largest fallacies is "clean coal!!"
sierra
Argonne National Lab has been busy over the last 25 years working on new generation breeder reactors. The potential of this reactor in a nutshell: Use of U238 that has already been mined to produce U235, only a startup charge of fuel is needed, the long half life elements are recycled into new fuel on site until depleted, safer low temp metallic fuel rods and non corrosive sodium heat transfer, the final waste product will mostly decay in 200 years, there is enough U238 to fuel our needs for thousands of years, no transport of waste, no material that can be used to make bombs... It brings Eisenhower's "peaceful atom" back to life!
Instead of trillions for oil wars, billions to subsidize even more fuel guzzling aircraft in the sky, dirty negative net energy biofuels, low yield expensive solar, and blowing West Virginia into toxic dust, we need to perfect and implement this technology and replace coal fired plants megawatt for megawatt ASAP. Use the same power grid...
Hope you're not proud of it Billy, with your're mind, you could have been a boon for society if you haldn't gone astray.
Yeah JOHN, that's why we don't drive our lawn mower to the supermarket.
To make matters worse Congress may drop the solar investment tax credit in the energy bill now under consideration. A typical 5kW residential photovoltaic system in California avoids over four tons of greenhouse gases annually by not using conventionally-produced electricity. Imagine our country instituting a comprehensive energy policy in the 21st century that ignores solar power! The greed and avarice of Big Oil, Big Coal and the Nuclear Neocons is without bounds. Fortunately, they can't own the sun, our planet's most reliable, FREE source of power.
Call your Senators and House rep and insist that solar tax credits continue in the new energy bill. Dial the Congressional Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Just do it, please.
rjfw meditated on the idea that "The Earth can accommodate its population IF the people change to conserve and adapt a sustainable lifestyle, America must lead, Now where are the leaders?"
They're looking at wind generator catalogs and web pages. People in rural areas with reasonable winds can put in practical systems for under $10000. That's a lot of money, but when you think of what's likely to happen to the price of fuels -- especially if coal emissions become an issue -- you might come out in the black in the long run.
rjfw further wondered "And where is all our technology and can do spirit applied to solving the climate and energy crisis?"
We baby boomers have gotten a tarnished image of late for our supposed narcissism and lassitude. When it comes to the behavior of our government officials, that's pretty hard to argue with. In our defense, however, even though Bush is a boomer, Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfie/et al are pre-boomers, guys a half generation or so before the post-war wave, and, quite frankly, a lot of us baby-boomers take exception to being lumped in them.
Solve the voting equipment problem and I think problems like the current administrtion will go with them. Expect a tough fight.
The boomers aren't done yet. In fact, many of us have yet to arrive at the age where we get to do what we want to do thather than what we've had to do to earn a living and raise a family.
Which brings us back to the real topic, which is that, right now, it looks to me like the best shot is for individuals to begin harvesting their own energy - passive solar heat in new home construction, wind generators in suitable areas, wood stoves in forested areas. I use a wood stove for heat. It takes more effort than the conventional sources, but I can tell you that it's a very good feelng that you can survive a tough winter in absolute comfort without having to rely on anyone for heat.
As for public policy, to my mind, there's exactly one issue: Get rid of any voting machine that doesn't produce a permanent, human-readable, voter-verified ballot. That should be an election issue in 2008.
After that, we can begin to think seriously about public policy.
The title of this piece is most unfortunate. It was not long ago that when speaking of "dirty power" the subject was SO2, NOx and fly ash. The concern was acid rain rather than global warming. It remains a valid concern with coal powered electrical generation.
CO2 was not considered a pollutant until quite recently, long after these plants were built. The Bush administration still refuses to regulate it as such.
There has been very little new coal burning capacity installed in the last ten years. Almost all of the new capacity in the last decade in the US has been natural gas powered. (There has also been a minor amount of wind power installed.) The reason for burning gas rather than coal has been largely a lower capital cost, not lower CO2 emmissions.
Texas, one of the "guilty" states in this piece is the location of 4 of the potential new build nuclear plants. Over the lifetime, a nuclear plant emits (because of construction, decommissioning and mining and preparation of the fuel) less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than PV solar. It does not emit any CO2 in actual operation.
Nuclear power has some issues with waste disposal that are not resolved. Most of the waste controversy is a result of political paralysis, not insurmountable technical issues. IMHO the waste disposal issue will eventually be satisfactorily resolved and should not be a bar to construction of these reactors.
