How Much CO2 Does Electic Use Produce?

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Yes, I'm on my atmospheric carbon soapbox again, but I promise to keep it short.

I ran accross this little "calculator" script thingy. It shows you how much CO2 and other pollutants your electric consumption adds to the carbon load of the environment. It's just a general estimate, based on state-by-state statistics, but some of the figures are pretty darn scarey. New England, and the Pacific
Northwest are about the cleanest states, as one would expect. Some of the Midwestern states are downright nasty. Anyway, here's the link:
http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/resources/pollutioncalculator.htm

And this is the reason that electric cars shouldn't even be considered as a replacement for gas or diesel powered vehicles. The generation of electricity by burning coal or Natural Gas is far dirtier business than the operation of motor vehicles, no matter how much they try and clean up the process.

[David D. smith]

Yoy are talking of the process to make the electric. Electric motors prodduce Ozone. If you are ever around large electric motors, you can smell it.
Dave <*)))><

[George Willer]

Fortunately, there are political rumblings that may lead us to building non-poluting nuclear power plants after foolishly abandoning them about 30 years ago. They will be the only viable way to produce the hydrogen fuel that has so many people giddy today. The media has done a miserable job education people where hydrogen has to come from... the input of huge amounts of power to produce it.

In the long run it's foolish to depend on burning potential raw material for fuel as we have been doing.

[beaconlight]

George sure hit it on the head.

Bill

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Yoy are talking of the process to make the electric. Electric motors prodduce Ozone. If you are ever around large electric motors, you can smell it.
Dave <*)))><

O3 (Ozone) is not a particularly problematic pollutant. It's not very stable in the lower atmosphere, and in time, (2) O3 end up becoming (3) O2. Lightning produces most of the world's latent O3, and a small amount of it does reach the upper atmosphere, where it is cold enough to stabilize, and ends up becoming "the ozone layer". While not particularly pleasant to smell, toxic in large concentrations, and a greenhouse gas in its own right, it is not a "permanent" addition to the lower atmosphere the way methane and CO2 are.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Fortunately, there are political rumblings that may lead us to building non-poluting nuclear power plants after foolishly abandoning them about 30 years ago. They will be the only viable way to produce the hydrogen fuel that has so many people giddy today. The media has done a miserable job education people where hydrogen has to come from... the input of huge amounts of power to produce it.

In the long run it's foolish to depend on burning potential raw material for fuel as we have been doing.

While saving the climate from "restructuring" seems to be something of a rubik's cube, you are precisely right George. The only viable solution for the time being is replacing coal burning plants with nuclear plants. The CO2 load from coal burning power plants is nearly twice that of total motor vehicle emissions in this country. That is the place to start, not by choking the engine manufacturer's designs to produce lower emissions. The only way to truly reduce vehicle emissions is to improve mileage, and we, as a society don't really want that. When we make more efficient cars, we buy SUV's and pickups instead.

The UN also has some half-brained idea that the world will be able to curb its energy usage by some 20% over the next century. This seems firstly wrong, and secondly immoral. Once the developing countries of the world truly become "developed", they are not going to use less energy, but rather, a whole lot more. We, too, don't show a downward path anytime soon. We make our appliances more efficient, true, but we have more of them than ever. I hope to see a day when every resident of tropical nations can enjoy the benefits of air conditioning, and modern cooking appliances. Denying these simplest of luxuries to anyone is an immoral proposition, and without doing so, the world will never decrease its energy useage.

The question, therefore, is to firstly stop burning coal as quickly as we can, and start running nuclear plants again immediately.

[John *.?-!.* cub owner]

I am curious how cleaner and Greenr arrived at their figures. I didn't see any thign on the site expalining that. I am a little suspicous of sites that mysterioulsy arrive at numbers trying to support their own existance. per example, I am totaly electric, with a monthly bill of $98. it says I prodice30k pounds of O2 peer year.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

I am curious how cleaner and Greenr arrived at their figures. I didn't see any thign on the site expalining that. I am a little suspicous of sites that mysterioulsy arrive at numbers trying to support their own existance. per example, I am totaly electric, with a monthly bill of $98. it says I prodice30k pounds of O2 peer year.

There are links, under the calculator, that you can use to request the data that they use to determine this. I dare say that because of the component oxygen in CO2, it looks a lot worse than it really is. It is the true carbon contained in the CO2 that we really need be concerned with, as far as "undoing" damage. Arbitrarily, to make the math work out right, if you produced 44,000 lbs of CO2 annually, you are actually only contributing 12,000 lbs of carbon to the atmosphere, or 6 tons, which is about the national average for a 3-person family for electricity production/consumption. What this means is, that for you, John, in the state of Missouri, by component makeup of power generation facilities, those being hydro-electric, nuclear, wind, natgas, and coal, in your state, it takes 6.8 lbs of carbon to create $1 worth of electricity, be it from coal, natgas, oil, or whatnot, at your state's average rate/kwh.

