Carbon Emissions?

I'd imagine that there exists somewhere some SAE papers on automotive engines covering horsepower, break mean effective pressure, compression ratio, etc., to come up with an airflow number.

For yacht purposes, the engine guys publish their own stuff. For example, take your garden variety Detroit 8V-92, a fairly common engine in use in 1990 as well as today in, say, CTDave's Bertram 50:
8V-92TA DDEC-- the latest iteration with electronic controls (which is why Detroit Diesel was acquired by MTU, but I digress).
Displacement: 736 cu. in.
Injectors: 5234925
Turbo: AiResearch TW7302 (and equipped with the bypass blowers)
Compression ratio: 15:1
Power: 760 BHP, 735 SHP
Fuel consumption: ~40 gph max (from the propeller load curve)
BMEP: 177.8 lbf./sq. in.

Engine airflow: 2050 cu. ft./min. (77F air temp, 29.32 in. Hg.
barometer, 100F fuel temp, .838 fuel specific gravity)

Most boats had two of these engines. If plumbed to my (average-sized) office, they would leave me gasping for air in less than 15 seconds.

Oh, and the stuff comes out hot: 4900 cu. ft./min (per engine) @ 640F.

Your mileage may vary.

Lurresen's new M/Y Dilbar has a new carbon filter system for carbon partical elimination of some 95% (if you believe the hype). Probabley kills power in port and turn it off at sea. Still going to be 'soot city' for the deckhands but looks good on paper.

Fish

NYC (No Yacht Content)

IIRC, Mercedes-Benz offered up on their 300SD some years ago a ceramic trap in the exhaust plumbing to reduce soot. They had problems and took that U.S.-spec vehicle out of production for a time.

Terrapass

I used the calculator at terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/ to determine the carbon footprint of our Prius and invest in an offsetting cert. The cost was definitely an extremely reasonable $27.50 USD, when compared to the Chevy K2500 4WD Suburban it replaced that would have cost $124.95 USD.

I do believe that the bulk of the scientific community has it right and our infestation is a primary contributor to the rapidly escalating carbon in the atmosphere and that there will need to be many differing solutions employed if we are to have a chance at mitigating the resultant effects. And I’d definitely support tax breaks to encourage more individual participation.

John [in still dry for now Naples, FL ]

This thread is a little confusing as you are mixing carbon with CO2. There are no filters for CO2 and it is not a pollution.

You must drive an awful lot in a week.

In the past 4 and a half months I've driven 15,599 km and according to the online calculator I use, my car has emitted 3,301 kg of CO2. Fuel consumption for that period was 1,417 L. Gasoline weighs 0.77 kg/l, so the total weight of all the gas I've burned is 1091 kg.

Well, I think I have both IPCC and Mr Gore on my side eventhough they seems to be satisfied with all misconceptions regarding CO2...

We have an average of about 400 ppm CO2 in the air today. In a conference room you can have between 1000 and 5000 ppm. Over this it starts to feel uncomfortable. The global levels we are warned to reach is just a tenth of that, around 500 ppm....

CO2 has a 0 ODP (ozone depletion potential)
CO2 has a 1 GDP (global depletion potential) 1 was assigned since it's the basis that all other GDP gases are measured. Like water has a specific gravity of 1.


Supercritical Co2 in a trans critical system is whats going to replace R134a in automotive A/C systems. Supercritical CO2 has 2.5 time the heat capacity as Co2 but there are draw backs. Supercritical co2 has a critical pressure of 1068 psi. 134a system run 35 psi low side &175 psi high side.

sc/CO2 system will have 500 psi low side pressures and 1500 to 2000 high side pressures.

Below is a long article party written my myself and data from other sources from 2007 so I just copied it.

please take time to read so you know how the spin was put on in comparing earths gases



current co2 levels are .03% (that 3 hundredths of a percent)in the atmosphere.78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen,the rest is argon and other rare earth gases. UNDER 1%..actually every thing green would grow better as the level of co2 would increase we are now at is too low.Trees and plants need co2 to produce oxygen for use to breath. co2 levels are not dangerous to humans to over 2% and 10% can be deadly. long way to go. I bold-ed how much co2 has risen its laughable, rose 80 ppm(parts per million)in 150 years Its a fraud from the very rich afraid that storms and a rise in sea water will take there multimillion dollar properties. Also co2 has a diminishing life of 250 years,by then we probably will not be using fossil fuels and as present levels will diminish(drop in 250 years) the same people will be screaming global ice age, they spin charts to make a small gain look the the sky is falling. sure they rose 30 percent but we are talking PPM not true % as other main atmospheric gases are measured.

