The answer is in your question. A renewable fuel is burned in such a way that it breaks down to its basic components. Take Ethanol C2OH the carbon burns during combustion and then you are left with Oxygen and Hydrogen (your alcohol group). These molecules can later reform, lets say in corn, to create ethanol once again. When burning fossil fuels once the crude oil and petrol taken from the ground is turned into gasoline thats it, finito, it can not come back to form oil again. Its not renewable.
So when its burned the products of combustion will be recycled back into the environment to be harvested once again. When fossil fuels are burned CO (carbon monoxide) is emitted but can not return to the form of oil, so it builds up over time, just floating in the atmosphere and is extremely slow to dissipate
Catmandew February 13, 2010
7:19 am
Renewable fuels do not cause global warming because CO2 does not contribute to AGW after 100 PPM. That is true because the spectrum of energy absorbed by CO2 (15 nanometers) is absorbed to extinction after it encounters the first 100 ppm in the atmosphere. CO2 is now at 385 ppm so adding additional CO2 has virtually no impact on the environment. Think of this analogy. You are in a perfectly dark room which already has a dozen shades. Would adding more shades have any impact on the light in the room? Of course not. This is what happens when more CO2 is added to the environment. There is only so much IR energy in the 15 nanometer spectrum. Once its gone, its gone. That already occurs in the first 10 meters of the atmosphere.
Yes. The carbon emitted when you burn a bio fuel was taken out of the atmosphere by the plant just a few weeks prior, making the net effect 0. Ideally, anyway.
stephen February 18, 2010
11:40 pm
It doesnt exist
JOHNNIE B February 20, 2010
10:17 am
There is nothing corbin neutral.Most of the energy from burning fuel is from corbin.
the carbon in renewable fuels was CO2 that, through photosynthesis, was converted to a sugar. when you burn it, that carbon becomes CO2 again. so there’s no net change in the CO2 in the atmosphere.
HOWEVER, typically, renewable fuels have been planted, harvested, transported, and processed, by things that burn fossil fuels, so the statement is generally not 100% true. Unfortunately.
In addition, we all still need to eat, so renewable fuels generally mean that farmland that is less productive needs to be used. That involves clearing (forest) and using some/more fertilizer to get the product to grow.
Renewable fuels are, on the surface, a good idea, but once one looks at all the side effects, it’s not necessarily true.
First, man-made Global warming is a hoax to dictate the kind of car you drive, the number of miles you drive, the kind of house you buy, the temperature you set your thermostat, and where we get our power from. They can also tax you more in the name of “saving the planet”. When politicians can do this they take away your freedoms to make your own decisions and they receive more power over you and that is what this is all about. This planet has been going through warming and cooling cycles ever since God created it. God is in control of the seasons, not man.
If, you will look at the last three years alone, you will find the planet in a cooling cycle. But, you can not just look at the climate for three years, or three hundred years to see if we are in a warming or cooling cycle.
If, humans did not make CO2, then all plant and vegetable life would die. Trees, grass, fruit, vegetables, every living green thing requires CO2 to live. The take in CO2 and change that into oxygen in a process called photosynthesis.
If, the planet did not have CO2 then the temperature swings would be more extreme from day to night and summer to winter. Also, our oceans help buffer the temperature swings. It’s all in God’s plan.
It’s a game of 3-Card Monte. All you have to do is follow the CO2 molecule. Non-renewable fuels bring up carbon that has been buried a long time, this causes a blip in atmospheric CO2 until it is removed by photosynthesis and carbonate sequestration in the oceans. Estimates of the time this takes varies from 2-11 years. Renewable fuels produce CO2 from carbon that was recently removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. This CO2 also has to eventually be removed. Estimates of the time this takes varies from 2-11 years. The big question is who will make all the money from your fuel usage.
BTW – there is no anthropogenic global warming. Even the politicos are abandoning the name “global warming” and going for the generic “climate change” Since climate is always changing, they can never again be proven wrong.
Like others have said, burning biofuels doesn’t directly contribute to more CO2 because the plants ****** up CO2 whilst they were growing. Before you grow the plant and after you burn it, the CO2 in the atmosphere is the same. There is a little extra fossil CO2 from farming and processing the fuel though.
Wind, solar etc don’t contribute much CO2 at all – just the energy needed to make, install, maintain etc, which is about 90-98% less per unit of electricity than coal.
Catmandew’s analogy is wrong. Increasing the concentration of CO2 reduces the distance it takes for almost all light to be absorbed. Each ‘layer’ of atmosphere radiates this heat up and down to be absorbed by the next layer. If you increase the CO2 concentration, the length for absorption decreases, you have more absorbing layers in the atmosphere and the temperature increases. A better analogy is that it’s like putting on more blankets.
Most renewable fuels produce 3 to 5 times the co2 in their production than petroleum based fuels do. Ethanol when you consider its entire production process produces 3 times the co2 per mile driven than gasoline does. The much vaunted hydrogen fuel produces 5 times the co2 per mile driven than gasoline does.
