High School Science And Cap And Trade Legislation

PA Pundits International ^ | 16 November 2010 | TonyfromOz

[TonyfromOz]

How does one ton of coal produce 2.86 tons of Carbon Dioxide? Think for a minute about the psychology of this Climate Change religion. Those pushing this one sided argument ask you to believe the most complex Science, and then to accept that Science on faith. However, what lies at the very root of their whole argument, those original emissions from coal fired power plants, directly relates to Science we all learned in our first year at High School. If that sounds so unbelievable, why do people who agree with those pursuing the debate have such faith in complex Science, and without question. In reality, it’s not about the Science. It’s just about the money, $260 Billion a year in fact, and that’s why the Government wants you to have faith, while forgetting simple High School Science.

[mmercier]

If 110 lbs of Nancy Pelosi and 150 lbs of Harry Reid can produce 1,000 lbs of bad legislation... I see no problems with the math.

[Question Liberal Authority]

How does one ton of coal produce 2.86 tons of Carbon Dioxide?

Because two oxygen atoms are added to each carbon atom, which nearly triples the weight?

[mmercier]

There used to be a thing called the law of conservation of mass/matter.

This law has now been suspended by those will educate the next generation.

I request that anyone who derives a method of obtaining more mass out of a process than put into that process contact me immediately.

[muawiyah]

I suspect you do not understand the question. Starting with 1 ton of coal how do you get over 2 tons of stuff?

You are objecting to that simple observation by arguing from the conservation of energy ~ which may be applicable to ALL the things going into burning coal (coal, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) but doesn't have anything to do with just the coal by itself. After all, when you burn coal in a fire it isn't coal anymore ~ it's ash and gas and clinkers.

[catman67]

I’m dorry but the law of conservation of mass/energy is scheduled for repeal under the new cap-and-trade legislation.

It has already been suspended by Executive Order as per recommendation by the Departmentof Energy and the EPA.

[Huebolt]

Without CO2 in the atmosphere at fairly high levels, the earth will become one HUGE ICE BALL. That is its normal state, absent the CO2.

These are the same people that represented the "scientific" community claiming:

The earth is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; you can get VD from a toilet seat; eggs will kill you; vitamin supplements are useless.

That last has been disproved to the point that vitamin supplements are found to be the SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE thing to do to stay healthy...

[Question Liberal Authority]

I request that anyone who derives a method of obtaining more mass out of a process than put into that process contact me immediately.

Coal is made from pure carbon (C).

When you burn it, you 'oxidize' it. In other words, you ADD OXYGEN (O2)

C+O2= CO2. CO2 weighs as much as carbon and oxygen combined.

There used to be a thing called the law of conservation of mass/matter.

There still is. You can't burn carbon in a vacuum.

[Question Liberal Authority]

Without CO2 in the atmosphere at fairly high levels, the earth will become one HUGE ICE BALL.

I agree that Carbon Dioxide is mighty useful stuff. It is a universal plant food necessary for the continued existence of all life on earth, and it is not pollution.

However, I am not understanding the question posed by the article: "How can one ton of coal produce 2.86 tons of CO2?" Do they mean "how can a ton of something be turned into 2.86 tons of something else", or do they mean "how is it that a ton of coal ONLY produces 2.86 tons of CO2, given that oxygen is heavier than carbon?" Or are they simply explaining the process whereby a ton of carbon is converted into 2.86 tons of CO2?

[OrioleFan]

These are the same people that represented the "scientific" community claiming:

Lo-Flo toilets use less water...

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Huebolt]

Do they mean "how can a ton of something be turned into 2.86 tons of something else", or do they mean "how is it that a ton of coal ONLY produces 2.86 tons of CO2, given that oxygen is heavier than carbon?" Or are they simply explaining the process whereby a ton of carbon is converted into 2.86 tons of CO2

I feel sure this has been answered previously but here goes, at least the one ton to 2.83 tons: All chemical reactions proceed in terms of atomic mass units, and the standard way to deal with that is the Mole where one mole (molecular weight) is equal to the atomic weight in grams. (You may put tons in there as it is a ratio and applies to any mass unit)

So you get one mole of Carbon combining with 2 moles of oxygen to get one mole of CO2.

That looks like this, if coal were pure Carbon:

Carbon = 12.1 (grams, tons, whatever) X 1

Oxygen = 16 (grams, tons, whatever X 2

That gives 44.1 (grams, tons, whatever) of CO2 as the result of combustion.

The reason it doesn't come out like that is that coal is NOT pure carbon, and you end up with coal ash, water vapor, and who knows what else. The weight of the combustion products ALWAYS equals the weight of the fuel and oxidizer.

That's why we need to go 100% NUCLEAR in power generation. 10,000 years of fuel and no emmissions.