For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature (see Figure I), environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming. In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for "carbon taxes," stating that "filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants . . . is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world."
The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is tasteless, colorless, nontoxic to humans at concentrations up to 13 times present levels and is essential to life. Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans. Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.

The Role of CO2. CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," one of several that partially trap solar radiation in the atmosphere. Without these gases the earth would be uninhabitable - at least by humans. CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect (water vapor is responsible for virtually all of the rest). Most of this CO2 is used by or stored in oceans, plants and animals. However, over the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 30 percent, rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm). not true PERCENTAGE as other gases are measured but percentage in ppm NOT comparing apples to apples Remember today concentration of .03% CO2 and Global Warming. Ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850, but human-generated carbon dioxide could have been only a small factor because most of the warming occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused CO2 emissions. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.

Plants Need CO2. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in an atmosphere of much more concentrated CO2. Indeed, some scientists have argued that, until quite recently, many plants were starving for CO2.

CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to produce carbohydrates - the material of which their roots and body consist. Increasing CO2 levels speeds the time in which plants mature and improves their growth efficiency and water use. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth, which is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses.

In addition, higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:

With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.
With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage (see Figure II).
Also, CO2 enrichment causes plants to develop more extensive root systems with two important results. Larger root systems allow plants to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients. This means that plants have to spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. Additionally, more extensive, active roots stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms that break nutrients out of the soil, which the plants can then exploit.
Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:

Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20 and 50 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.
Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.
Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10 to 55 percent at elevated CO2 levels.
Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18 to 75 percent under elevated CO2 conditions.
Legumes including peas, beans and soybeans post increased yields of between 28 and 46 percent when CO2 levels are increased.
Trees Need CO2. International research has demonstrated that trees also benefit from increased CO2 levels. In research from the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, doubling CO2 from current levels helped orange trees accumulate 2.8 times as much biomass in the first five years of the tests and yield 10 times as many oranges in the first two years of orange production. Other U.S. studies confirm these findings. For example:
Since 1890, high-altitude conifers in the Cascade Mountains of Washington have increased in mass approximately 60 percent from previous growth trends.
In New England, a study of 10 tree species showed an average growth enhancement of 24 percent from 1950 to 1980, a period when CO2 levels were rising.
European studies have also demonstrated that elevated CO2 levels benefit tree growth. For example:
Stands of Scotch pine in northern Finland have experienced growth increases of 15 to 43 percent since 1950.
Forest growth rates in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, have increased 20 percent in the past 20 years.
Scientists have discovered no environmental factor other than the CO2 increase that could explain the higher growth rates found in forests around the world.
Ecosystems Need CO2. The earth's ecosystems should benefit from higher levels of CO2. Increased crop yields mean that humans will not have to convert more fragile forests, savannas and deserts into crop lands to feed growing populations. Wildlife will get a respite from the development of their habitats. As forests increase, many currently fragmented ecosystems will regenerate - as many already have in Europe and the eastern United States. Since trees will put on more mass under higher CO2 conditions, fewer trees will have to be cut to supply humanity's demand for timber.

Finally, many scientists contend that outside of human society the availability of food is a primary inhibitor of population growth. Therefore, as plants increase in size and number, so should animals - more herbivores due to increased edible vegetation and more omnivores and carnivores due to increased herbivore populations.

Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive
__________________________________________________ ______________

Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria, and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce sugar, which cellular respiration converts into ATP, the "fuel" used by all living things. The conversion of unusable sunlight energy into usable chemical energy, is associated with the actions of the green pigment chlorophyll. Most of the time, the photosynthetic process uses water and releases the oxygen that we absolutely must have to stay alive. Oh yes, we need the food as well!

We can write the overall reaction of this process as:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
Most of us don't speak chemicalese, so the above chemical equation translates as:

six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen


The truth is co2 only increased from 280 ppm to 360 ppm which is equal to.03% co2
We must exhale co2 to live and plants and trees must have co2 to survive and give us back oxygen to breath. Are we starving the plants @ 360ppm or .o3% The people on global warming what you to believe that co2 went up 30 % and most think the atmosphere contains 30% co2 which is completely wrong

__________________________________________________ ___________
A portion of the article was written by myself,the facts on growing came from university & government studies from word wide studies on effects of co2,there are self credited thought out the article where they came from.

