How much pollution does a car produce?

GavinMannion

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
5,862
#1
While exhaust gases such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are pretty nasty in their own right it’s the CO2 emitted by cars that contributes towards global warming. Roughly, for every litre of petrol you burn, your car emits 2.4kg of CO2! The average motorist who drives 20 000km a year will therefore emit anything between 2000kg and 7000kg of CO2 a year.
http://www.greencars.za.net/?page_id=34

7000 kilograms of CO2 a year for a standard driver... that's insane...

I have never been huge into the environment and the like but that figure is quite shocking, luckily I ride a bike so I don't need to feel guilty on the way home :D

I wonder if that figure goes up for city dwellers though, while you may only drive 20 km's home it takes you over an hour due to traffic.. the whole time you are pumping out pollution...
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,215
#4
We'll have to eat them all!

Sessly though - the worst emission of cows is methane, not CO2 (although they do emit CO2).

They should make hybrid cows... half cow half tree.
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,100
#5
http://www.greencars.za.net/?page_id=34

7000 kilograms of CO2 a year for a standard driver... that's insane...

I have never been huge into the environment and the like but that figure is quite shocking, luckily I ride a bike so I don't need to feel guilty on the way home :D

I wonder if that figure goes up for city dwellers though, while you may only drive 20 km's home it takes you over an hour due to traffic.. the whole time you are pumping out pollution...
This is really interesting. The values are correct as far as I've been able to find out.

However, one liter of petrol weighs about 0.75kg. How in the world is this converted to 2.4kg of CO2? :eek:

[edit]
It's obviously to do with something like CH-chain + O2 = Energy + CO where the oxygen's mass gets added to the mass of the CH-chains. I wouldn't have thought the effect would be that big though...
 
Last edited:

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
#6
Global warming? It's nothing more than a natural cycle. Earth goes through cycles. It had an ice age, now it's warmer. It's getting hotter on Mars too...there are no humans there, and as far as Bush knows (hah)...there are no marsmen driving around in Petrol vehicles.
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,215
#7
@ Rkootnir: Coz there are 2 oxygen atoms in a CO2 molecule. So for every atom of carbon in the fuel that's burned, 2 oxygens are joined to it, making it a heavier molecule.

@ The Baron: The vast majority of the scientific community would disagree with you I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
#8
@ The Baron: The vast majority of the scientific community would disagree with you I'm afraid.
I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.:rolleyes:

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.
 

stoke

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
10,532
#9
Not to mention the heat produced in the conversion process.
We are at the beginning of a exponential curve, and .. well .. I hope you own short sleev'd shirts.
 

Tassidar

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,427
#10
I'm sure they would...just as Pluto is now a dwarf planet.:rolleyes:

The fact remains.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece



Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Mars is getting hotter, there's nothing there to cause any sort of "global warming"....It's a natural cycle.
What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.

I suggest you start you reading here
 

Roo!

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
1,028
#11
The solution to the earth's problems with global warming, greenhouse gases etc is rather simple; we need to stop breeding. There is simply too many people on this plant for this planet to sustain. I think the saying should be changed from 'breed like bunnies' to 'breed like [-]Neanderthals[/-] humans'.
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
#12
What a stupid argument. Just because Mars undergoes natural warming doesn't mean earth doesn't suffer from anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no link.

I suggest you start you reading here
Oh yes, I am a believer now...it all points to the logical conclusion that global warming is a man made phenomenan...Hold on man, I've got to go purchase a skateboard...Lol.

That's all very nice, that still doesn't explain how it is that Mars is facing the exact same variation as earth. Perhaps I should do your research for you, what is it that they used to 'refute" that Russian scientist who brought about this Mars issue?

Ah yes, the way that Mars "orbits and tilts" is the reason for it's temperature variations...and that earth has a bigger moon and that it's orbit and tilt is far less than that of Mars..and that's why the two are not suffering the same source of heat increase. Despite the fact that well earth does variate from it's course every 20 - 100,000 years...and that they cannot explain why it is that both Mars and Earth are between ice ages. They consider it a coincidence.

Scientists do not even understand most of natures complexities and they want to tell me about the greenhouse effect? It doesn't definitively know how these substances interact with each other and other substances.

This Atmospheric Physicist must be a retard.

http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

There's more "no links" for you if you want them.

