How many moles of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere when 18.1 g of C8H18 is burned?
C8H18 molar mass = 114.23 g 18.1/114.23 = 0.15845 mol C8H18 mol C = 8(0.15845) = 1.2878 mol CO2
How many tons of co2 are entering the atmosphere on an annual basis?
The real question is where the excess heat trapped by an ever thickening blanket of greenhouse gases goes. The atmospheric temperatures have risen far less than the CO2 index would indicate...and this confuses a lot of people. The short answer is in the physics. Heat moves from warm to cool. It moves from a less dense medium to a more dense medium. The 'more dense medium' is ice first and sea water second. Massive amounts of ice are now melting as this medium absorbs the atmospheric heat. Ocean temperatures are very slowly rising as well. Right there you have your cause and effect. Trapped heat is the 'cause', melting ice and warming sea water is the 'effect'. Put you warm beer cans in your ice chest. The beer cools as the ice absorbs the heat energy and melts. The cause of the melting ice is the warm beer and the leakage of warm air into the container. Any 'scientist' who 'believes' in the reverse isn't really a 'scientist'.
How much CO2 is emitted from an idling car for 10 minutes?
Interesting question. It varies.. thanks for asking….Very seriously it depends on the car, there are so many different types of engines and ways to figure that number. Usually the EPA will give you a per gallon number. So if you know the rate of burn from the vehicle you are curious about you can take that rate times their number and probably feel close.As an example the CO2 per gallon is 8,887 grams CO2/Gallon as stated on FuelEconomy.gov - The official U.S. government source for fuel economy information. So if your car burns a gallon an hour you can take 8887/6 and there you go: 1481.17 grams per ten minutes.So your question really requires more information to be answered. But at least the only number you need to find is the rate of burn from which ever car you are interested in finding the answer.Hope this helps a little at least.Kelly Kenworthy
What is going to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and mitigate global warming?
Despite the propaganda that CO2 so bad because it can't be filtered from atmosphere it's a lie. It can't be managed by man made techniques is truth. It's a technicality with big implications.Life specifically plants is answer. So it is a farce to focus on fossil fuels while deforestation escalates.There are viable solutions like Algae that can double biomass every 24 hours that can be converted into many products that can be not only used as long term storage but replace toxic materials like plastics and synthetics. When converted to fertalisers it replaces toxic fertalisers as well as useable for reforestation and desert reclamation.Sadly the funding for these options is dismal and although many companies ready to go into production they in stasis trying to build capital. Is one company in Perth that has system to capture carbon at source in power stations with contracts waiting but no one wants to support because it involves oil and undermines propaganda. Is another company in Switzerland with a system for capturing on major roads but again same issue.We don't really want solutions to impact of fossil fuels or capturing carbon but to break Middle Easts financial independence.
Does a car burn 100% of the gas it uses?
No, but nearly 100%. There are some losses, mostly with a cold engine (condensation of fuel to the walls for example, and vapourizing the fuel is harder when its cold)With the current methods of injection and ignition control, car makers are able to combust nearly all of the fuel.A Euro6 car (which most current engines are) may only emit 0.10g/km of hydrocarbons (fuel). So if a car uses say about 7l/100km, or in petrol 50g/km, which may be about average for a bigger car, it has to burn at least 99.8% of fuel. Or, use catalytic converters to clean them in the exhaust. But most of the emission reductions happen with combustion control.Disclaimer: I’m substituting “gas” in your answer for Fuel. If you really meant gas, then the answer is different. A diesel engine and certain non-homogeneous-combustion petrol engines burn only a part of the air (gas).
Climate change occurs because the amount of CO2 released and amount of CO2 absorbed become unequal, and that results in a net change in atmospheric CO2 levels, right? But if that's the case, why doesn't CO2 keep rising forever, how does it stop?