Pretty simple really, stop cutting down rain forests, don't take the kids to school in a sodding great big Chevy Suburban.

A small gas engine is best for short trips and a larger diesel for longer trips. Diesel's take a little while to warm up until they become efficient hence the longer trip/economy equation.

The Toyota Prius, at the end of its life, takes about 4 and a half times as much energy to recycle than a normal hatchback due to its batteries. Unless you drive it in only the city and not the highway, you will need to do about 350/400,000 miles to cover your carbon footprint.

Ride your bike more and keep slimmer, simple innit?

Fish

Terrapass

K1W1: Yes, the $27.50 went to Terrapass and they then invest in projects that are aimed at reducing carbon emissions or methods to recover it from the atmosphere.

Fishtugua: I agree on the need to replant trees.

We're planning to keep the Prius very long term and the bulk of the mileage is urban commuting, very seldom on the Interstates, and when there the old double-nickel (55-mph) really runs the miles-per-gallon up in an environment where the tallest hills are highway overpasses.

And the old aluminum-framed Cannondales are still favored for short trips and one of them is, at this very moment, in a spin stand getting a Sujnday morning workout by my lovely spouse.

Wdrzal: Yes, I agree that plants thrive in hothouse conditions, however I think the larger environment view indicates that with extremely small incremental warming, the consequences can be devastating to other plants, animals and commercial infrastructure.

Just following the water levels down the road from you in Annapolis, MD, flood tides continue to increase the commercial damage to the historic district, not unlike that experienced, I understand, in Venice, IT. The costs of damage to commercial infrastructure, from where I sit, appear to be much larger than the costs to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, mitigating the planetary heat rise.

Venice has been sinking more than the sea levels has been rising and towns like New Orleans and St Petersburg are built on low land where flooding is expected even without Global Warming. St Petersburg was actually flooded only three months after it was founded in 1703. Long before SUV:s...

On CO2 and the effect on GW there is a new and interesting paper about to be published. Here you can download it and read another view than you have got from the IPCC: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

Terrapass

AMG: Thanks for the correction on Venice, IT. Annapolis, on the other hand isn't sinking as far as I know, based upon my living there ten plus years spread over three decades.

Thanks for the article download link. I'll take a look.

Unfortunately, both New Orleans and the Chesapeake area are sinking too. The sea level rise is less, perhaps 0.5 mm/year, and the computer predictions of future rise, are just computer predictions. But politicians can not change the geological situation without strong efforts, so they hope that it is all about CO2 emissions...

Edit: I also found this guy and his viewpoint; http://acuf.org/issues/issue94/071022cul.asp

Terrapass

AMG: Unfortunately, the paper's authors are funded by the Heartland Institute, infamous for fighting the effects of tobacco smoke amongst other things. The institute has received funding from Exxon as a vested commercial party and many other US right wing/conservative, non-scientific sources and appears to be just a hired gun that uses questionable selected statistics and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to counter positions that their supporters dislike or view as potentially causing economic harm to their commercial enterprise.

Check http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute for additional details. Wikipedia also for an overview.

On Page 3, the report states: "There is general agreement among climate scientists for the case of no-feedback. There is disagreement in regard to the validity of the global warming hypothesis that states that there are positive feedback processes..." This is the inverse of the actual state in the real world. Changing "no-feedback" to "feedback" and "disagreement" to "agreement" would accurately reflect the majority state of the scientific community the way I understand it to be. Just saying something doesn't make it true, even though you can do serious damage by constantly repeating and republishing it (think Swift Boat attacks in the last presidential election, or Bush's attacks on McCain in the 2000 election campaign).

When I look at research, I tend to favor those papers paid for by the non-commercial groups whose "ox is being gored" (no pun intended). An example would be the Pacific Island nation that petitioned the UN to study the issue since their landmass was purportedly shrinking due to rising ocean levels.

[Off-topic comment]: Kind of reminds me of FUD sales tactics Microsoft uses to freeze the market by pre-announcing products several years in advance (think Vista for one of many examples), only to disappoint users when dates are missed and the product bears little resemblance to the initial announcement. Apple with just about anything and GM with the Chevrolet Volt also come immediately to mind. [Comment off]