Global warming is the modern "Nuclear threat". In the 60's it was the thing to be scared of, the end of mankind. Today it's global warming. I find it funny how so many people can run amock and consider purchasing electric vehicles to save earth, but they don't have the same conviction when it comes to their own people. Take Roo here, he's biting another myth...earth is over populated. Such a good idea...bring on abortion!. Contradiction that is, in one sense they fear global warming and they don't want to scortch to death, in another they cause extinction by lack of breeding. Way to go....
 
Last edited:

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,215
#13
From your link.

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Hardly a refutation of the mainstream consensus of anthropogenic climate change. I'm open to alternative explanations for the climate change that's going on - as long as its supported by the scientific community. At this time the vast majority of climate scientists see man-made greenhouse gases as the only viable explanation for climate change. Until such a time as a theory comes along that starts to cause a meaningful impact on the debate (coz right now there's no debate at all, that's how certain they are), there's really not much to discuss.

Further, Roo! has a point - the earth can't sustain the number of people tha are now living on it in the manner in which they're living. Nobody said anything about the extinction of the species through not breeding, all Roo suggested was that we don't breed as much.

*edit* Here and here is some info on The Great Global Warming Swindle *edit*
 
Last edited:

GavinMannion

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
5,862
#15
Another problem that I have heard we have is that there is only a limited supply of fossil fuels, we need a new way to power cars before we run out of oil....
 

Baron Hohenzollern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
186
#16
Hardly a refutation of the mainstream consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.

I could just as easily refer to you in a dinner conversation and say "As one guy said on Mybroadband"...does that mean you're the only one to share that view?

Don't be absurd please.

I'm open to alternative explanations for the climate change that's going on - as long as its supported by the scientific community.

That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.

Further, Roo! has a point - the earth can't sustain the number of people tha are now living on it in the manner in which they're living. Nobody said anything about the extinction of the species through not breeding, all Roo suggested was that we don't breed as much.
Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?

Misinformed scientists? Duped into believing the show was something else? preposterous.

You know vindication can do this sort of thing, just ask that geneticist who came out and stated that there are distinct differences between the races...he suffered so much flak he had to come out and explain the equality of his scientific research.
 
Last edited:

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
37,870
#17
there's a program called eco-tech that deals with issues like these. it's about ppl who come up with brilliant, yet simple and cost effective ways to resolve these types of problems.
 

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
37,870
#18
Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.

I could just as easily refer to you in a dinner conversation and say "As one guy said on Mybroadband"...does that mean you're the only one to share that view?

Don't be absurd please.




That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.



Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?

Misinformed scientists? Duped into believing the show was something else? preposterous.

You know vindication can do this sort of thing, just ask that geneticist who came out and stated that there are distinct differences between the races...he suffered so much flak he had to come out and explain the equality of his scientific research.
some good points there mate
 

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
#19
If you're going to fight over global warming again, here's a clip to discuss.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI"]YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]
 

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,215
#20
Now now, it's not healthy to nitpick things and distort them. It's a well known fact that there are many more scientists other than this Russian who have come out to state such things. As indicated in my post above. As one scientist claims is a general term.
And there a far, far more scientists who advocate anthropogenic climate change, hence the term, mainstream consensus.

That's what they told Tesla too when he started working on the Tesla Coil...They told Schauberger the same thing when he suggested that there are other means for power. I'm sure they told that no wait I know that the scientific community told that to the first man who mapped the human organs. And placed the heart as the source of pumping blood rather than the lungs.

They ridiculed him, vindicated him he lost his clients, and he lost his practice, and today it's a well established fact...you my friend may flock as much as you like with the rest of the sheep. I on the other hand prefer to look at things from a more clinical point of view. And not by numbers.
Are you a climate scientist? Just wondering what equips you to take this "more clinical point of view". Just because there have been a few cases in history where scientific brilliance has been ostracised by the mainstream, it doesn't mean that all mainstream science is misguided. In fact, most of the time it's the best explanations we have. What are your thoughts on gravity?

Why? so men like Bill Gates can own 11,000 Acre houses in 15 states?
No. It's my understanding that Roo's comment was made about the wellbeing of the earth, not about the extravagent lives of the mega rich. You like your straw men, don't you?
 
Top