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
The answer is in your question. A renewable fuel is burned in such a way that it breaks down to its basic components. Take Ethanol C2OH the carbon burns during combustion and then you are left with Oxygen and Hydrogen (your alcohol group). These molecules can later reform, lets say in corn, to create ethanol once again. When burning fossil fuels once the crude oil and petrol taken from the ground is turned into gasoline thats it, finito, it can not come back to form oil again. Its not renewable.
So when its burned the products of combustion will be recycled back into the environment to be harvested once again. When fossil fuels are burned CO (carbon monoxide) is emitted but can not return to the form of oil, so it builds up over time, just floating in the atmosphere and is extremely slow to dissipate
Renewable fuels do not cause global warming because CO2 does not contribute to AGW after 100 PPM. That is true because the spectrum of energy absorbed by CO2 (15 nanometers) is absorbed to extinction after it encounters the first 100 ppm in the atmosphere. CO2 is now at 385 ppm so adding additional CO2 has virtually no impact on the environment. Think of this analogy. You are in a perfectly dark room which already has a dozen shades. Would adding more shades have any impact on the light in the room? Of course not. This is what happens when more CO2 is added to the environment. There is only so much IR energy in the 15 nanometer spectrum. Once its gone, its gone. That already occurs in the first 10 meters of the atmosphere.
Yes. The carbon emitted when you burn a bio fuel was taken out of the atmosphere by the plant just a few weeks prior, making the net effect 0. Ideally, anyway.
It doesnt exist
There is nothing corbin neutral.Most of the energy from burning fuel is from corbin.
the carbon in renewable fuels was CO2 that, through photosynthesis, was converted to a sugar. when you burn it, that carbon becomes CO2 again. so there’s no net change in the CO2 in the atmosphere.
HOWEVER, typically, renewable fuels have been planted, harvested, transported, and processed, by things that burn fossil fuels, so the statement is generally not 100% true. Unfortunately.
In addition, we all still need to eat, so renewable fuels generally mean that farmland that is less productive needs to be used. That involves clearing (forest) and using some/more fertilizer to get the product to grow.
Renewable fuels are, on the surface, a good idea, but once one looks at all the side effects, it’s not necessarily true.
First, man-made Global warming is a hoax to dictate the kind of car you drive, the number of miles you drive, the kind of house you buy, the temperature you set your thermostat, and where we get our power from. They can also tax you more in the name of “saving the planet”. When politicians can do this they take away your freedoms to make your own decisions and they receive more power over you and that is what this is all about. This planet has been going through warming and cooling cycles ever since God created it. God is in control of the seasons, not man.
If, you will look at the last three years alone, you will find the planet in a cooling cycle. But, you can not just look at the climate for three years, or three hundred years to see if we are in a warming or cooling cycle.
If, humans did not make CO2, then all plant and vegetable life would die. Trees, grass, fruit, vegetables, every living green thing requires CO2 to live. The take in CO2 and change that into oxygen in a process called photosynthesis.
If, the planet did not have CO2 then the temperature swings would be more extreme from day to night and summer to winter. Also, our oceans help buffer the temperature swings. It’s all in God’s plan.
It’s a game of 3-Card Monte. All you have to do is follow the CO2 molecule. Non-renewable fuels bring up carbon that has been buried a long time, this causes a blip in atmospheric CO2 until it is removed by photosynthesis and carbonate sequestration in the oceans. Estimates of the time this takes varies from 2-11 years. Renewable fuels produce CO2 from carbon that was recently removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. This CO2 also has to eventually be removed. Estimates of the time this takes varies from 2-11 years. The big question is who will make all the money from your fuel usage.
BTW – there is no anthropogenic global warming. Even the politicos are abandoning the name “global warming” and going for the generic “climate change” Since climate is always changing, they can never again be proven wrong.
Like others have said, burning biofuels doesn’t directly contribute to more CO2 because the plants ****** up CO2 whilst they were growing. Before you grow the plant and after you burn it, the CO2 in the atmosphere is the same. There is a little extra fossil CO2 from farming and processing the fuel though.
Wind, solar etc don’t contribute much CO2 at all – just the energy needed to make, install, maintain etc, which is about 90-98% less per unit of electricity than coal.
Catmandew’s analogy is wrong. Increasing the concentration of CO2 reduces the distance it takes for almost all light to be absorbed. Each ‘layer’ of atmosphere radiates this heat up and down to be absorbed by the next layer. If you increase the CO2 concentration, the length for absorption decreases, you have more absorbing layers in the atmosphere and the temperature increases. A better analogy is that it’s like putting on more blankets.
Most renewable fuels produce 3 to 5 times the co2 in their production than petroleum based fuels do. Ethanol when you consider its entire production process produces 3 times the co2 per mile driven than gasoline does. The much vaunted hydrogen fuel produces 5 times the co2 per mile driven than gasoline does.