If you were wanting to eliminate the damage done by your electricity consumption, you would need to plant enough trees to sustain 4 dry tons of new growth annually (about half an acre of fast-growing hardwood species), or bury 4 tons of charcoal into your soil every year.

[Brent]

I've got to get in on this. I don't know how many of you have had the pleasure of seeing or being in the middle of a wind farm but I can tell you it's not pretty. We have quite a few within a short distance from where I live. They have taken hundreds of acres, of what used to be pretty country, and turned it into an eye sore to produce less than 1 persent of the areas power. Kind of looks like War of the Worlds was filmed here. In addition, all grazing was prohibited in the area a few years ago to protect the Brown Backed Ground Squirrel and also because of the posibility of erosion caused by the cows. In the twenty years or so that I've been driving through that area and also helping a friend with his gatherings and brandings, I've never seen one bit of erosion caused by cattle nor have I ever seen a dead brown backed ground squirrel. As a matter of fact, the hills were all terraced from the cows which actually prevents erosion on steep slopes. Ever see a cow go stright up hill to get from point A to B. It will never happen. If you ride by now, you can see from the area of every tower pad that is on the ridge, eroded ditches coming down the hills as deep as 10-15 feet. The wind machines are also doing a job on the birds in the area, Just last week two Golden Eagles were found dead at the base of one of the towers. They're not too common in this area but are around. I've sent pictures of the area before and after wind machines to the BLM, pointing out the erosion, but to date have not received a responce. I guess the point to my story is, if man is going to live on Earth, no matter what direction we go there will always be damage to the environment. We just need to balance things a little better.

[400lbsonacubseatspring]

Brent,

I couldn't agree with you more. I don't see wind farms or solar farms as being a viable method of saving our collective backsides. They certainly are an eyesore.

The only acceptable way to integrate wind power into the landscape is not to create "wind farms", but rather put the towers up high enough that grazing and farming can go on as normal beneath them. Spacing the towers away from each other so as not to create an eyesore should be a prime consideration.

Regarding the ground squirrels, I don't see them being able to live in the ground of a wind farm. The vibration and noise transmitted to the ground through the towers will surely repel them.

The only viable choice for the near future of electricity is nuclear, I feel. Not a single person has ever been killed by a US commercial nuclear power plant, but more than 500 each year are killed in coal mining and processing accidents, in conjunction with semi-natural deaths resulting from mining-related illnesses (black lung) in the US.

[ljw]

400 lb'er, I am not nearly as articulate as you are on this subject, but I'd like to express my thoughts, anyway. While I haven't signed on to the "green peace" philosophy of humans being the enemy of nature, I feel that we humans can do a lot to minimize the destructive effect we have on the environment. It appears to me that most people have radical views on the subject, and there is no "happy medium" ideas concerning the conservation of our planet. We are demonized by not going along with the Kyoto Protocol, but if I understand it correctly, it didn't include China which, in my opinion, is, or soon will be, the major pollutor of our air and water. I have stood along the Bund in Shanghai on a "sunny" day and you couldn't the sun from the gray haze covering the sky. Waste flows freely into the waters. During one of my longer trips I had to be taken to the hospital for a bronchial tube infection. That was another experience, but I was treated very well.
I agree with you that nuclear power is the future if we ever hope to achieve independence from mideastern oil, and for many other good reasons. I have always thought that once nuclear power has been established as a viable energy source, scientists could then start developing this energy for other uses. Ultimately, I think it will be used to power buildings, or even the home and auto.
I try to save on power every way I can think of. I buy the flourescent lights for the house, lower the thermostat, although I'm burning wood now, and etc., etc., etc. But I like my big truck and will continue to use it, although a little more sparingly with the high gas prices.
What should be done is to have an open and honest debate on the issue as we are doing here, but on a much larger scale.
May God bless that little squirrel, but he has to make his way in this world just like we do. My $0.02 cents. Larry

[beaconlight]

Some how I am glad the Sabre tooth tigre and Tyrsaures Rex were not saved from extension. The Wolley Mamoth I waver on. Some days yes and some days no.

Bill

[Rudi]

Guys:

I agree completely with George on this point and Larry and Brent....

Wow Pretty interesting commentary. Too bad our politicians don't listen as well as they yak....

First, Nuclear is the only viable source of power that we have that can become safer and more viable for the environment. I have been bellowing on this subject for nigh on 30 years, ever since I first saw the original Candu reactor at Chalk River Ontario.