I dont believe that that is the case.But in any event whether it is or isnt let's look at what natural events take place that holds co2 in check. 1) plants take in co2 and give off o2. They hold onto the carbon and use it to build with. When you burn wood do you notice the black charcoal? Pretty much all carbon that the plant had stored and used to physicaly grow.2)Did you ever see a picture of the White cliffs of Dover. Its mainly chalk. It is created from the skeletons of very small sea creatures call diatoms. This goes on today. Think about the billions of tonnes of sea shells , from barnacles, clams, oysters, coral. Etc etc that absob co2 out if the sea to build thier shells. Locking up billions of tonnes of co2 in the process.3) Did you ever see limestone? It is a very common rock. It is made up again from sea shells and the skeletons of marine organisms that lived millions and millions of years ago. All those tonnes of co2 locked up into rock.Nature has many uses for carbon and for co2. The world has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling. CO2 levels have been many many times higher than now. Indeed during the midfle of the longest and kargest ice age CO2 was much higher than. Today.I sm not accepting that CO2 is the driver of our warming period. Indeed there is some indications that rising levels of CO2 are a result of a warming trend bot a cause of it. Nut it is an unpopular concept and folks that buck the popular suggestions dont do to well with funding etc. Thst being daid there are somr brave souls out there.Truth will come out. Inspite of inconvenient oppourtunists!
What would happen if you put jet fuel in a car and attempted to run it?
Jet fuel…Jet A or Jet A1, right?Since jet fuel is kerosene and kerosene is similar to diesel, it’s not a good idea to fill the tank of a gasoline vehicle with it. So…we’ll assume your car is a diesel and go from there.Three things will happen.First, you will spend more money for your fuel. The gas station next to my house has diesel for $2.69 per gallon. The Fixed Base Operator at the closest airport to my home charges $4.35 per gallon for Jet A. (It could be worse…the FBO at Sea-Tac wants $6.79 per gallon. Don’t ask about Teterboro.) This is assuming you can get any fuel at all if you can’t prove you have an airplane; most FBOs won’t sell fuel to non-aviation users.Second, you’ll get worse fuel economy. Jet fuel is a very highly purified form of #1 kerosene. #1 kerosene is a highly purified form of #1 diesel. #1 diesel is called “arctic diesel” for a reason - it gels at lower temperatures than #2 diesel. But it’s also diesel with lower viscosity; since there is less energy in a less-viscous fuel, you get worse mileage out of it.And third is what happens to you if you get caught. No road tax is paid on jet fuel, so the state will come after you for tax evasion if they find out you’re running jet fuel on the public roads.So…don’t do this. Either 40 cetane “regular diesel” or 50 cetane “premium diesel” from a regular gas station is the fuel for you.Now for the gasoline-burning crowd: Don’t burn aviation gasoline in your car. Avgas has lower “vapor pressure” than road gasoline, which planes at high altitude need. It leads to your car running like crap because it doesn’t vaporize as easily. Plus, it’s got lead in it and that’ll screw up all your emissions control equipment. The race fuel manufacturers sell street legal fuels - Sunoco has 260 Plus and VP has VP100.
How long does carbon dioxide (CO2) stay in the atmosphere?
For the last 27 million years or so the level of atmospheric CO2 was around 280 parts per million (ppm). Right now it’s around 400ppm, having risen to that level only within the past 70 years, due to people burning fossil fuels and the size of the human population increasing rapidly.Rather than talking about this CO2 molecule or that, since some would be absorbed into the ocean or by rock weathering immediately, it’s more useful to ask how long it would take for the overall level of CO2 to return to the natural equilibrium of 280ppm, at which point the natural processes that absorb CO2 are balanced by the natural processes that emit CO2.The answer to the is several centuries to get close, and hundreds of thousands of years to get all the back to that 280ppm baseline.Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide » Yale Climate ConnectionsCO2 is a stable molecule. It doesn’t break down quickly on its own, unlike methane. It does get absorbed, though, and so while we can’t predict the “lifespan” of any one molecule, we can predict changes in the totality pretty closely—certainly closely enough to drive government policy (that is, if the government hadn’t been captured by corporate forces with no concern for anything but profit, for them, today).
Can we use water as a fuel?
