Global warming ...

[devbolt]

Just because you only drive the car 36K miles doesn't mean that a future owner won't drive it much further. It's the lifetime of the car, not how long a particular owner drives the car. After 15K miles, the Bolt has already made up any additional manufacturing deficit. For me, that's within the first year of ownership, and I personally tend to keep my cars for at least 150K miles.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists have updated their website and maps to reflect that the national grid has gotten a lot cleaner, especially in the Midwest. Things are improving.

[NeilBlanchard]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... moky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

I have a bag of charcoal.

If it sits in the bag how much CO2 is added to the air? 0

If I burn it how much CO2 is added to the air? 11 lbs

11 > 0

Burning charcoal adds CO2 to the air. Burning wood adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of coal adds CO2 to the air. Burning ancient trees/plants/bushes in the form of oil adds CO2 to the air.

That is ridiculous, and you know it.

When the tree grew, the carbon comes from the air. If it dies, and rots, the carbon returns to the air - with no net change.

Then someone made it into charcoal, and this stabilizes the carbon. Bury the charcoal, and you have REMOVED carbon from the air.

If you burn all the charcoal, then the carbon that came from the air - returns to the air. No net change.

That is how it works.

[NeilBlanchard]

That is an old map, using 2009 data. Here's the 2014 map:



And that is still 2+ years old data. Things are better now.

[NeilBlanchard]

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

So, I suppose rainforest deforestation and trees disappearing from urban centers isn't something we need to be concerned about either because really, all the carbon in those trees "came from the air" when the trees grew.

Right.

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

[oilerlord]

Just because you only drive the car 36K miles doesn't mean that a future owner won't drive it much further. It's the lifetime of the car, not how long a particular owner drives the car. After 15K miles, the Bolt has already made up any additional manufacturing deficit. For me, that's within the first year of ownership, and I personally tend to keep my cars for at least 150K miles.

BTW, Union of Concerned Scientists have updated their website and maps to reflect that the national grid has gotten a lot cleaner, especially in the Midwest. Things are improving.

It's exactly dependent on how long a particular owner drives the car. For an 84 mile BEV it's 135,000 miles....with a 265 mile BEV, it's 179,000 miles. Did you read the assumptions at the bottom of the illustration? Apparently not.

If you do indeed to keep your Bolt for at least 150K miles - kudos. You're in the minority.

[NeilBlanchard]

This article suggests a charcoal grill produces 11 pounds of CO2, obviously it depends on how much charcoal you burn but it's a good estimate
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... moky-truth

So we have 20 pounds and 11 pounds, pretty clearly not several or even one order of magnitude different.

The grill article suggested that a gas grill produces about 1/2 the CO2 that a charcoal grill produces.

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

[oilerlord]

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

Look at the picture again. It isn't just a forest fire...it's the intentional deforestation of a rainforest. Long term, if we're not replacing the trees we cut down & burn, it DOES matter.

This is just basic science, Neil.

[michael]

A charcoal grill ADDS NO carbon to the air - because all the carbon in the charcoal came from the air, when the trees grew.

It is only fossil fuels that increase the quantity of carbon in the air.

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

Yes that's true but what difference does it make?

If a tree grows TODAY atmospheric carbon becomes biomass. If that biomass is burned, the carbon is returned to the atmosphere.

I think your point is that if you grow a tree specifically to cut it down and burn, there is no net change in atmospheric carbon. But that's only if the tree was farmed for that purpose. If natural growth is used, there is a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

Similarly, if wood scraps are used to make paper, particle board, etc. carbon stays out of the atmosphere. If they are used to make charcoal briquets, it's returned to the atmosphere.

[NeilBlanchard]

Long term, forest fires don't matter. Because, that carbon came from the air.

Fossil fuels have been out of the cycle of life for millions and millions of years.

This is just basic science, folks.

Look at the picture again. It isn't just a forest fire...it's the intentional deforestation of a rainforest. Long term, if we're not replacing the trees we cut down & burn, it DOES matter.

This is just basic science, Neil.

If the trees - or other plants don't grow back again, then that does increase the carbon in the air. But, the carbon is from the air, and other plants will grow on that land. Grasslands actually contain more carbon per acre than forests, by the way - because 80% of grass is in the roots, and grass is far more dense than trees.

Fossil fuels are the main problem, and the main cause of climate change.

[NeilBlanchard]

When the tree grows, atmospheric carbon gets tied up into the tree's structure.

When the wood is burned, whether as simple firewood or as charcoal, that carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide.

The only difference between modern wood and fossil fuels is that the plant material in the fossil fuels is from prehistoric times and the chemical structure has been changed by heat, time, and pressure. Burning either one releases carbon to the atmosphere.

You are missing the main difference: fossil fuels have carbon that came from the air MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO.

By the way, all the carbon in fossil fuels is carbon 12.
Some of the carbon from wood / charcoal is carbon 14. This is how we carbon date things, and it is how we know that the additional carbon in the air now came from fossil fuels.

Does anybody know what isotope of carbon is produced by volcanoes?

Yes that's true but what difference does it make?

If a tree grows TODAY atmospheric carbon becomes biomass. If that biomass is burned, the carbon is returned to the atmosphere.

I think your point is that if you grow a tree specifically to cut it down and burn, there is no net change in atmospheric carbon. But that's only if the tree was farmed for that purpose. If natural growth is used, there is a net increase in atmospheric carbon.

Similarly, if wood scraps are used to make paper, particle board, etc. carbon stays out of the atmosphere. If they are used to make charcoal briquets, it's returned to the atmosphere.

No, my point is that carbon in trees came from the air, and no matter if it rots or if we burn it - the SAME amount of carbon goes back into the air.

The cycle of life is continuous, and it is a closed system. So, the level of carbon stays the same over the long term.

Fossil fuels are bringing carbon that have not been in the air for millions of years. That is the difference.

Any answers on volcanic carbon?