Diesels to be banned

[Robbo]

I can see the day when wood burning stoves will become a target if the trend continues for householders to use them.   They chuck out a lot of crap!

[Athy]

38 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I will never understand why folk feel the need to use the words 'metric tonne'

 

Surely "metric ton", otherwise it would be tautology? A tonne is a metric ton.

I have heard people pronounce the foreign version of that measure as "tonny".

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:02, Athy said:

Surely "metric ton", otherwise it would be tautology? A tonne is a metric ton.

I have heard people pronounce the foreign version of that measure as "tonny".

 

If ever I buy a pub I'm changing the name to "The Three Tonnes"

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Ok thanks...

I'd ruled that out before asking as your post also used "tonnes" as units so I concluded they were something different..! 

E.G.

"Coal power stations emitt 3tes of CO2 per tonne of coal burnt (approx) "

Thing is, I know from experience this SI system loves to randomly introduce new units unexpectedly. I'm beginning to notice gas pressures mentioned in Pascals!

I am sure somebody can explain but I am still struggling with how you can get 3 times as much C02 as the amount of coal you started with.

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Robbo said:

I can see the day when wood burning stoves will become a target if the trend continues for householders to use them.   They chuck out a lot of crap!

Ours emits smoke through its chimney, but I suppose that models vary.

I think that wood-burners are generally viewed as a Good Thing because after you've burned the wood, you can grow some new wood in a few years, which you can't do with coal or oil. So they aren't diminishing the world's resources.

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:06, Jerra said:

I am sure somebody can explain but I am still struggling with how you can get 3 times as much C02 as the amount of coal you started with.

 

Each tonne of carbon burned combines with 2 tonnes of oxygen to give three tonnes in total.

The clue is in "CO2" !

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

If ever I buy a pub I'm changing the name to "The Three Tonnes"

I'm sure that the 500 mil metric "pints" which you serve won't be popular with customers who, as you mentioned recently, will not be happy with 7/8ths of a pint!

[Robbo]

Just now, Athy said:

Ours emits smoke through its chimney, but I suppose that models vary.

I think that wood-burners are generally viewed as a Good Thing because after you've burned the wood, you can grow some new wood in a few years, which you can't do with coal or oil. So they aren't diminishing the world's resources.

Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.  Just because you can grow it doesn't mean to say that burning it is a good thing!

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:09, Athy said:

I'm sure that the 500 mil metric "pints" which you serve won't be popular with customers who, as you mentioned recently, will not be happy with 7/8ths of a pint!

 

Oh they will, because I will be selling them cheaper. For only 8/9ths of the price of a pint!

On 28/07/2017 at 09:10, Robbo said:

Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.  Just because you can grow it doesn't mean to say that burning it is a good thing!

 

Yes. NOT burning said wood is even better for the environment!

Wood is classed as a 'renewable' energy source, not a 'clean' energy source. There are several conflicting aspects to 'environmentalism'.

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh they will, because I will be selling them cheaper. For only 8/9ths of the price of a pint!

Could you sell that idea to the French? On my recent visit there I found that 500 mil glasses of beer cost the same as about 9/8ths of a pint over here.

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:16, Athy said:

Could you sell that idea to the French? On my recent visit there I found that 500 mil glasses of beer cost the same as about 9/8ths of a pint over here.

 

Errr... that's because you were paying in Euros, silly!

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Each tonne of carbon burned combines with 2 tonnes of oxygen to give three tonnes in total.

The clue is in "CO2" !

That therefore suggests that coal is pure carbon as you appear to get a tonne of carbon from a tonne of coal.  So where does all the ash left in the grate come from? 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am sure somebody can explain but I am still struggling with how you can get 3 times as much C02 as the amount of coal you started with.

Jut do a google search for 'how much water vapour is produced by burning 1 lire of LPG'

Clue - it is more than 1 litre per litre of gas

[Dr Bob]

40 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I will never understand why folk feel the need to use the words 'metric tonne' (or even worse an abbreviation thereof) instead of ton or tonne when discussing round numbers like 1 million.

The difference between ton and tonne is 35lbs in old money, about 1.5%, so for gross approximations like we are discussing here there is no need to distinguish between the two.

Interesting figures about CO2, but the current issue is about noxious (NOx - pun intended) emissions.   Dr Bob's assertion 'Stop burning coal and stop burning gas in power plants, industrial plants etc and we can all keep running our diesel engines' disregards this and totally misses the point.

Regarding CO2 I just calculated that 20 million cars covering 10,000km/annum with a CO2 emission of 150g/km will emit 3million tonnes of CO2.  So cars emit about the same amount as the plastics industry - not insignificant but also not by far the largest emitter.

 

 

 

Ref the t's vs te's. I have spent 40 years working in an industry that sold in te's (not t's). After all, 1.5% is important when you are talking 'millions of tes'. Forgive me if I stick to what I have been doing for 40 years.

I think the issue is both CO2 and NOx. NOx is very bad and is the thing about air quality that must be improved. Therefore coal power stations MUST be got rid of. CO2 is bad for 'climate change' (note I am not saying Global Warming -which i disagree with - similar to composting toilets) and therefore CO2 is a key thing to reduce.