(Kem will point out my employment if I don't preempt him. Yes, I work in the nuclear industry.)
Bill
Your chemistry is correct and further the great contributor other than vehicles which of course due to shear numbers are a large component is Coal Fired Power Plants, A carbon tax with the receipts to go to alternative energy R&D and direct tax credits for implementing efficiency, wind and solar is what is required. The Earth can accommodate its population IF the people change to conserve and adapt a sustainable lifestyle, America must lead, Now where are the leaders? And where is all our technology and
can do spirit applied to solving the climate and energy crisis? Nuclear is mush too dangerous and is seeking large tax substitutes, there is no economic answer as to how the spent fuel and other nuclear waste can be safely disposed of.
Darryl pointed out "An increasing, unsustainable population growth is the main problem facing life on earth."
The crux of the problem, indeed. It is apparant that we as a species will need to wake up to stringent realities and make adjustments if we are to avoid a future of chaos.
capt.clevariant,
What Calculus said. The calculation goes as follows:
Assume gasoline is entirely made up of octane, whose chemical formula is C8H18 (8 carbon atoms, 18 hydrogen atoms. Also assume that the octane is completely oxidized when burned in a gasoline engine. That is, the combustion products are strictly carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). Finally, assume that a gallon of gasoline weighs in at about 6-1/4 pounds.
Chemically, the reaction is
C8H18 + ??*O2 ---> ??*CO2 + ??*H2O
By conservation of matter, ??*CO2 must be 8*CO2. That is, the eight carbon atoms in the octane are balanced by the single carbon atom in each of eight molecules of CO2. Similarly, the 18 hydrogen atome on the left are balance by two hydrogen atoms in each of 9 molecules of water on the right. You can work backwards to figure out how much oxygen is consumed during combustion on the left side, but it's the combustion products that we want to know about.
So one molecule of gasoline when burned produces 8 molecules of carbon dioxide and 9 molecules of water vapor, both greenhouse gases (altho CO2 is the worse offender). Looking at the weights, we have carbon with atomic weight 12, hydrogen with atomic weight 1 and oxygen with atomic weight 16. This gives the following weights:
C8H18 = 12 * 8 + 1*18 = 114
8*CO2 = 8 * (12 + 2*16) = 352
9*H2O = 9 * (1*2 + 16) = 162
Therefore, 114 units of gasoline result in 514 units of greenhouse gases, or a ratio of 4.5 to 1. So if gasoline weighs 6.25 pounds per gallon, it results in 6.25 * 4.5 = 28 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.
Probably more than you ever wanted to know about this stuff.
As usual, most governments attempt to treat the symptom and never deal with what is causing the problem. An increasing, unsustainable population growth is the main problem facing life on earth. Carbon emissions is just the symptom we are currently facing and, unless we curb population growth than we can expect to face other symptoms such as water and food shortages.
China is the only country that I know of to have the foresight to restrict its population growth.
I am no chemist, but...
A carbon atom is lighter than an oxygen atom. When you burn a piece of carbon, every carbon atom bonds to 2 oxygen atoms to make a carbon dioxide molecule. The point is that the oxygen is taken out of the air, so is not present for example in the gasoline you burn. I think gasoline is mostly carbon and hydrogene (very light). So, yes, it seems possible you get much more CO2 than the gas you started out with.
I read somewhere that lawn mowers preduce more CO2 than cars per hour of running time.
ezeflyer opined "They also have higher divorce rates than blue states, higher suicide rates than blue states, and higher alcoholism rates than blue states.'
... not to mention sucking more out of the US Treasury than they kick in...
Sorry, I was terrible at the chemistry part of my environmental science class.
Does anyone know how the experts compute pounds or tons of CO2? I read somewhere that burning one gallon of gasolene in an automobile produces 28 pounds of greenhouse gasses. I don't understand how burning a little under 8 pounds of liquid gas can produce over three times as much greenhouse gas. What am I missing?
ezeflyer:
They also have higher divorce rates than blue states, higher suicide rates than blue states, and higher alcoholism rates than blue states.
Yep, sure must be great to be a conservative!
I'm depressed...these Southern bastards are deaf, dumb, blind and just plain greedy..global warming? nah that's someone elses problem, there right as rain..Oh they forgot, there isn't any!
most conservative states = most carbon emmissions