Canada and the US built the safest nuclear power plants in the world bar none. Between our two countries we have the technology and we have the will to ensure that we can provide clean, renewable power for generations AND protect the environment as well.

Britain, France and Germany also have very safe systems. These five countries have proved over the last 40 years that Nuclear is safe.

God.. these tree huggers (inaptly termed nickname.. )really need to get a attitude adjustment and and firmer grasp on the subjects at hand.

Wind power is a good and viable form of passive power generation in areas where it will not interfer with nature nor with man's agricultural activities. This is frequently not the case. Wind power by it's very definition must have props and turbines located on towers in very windy locales -- usually along historical migration paths for many of our feathered friends. IT makes sense... that is where the corridors are. Birds ain't stupid,, they go with the flow and the path of least resistance to enhance their ability to migrate successfully. Ooooops there is the rub Turbines/props and birds = DEAD BIRDS.. quite clear to most people I think. FOD is also a term used for DEAD BIRDS that have been inhaled by jet turbines... it is a know side-effect of blades spinning at any speed in the wind... birds get killed and it is indiscriminant.. it will include endangered species...

anyways, enough of that...

Nuclear.. and I have been a proponent of these plants. I have also been a proponent of Due Diligence in disposal or recycling/reuse of used/spent nuclear rods.

Idea 1: Used/spent rods can be recycled. We know how to make small nuclear plants and we know how to use nuclear isotopes for medical and other uses. Why oh why can we not figure out how to pelletize the spent rods, encase them so they do not emite harmful radiation and plop em into a small nuclear power unit that will propel PTV's (Personal Transprotation Vehicles??? ) -- translation = cars

Idea 2: Why can we not, after we have recycled these spent rods, contain them safely in the best place on earth Back in the ground This would sure reduce the amount of nuclear power plants in subs that have been dumped in the Pacific by both the USSR and the US, Britain and France...

I come from an area where we have over 30 deep shaft hard rock gold mines... in what is now the city itself..... there are hundreds more deep shaft hard rock mines in Northern Ontario and Quebec still. These shafts have to be filled or re-inforced to stop/prevent cave-ins and sink holes....

Be a great place to put nuclear reclamation facilities now wouldn't it Hey, they test nukes underground.. should be able to figure this out -- it is probably a no brainer...

The only places where nuclear accidents are real sources of concern are essentially the old USSR and Warsaw pact plants, North Korean and Chinese and now Iranian plants... these cause me worry.. mostly because these countries ethics are different from ours and they tend to place less value on the one or even the many -- more value is placed on POWER but not the useful one -- the one that gets backed up by military might..

The other bugaboo I have about all this is the continuous cry about cars and how much our cars, pickups, minivans and our ride-on/pushem mowers and our tractors pollute. Buffalo pucks!... Ever get stuck behind a city bus Sorry guys -- a tractor trailer with lousy maintenance, a dump truck, concrete truck... public utility vehicle????? These things spew out pure garbage...

And now the EPA in the US and Canada is spouting this nonesense that burning wood is polluting our environment and we should switch to gas/oil or electricity... what moron thought that one up???

If anything, burning wood only adds to the environment. Forest fires are healthy for the environment. Wood smoke is also good for the environment. Returns needed materials as in carbon to the ground.. 400lbs has already clearly spoken well on that subject...

Boy.... I can go on and on on stuff like this.. it irritates me that so many so-called highly educated people can come up with this brainless claptrap.. it is time maybe some clear headed people actually were invited to the party to help.

Oh, and even though Canada is a Kyoto signatory... we ain't doing a whole lot better than the US or any other country to clean it up... we all need to get on the wagon... but that is another topic...

[Patbretagne]

Here in France I think it is something like 70% of Electricity is nuclear produced, so we can have electric cars without too much polution.
Nuke cars, yes, but the worry about that is the regular crash possibility breaking the cell open releasing radioactivity.
Here in Europe and Russia we have had more than one person killed with nuclear elec, di I even need to speak of Chernobil, thousands fairly immediately and millions into the future.
Burrying underground (nuke waste) you said yourself Rude, there are fissures cave ins etc, that is just the problem, the earth moves, there is always a possibility that our storage tunnel may be on that fault and be crached open releasing the radioactive.
BUT I agree nuke is the way forward for less atmospheric polution.
Fortunately Rudy you didn't mention that Cubs polute when we use them, we all know dump trucks, cars, busses etc all make clouds of polution on the road, but surely not a Cub!
Pat

[ljw]

Pat, I feel that little Cubs are good for the environment. If everybody owned one, the world would be a better place in which to live. Larry