Everyone elses answers are great... Syed Fazli and Rob Lion have the best answers.. you can not BURN water! It is already the oxidized form of hydrogen. This makes it impossible to use as a fuel source... however. This needs to be reconsidered. One way this could be a VERY usable source of fuel is not as water H20 but hydrogen. To turn water into pure hydrogen you would need electric that is renewable. Using wind turbines out on the ocean can create the electric needed to split Hydrogen and oxygen.. The oxygen would be released into the atmosphere and the hydrogen would be stored in pressurized tanks underwater or pipes. Then this hydrogen could be used for fuel ... for cooking food in homes where the only off gas is water vapor! Safe! People think hydrogen is very dangerous but... it is just as dangerous as having Natural Gas in peoples homes! Hydrogen used to be a large part of natural gas in homes before they decided they needed the hydrogen in oil refineries to crack the sulfur off of diesel fuel and other hydrocarbons to lower the Sulfur content. But I am off topic! Water has been used as a source of energy as STEAM.. steam driven turbines are what make the power for the world. However that steam is produced by heating it with a hydrocarbon. Natural gas, Oil, or often Coal. If we could use Ocean Wind or Ocean tidal currents to drive water turbines at the shoreline we could easily use that enormous amount of electricity from tidal currents to transform ocean water into hydrogen and use it as fuel to create H20! Our oceans have terra watts of energy that they release when waves crash on the shore! It is something that could liberate us from fossel fuel use completely! Some companies like Pepsi have realized that by injecting hydrogen into the diesel engines it causes the diesel to burn MUCH cleaner and not leave carbon deposits in the engine! This will lower the carbon dioxide emmissions ! Cleaner atomosphere! GOOGLE pepsi tucks with hydrogen! They saved 3 million in fuel in 1 year! After a million miles they opened the engine and it was still clean! Hydrogen burns clean!.. 15% fuel savings!dynaCERT, Global leader in Carbon Emission Reduction Technology YouTube 720p With modifications the internal combustion engine could be retrofitted to burn hydrogen or a mix of hydrogen and normal fuel to create a cleaner burn with more energy. Why this is not done more often I do not know! Regards William
Why can't we just use hydrogen as a fuel for our internal combustion engines?
You can! Hydrogen is very easy to use as a fuel. It is a gas, and it blends easily with air. It also contains just Hydrogen, no Carbon, so less carbon emissions.Why don’t we do it? There are two aspects on that question:1. Hydrogen Combustion:You can use hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. The problem is, an internal combustion engine has a terrible efficiency- whether it uses gasoline, diesel or hydrogen. Think of about 20 to 25% over its operating range.Raising efficiency will have the nasty by-effect of creating NOx, because NOx forms when air reaches high temperatures and pressures- but is independent of the fuel used.A combustion process creates noise, always.A combustion engine is terribly heavy and takes up a fixed amount of space in a place you don’t really want it.2. Hydrogen creation, infrastructure and storage:Hydrogen cannot just be stored as a liquid like gasoline. You either have to store it as a gas at very high pressures: normally 350–700 bar, and even then it takes up much more space than just gas, or liquid at very low tempratures, which takes a lot of energy to maintain. Also compressing hydrogen takes up a lot of energy.Hydrogen high storage tanks leak a bit. The materials we have currently are to porous to maintain hydrogen in them for long periods.Hydrogen creation can be done as a by-product of various chemical processes, and in that aspect it is great to use as a fuel. But normally hydrogen has to be created in an electrolytic process, which takes up a lot of energy- efficiency around 80%. The fuel cells use platina and/or other rare metals. This makes them expensive.Transporting hydrogen is just difficult. Again, we have these high pressures and it is not easy to get that from tank to tank to tank to tank. Every time you let hydrogen travel from a high pressure to a low pressure area, you lose energy.I don’t think hydrogen is viable in any way. Maybe as a temporary solution for energy storage and fast refills in electric vehicles, but I bet my money on electric drives instead. More efficient, better for the environment, and the infrastructure is easy to create.