OT: carbon dioxide reduction question

[kreed]

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.


This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.

 

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com>
wrote:

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.


This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.
The carbon diozide used in soft drinks comes from the air. So, they

are reducing atmospheric CO2 for the time the CO2 is in the can or
bottle. It is later release back into the atmosphere so there is no
net gain or loss. The CO2 people are worried about comes from burning
fossil fuels where the CO2 comes from the carbon in the fuels combined
with oxygen from the air.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:56:53 -0400, greenpjs@neo.rr.com wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com
wrote:
Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.

The carbon diozide used in soft drinks comes from the air. So, they
are reducing atmospheric CO2 for the time the CO2 is in the can or
bottle. It is later release back into the atmosphere so there is no
net gain or loss. The CO2 people are worried about comes from burning
fossil fuels where the CO2 comes from the carbon in the fuels combined
with oxygen from the air.

Not from the air:
<http://www.uigi.com/co2recovery.html>
Industrial CO2 (including soda water) comes mostly from waste gases
produced by power plants, lime production, and from corn to ethenol
production.
<http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html>
Were it not used in soft drinks, it would be released to the air and
therefore does not count in the atmospheric CO2 calculations.

Some numbers:
<http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php>
Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons
per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate) 0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations 0.22

I couldn't find anything on industrial CO2 bottled gas production, but
my guess is that it's tiny compared to the above figures.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Charlie]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

For shame!

 

[Robert Macy]

On Oct 1, 8:43 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:56:53 -0400, green...@neo.rr.com wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed <kenreed1...@gmail.com
wrote:
Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.
The carbon diozide used in soft drinks comes from the air.  So, they
are reducing atmospheric CO2 for the time the CO2 is in the can or
bottle.  It is later release back into the atmosphere so there is no
net gain or loss.  The CO2 people are worried about comes from burning
fossil fuels where the CO2 comes from the carbon in the fuels combined
with oxygen from the air.

Not from the air:
http://www.uigi.com/co2recovery.html
Industrial CO2 (including soda water) comes mostly from waste gases
produced by power plants, lime production, and from corn to ethenol
production.
http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
Were it not used in soft drinks, it would be released to the air and
therefore does not count in the atmospheric CO2 calculations.

Some numbers:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
     Yearly CO2 emitters                   Billion metric tons
                                               per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate)         0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)               35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks)                    3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations    0.22

I couldn't find anything on industrial CO2 bottled gas production, but
my guess is that it's tiny compared to the above figures.

--
Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Finally! a breath of sanity!

Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
man's production.

Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
by this distraction?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<robert.a.macy@gmail.com> wrote:

Some numbers:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
     Yearly CO2 emitters                   Billion metric tons
                                               per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate)         0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected)               35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks)                    3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations    0.22

Finally! a breath of sanity!

Don't hold your breath.

Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
man's production.

Ummm... you didn't read it correctly. Man made CO2 production is 35
billion tons per year. Natural sources (i.e. volcanoes) is only 0.26
billion tons per year or 0.7% of what man produces.

Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
by this distraction?

Yep. Wanna buy some carbon credits?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

**It's not hype. It's all about science. Something you have no familiarity
with.

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in soft
drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the atmosphere.
That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for banning soft drinks on
the basis that they use energy for their manufacture and are, generally, an
appalling way for humans to obtain kilojoules.

This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.

**Did it strike you to think where that CO2 came from? It is extracted from
the atmosphere. Thus carbonated soft drinks actually help with removing CO2
from the atmosphere.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Charlie wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.

For shame!

**For shame indeed. WFT were you idiots doing when you were supposed to be
learning science in school?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Robert Macy wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:43 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:56:53 -0400, green...@neo.rr.com wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT), kreed
kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity
and transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.
The carbon diozide used in soft drinks comes from the air. So, they
are reducing atmospheric CO2 for the time the CO2 is in the can or
bottle. It is later release back into the atmosphere so there is no
net gain or loss. The CO2 people are worried about comes from
burning fossil fuels where the CO2 comes from the carbon in the
fuels combined with oxygen from the air.

Not from the air:
http://www.uigi.com/co2recovery.html
Industrial CO2 (including soda water) comes mostly from waste gases
produced by power plants, lime production, and from corn to ethenol
production.
http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html
Were it not used in soft drinks, it would be released to the air and
therefore does not count in the atmospheric CO2 calculations.

Some numbers:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons
per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate) 0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations 0.22

I couldn't find anything on industrial CO2 bottled gas production,
but my guess is that it's tiny compared to the above figures.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Finally! a breath of sanity!

Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
man's production.

**Utter nonsense. Study up some science sometime.

Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
by this distraction?

**Humans (and pretty much every other critter on the planet) will gain, when
(or, more likely, IF) CO2 levels are reduced.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Metro]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9epg29Fr9lU2@mid.individual.net...

Charlie wrote:
"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.


For shame!

**For shame indeed. WFT were you idiots doing when you were supposed to be
learning science in school?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
WTF does WFT mean?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Metro wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9epg29Fr9lU2@mid.individual.net...
Charlie wrote:
"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity
and transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process.


For shame!

**For shame indeed. WFT were you idiots doing when you were supposed
to be learning science in school?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
WTF does WFT mean?

**LOL! That would be a typo.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jim Whitby]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:29:01 -0400, Charlie wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-
b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with carbon dioxide (for the
carbonated water) and unlike electricity and transport fuels are
definitely not an essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the
opposite) and would cause relatively small disruption to society if
banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

For shame!

