GostHacked Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 The problem is that traditionally, CO2 was not really considered a "pollutant". Rather, CO2 is the intended product of most energy generating chemical reactions. It is not a undesirable contaminant resulting from a chemical reaction, such as CO. An ideal chemical reaction burning a simple hydrocarbon: CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H20 You burn the hydrocarbon with the oxygen and get water and CO2. That's the ideal. Real reactions also produce small quantities of every possible permutation of the reactants, so you'll also get CO (carbon monoxide), H202 (hydrogen peroxide), O3, etc, those are the pollution. Traditionally, making these reactions "more efficient" and "reducing pollution" has meant going closer and closer to the ideal reaction and reducing the amount of pollutants produced, meaning more of the products actually end up as CO2 rather than something else. So reducing pollutants like CO means just making your combustion process more ideal. But, you can't reduce how much CO2 you produce by doing that, because it is the main product of the reaction. The only way to not produce the CO2 is just to not use the reaction in the first place, and that is a whole different proposition than just trying to optimize the reaction. Damn good post Bonam. Makes a lot of sense. Quote
jbg Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) But, you can't reduce how much CO2 you produce by doing that, because it is the main product of the reaction. The only way to not produce the CO2 is just to not use the reaction in the first place, and that is a whole different proposition than just trying to optimize the reaction. In other words shut down lots of economic activity for little or no purpose?P.S. I like the thread name on the parellel thread "(m)ore Shark Chum for the Climate Debate". Edited January 8, 2011 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 In other words shut down lots of economic activity for little or no purpose?P.S. I like the thread name on the parellel thread "(m)ore Shark Chum for the Climate Debate". clearly, you simply can't and won't accept the purpose... regardless how that 'shutdown' is coalesced towards a managed shift from burning fossil-fuels to... eventually... leaving them in the ground. Options, alternatives, considerations, etc., for managing that shift have been discussed, many times over, in various MLW threads. You simply can't and won't accept them in the face of your overtly expressed denial position. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.