When you burn a tonne (there I go again!) of carbon based fuel (coal, gas, etc) you create over 3 times the wieght of CO2 (atomic weigh of carbon is 12 and oxygen 16 therefore molecular weight of CO2 is 44). What I was trying to say earlier is that 2 chemical plants, one in Grangemouth and one on Teeside make 3 million tes of CO2 per year. Add into that all the other chemical plants/refineries and that is a lot of 'climate change' potential.

Nuclear on the other hand does not produce CO2 directly (as per solar and wind) so is much cleaner for the environment.

I am far more worried about CO2 as the future of the world is at stake. NOx is worrying but for me, that is more about the air quality in heavily occupied areas so has the potential to kill millions rather than the billions who will suffer when we flood the atmosphere with CO2.

Glad you calculated the CO2 from cars. I did know the number years ago but it had slipped below the radar. ......so all the cars in the UK are equivalent to 2 big industrial plants. Note, this isnt the plastics industry as a whole, it is only to make the powder that is sold to the compounders and moulders - all of whom use huge amounts of electricity to fabricate plastic articles.

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Burning wood is bad, it produces more than double the amount of pollution than diesel.  Just because you can grow it doesn't mean to say that burning it is a good thing!

I have no idea whether that is true (surely different woods vary?) but people still perceive burning wood as a Good Thing because it smells far more pleasant than burning diesel. I haven't noticed Meggers telling us that "I love the smell of diesel smoke in the morning".

1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

Ref the t's vs te's. I have spent 40 years working in an industry that sold in te's (not t's). After all, 1.5% is important when you are talking 'millions of tes'. Forgive me if I stick to what I have been doing for 40 years.

 

There's no need to apologise. Jargon contributes much to the richness of our language.

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:18, Jerra said:

That therefore suggests that coal is pure carbon as you appear to get a tonne of carbon from a tonne of coal.  So where does all the ash left in the grate come from? 

 

 

nitpicking

ˈnɪtpɪkɪŋ/

noun

informal

noun: nit-picking

1. fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

   "nitpicking over tiny details"

[Dr Bob]

I'd love to continue to contribute more to this thread now, as it seems to be motoring along........but we are off out for a cruise

[Jerra]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

nitpicking

ˈnɪtpɪkɪŋ/

noun

informal

noun: nit-picking

1. fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

   "nitpicking over tiny details"

If I am nit picking then somebody is exaggerating.  Surely there should be no increase in figures just to try to make things seem worse.  THey could have simply said nearly or almost or probably more likely 1.5 t for each t burned.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That therefore suggests that coal is pure carbon as you appear to get a tonne of carbon from a tonne of coal.  So where does all the ash left in the grate come from? 

The contents of the composting toilet.

You have to 'get rid' somehow so 'chuck it on with the Tata peelings'.

[MtB]

On 28/07/2017 at 09:25, Jerra said:

If I am nit picking then somebody is exaggerating.  Surely there should be no increase in figures just to try to make things seem worse.  THey could have simply said nearly or almost or probably more likely 1.5 t for each t burned.

 

I think the answer lies in this from Dr Bob:

(I'm well outside my area of expertise but basic chemistry makes a lot of sense - occasionally!)

 

On 28/07/2017 at 09:19, Dr Bob said:

When you burn a tonne (there I go again!) of carbon based fuel (coal, gas, etc) you create over 3 times the wieght of CO2 (atomic weigh of carbon is 12 and oxygen 16 therefore molecular weight of CO2 is 44).

 

[mross]

I've never seen it abreviated as te.  It should be mt or MT - metric tonnes.  Ton, on its own, is too vague for engineering or economics.  Tonne is fine for informal use.

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, mross said:

I've never seen it abreviated as te.  It should be mt or MT - metric tonnes.  Ton, on its own, is too vague for engineering or economics.  Tonne is fine for informal use.

Surely as we have supposed to be metric for over 40 years T or t should suffice as the UK should be using metric units.

[LadyG]

I used to lug 1cwt sacks of barley off the combine, aged 18, and believe me I was at my limit, so the difference twixt ton and tonne has relevance to me.

Nowadays I struggle wth 25kg. so 20kg sacks are a relief.

In conversation, I  emphasise the "n" in tonne.

Not that it comes up in conversaytion very often at the local OAP bingo club. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by LadyG

[Chewbacka]

28 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I used to lug 1cwt sacks of barley off the combine, aged 18, and believe me I was at my limit, so the difference twixt ton and tonne has relevance to me.

Nowadays I struggle wth 25kg. so 20kg sacks are a relief.

In conversation, I  emphasise the "n" in tonne.

Not that it comes up in conversaytion very often at the local OAP bingo club. 

I would guess that when you were 18 you only weighed 1cwt.

[Machpoint005]

7 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

Nuclear on the other hand does not produce CO2 directly (as per solar and wind) so is much cleaner for the environment.

Only in that respect. As far as I can remember, the half-life of carbon-12 is effectively zero, which is a bit less worrying than (say) 25,000 years for some plutonium isotopes.

35 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I used to lug 1cwt sacks of barley off the combine, aged 18, and believe me I was at my limit, so the difference twixt ton and tonne has relevance to me.

Nowadays I struggle wth 25kg. so 20kg sacks are a relief.

ie a sack half the weight (1cwt is very close to 50kg).