Hmmmm... I suppose removing the CO2 is a good idea. The trees, grass and
other plant life wouldn't grow as fast. Less grass to cut. Wait. I don't
have to cut the grass.

Hmmmm... I suppose the plant growth would also slow down the oxygen
produced too. That might be good! Maybe all the CO2 idiots would
suffocate!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Metro wrote:

WTF does WFT mean?

Wantonly Feeding Trolls


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own CO2 via
the fermentation process.

Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Oct 1, 11:11 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy

robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some numbers:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Yearly CO2 emitters Billion metric tons
per year (Gt/y)
Global volcanic emissions (highest estimate) 0.26
Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
Approx 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations 0.22
Finally! a breath of sanity!

Don't hold your breath.

Natural sources, which have recently increased, are more than years of
man's production.

Ummm... you didn't read it correctly.  Man made CO2 production is 35
billion tons per year.  Natural sources (i.e. volcanoes) is only 0.26
billion tons per year or 0.7% of what man produces.

Following the money...who gains by reducing carbon emissions, or gains
by this distraction?

Yep.  Wanna buy some carbon credits?

--
Jeff Liebermann     je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

How much from the Indonesian fires still burning?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**BIG difference. Beer and some sparkling wines generate their own
CO2 via the fermentation process.


Then why do breweries need huge tanks of Carbon Dioxide?

**They don't. Well, not all of them. CO2 is not required for beer, though it
is used sometimes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 21:31:47 +0000 (UTC), Jim Whitby
<nospam@whitby-jr.org> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:29:01 -0400, Charlie wrote:

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bb610e4-964c-4047-
b11b-8a1abe82f2ab@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with carbon dioxide (for the
carbonated water) and unlike electricity and transport fuels are
definitely not an essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the
opposite) and would cause relatively small disruption to society if
banned.

Would you extend this to beer, ale and sparkling wines?

For shame!

Hmmmm... I suppose removing the CO2 is a good idea. The trees, grass and
other plant life wouldn't grow as fast. Less grass to cut. Wait. I don't
have to cut the grass.

Hmmmm... I suppose the plant growth would also slow down the oxygen
produced too. That might be good! Maybe all the CO2 idiots would
suffocate!
Considering the intellectual content of your post, it would seem you

are a non-CO2 idiot. CO2 content of the atmosphere is not a limiting
factor of plant growth. Moisture, sunlight, minerals, and temperature
are the key limiting factors. Temperature is the wild card - as
temperatures increase plants at the warmer end of their range no
longer thrive. Eventually plants which are hardy at the higher
temperature will supplant them, but in the interim there is less
growth, and less CO2 absorbed.

PlainBill

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 17:45:33 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<robert.a.macy@gmail.com> wrote:

How much from the Indonesian fires still burning?

It's quite large and constitutes (depending on authority and study)
between 5% to 20% of the approximately 35 billion tons of CO2 that man
belches each year.
<http://trendsupdates.com/forest-fires-cause-20-of-co2-emissions/>
<http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov07/article.html?id=WebExtra111207.html>
<http://www.greendiary.com/entry/forest-fires-emit-co2-in-tons-each-year/>
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2007/10/dirty_burns.html>
Forest and brush fires are usually included as part of the human
contribution to CO2, possibly because many such fires are started by
humans. I guess the lightning that starts most US forest fires is
also man made.

Of course, it's been suggested that global warming "fuels" forest
fires, making the mechanism positive feedback:
<http://www.livescience.com/4113-global-warming-fuels-forest-fires.html>
"The country's western forests, which traditionally act as
storage "sinks" for sequestering 20 to 40 percent of all
U.S. carbon output, are now transforming into a source
of atmospheric carbon dioxide as they burn up, the authors
write."

Incidentally, I'm doing my best to contribute to the problem. During
winter, I heat my house with about 2.5 cords of oak and madrone.
<http://transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/>
"The carbon dioxide released when burning wood (about 1900g CO2
for each 1000g of wood burnt) is balanced by the fact that
this carbon was taken up by the tree from the air when it grew.
So this part of the emissions is carbon-neutral. However, many
other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including
one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide;
although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent
per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as
a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in
the atmosphere."
Hmmm... maybe I should install a catalytic converter on the
woodburner.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Dennis]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9epfv7Fqm3U2@mid.individual.net...

kreed wrote:
Since there has been all this hype about removing carbon emissions,

**It's not hype. It's all about science. Something you have no familiarity
with.


Why hasn't anyone come up with the concept of totally banning soft
drinks, since these are all made with
carbon dioxide (for the carbonated water) and unlike electricity and
transport fuels are definitely not an
essential item to humanity (Debatably quite the opposite) and would
cause relatively small disruption to society if banned.

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in soft
drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the atmosphere.
That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for banning soft drinks
on the basis that they use energy for their manufacture and are,
generally, an appalling way for humans to obtain kilojoules.



This kind of struck me today when i walked past a bar and saw large
cylinders marked carbon dioxide being unloaded for use in drinks.

**Did it strike you to think where that CO2 came from? It is extracted
from the atmosphere. Thus carbonated soft drinks actually help with
removing CO2 from the atmosphere.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Now I'm waiting for someone to suggest soft drink vaults for CO2
sequestration...

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

If you really want to cut back on global warming, learn
how to trim and edit your posts.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"