I have 'do what?!' sensors. And when I read something like this they get put on alert: ‘Fertilising’ oceans with iron may combat climate change
Now I like science along with the next fellow. I also really like things that can help. But when I see something that 'may' work being written up so factually, especially when it's about a short-term mitigation 'solution' of dubious merit that impacts the rest of the planet, I do wonder why it's up there.
It's only later you get to find out that there are some down sides. Mind you, lobbing a ton of car in to get back 100,000 tons of C02 seems like a deal... if it works. Maybe we could set up a ramp at Land's End. Furthest out gets a prize. I know, a trip to the Antarctic!
Meanwhile this, which I saw in passing, seemed more of a worry: Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - then you read the comments. What to believe?
Tinkers those journos, eh?
2 comments:
Regarding the rapeseed bio-diesel producing more nitrous oxides (NOX) than petroleum based diesel.
This is quite possibly true, though I can't believe that the figure of 70% more can be accurate.
What the article does not state though is that any half decent catalytic converter will remove almost all NOX from an exhaust system's gases, so the emissions from a vehicle with a properly set up exhaust surely cannot be worse than petroleum based diesel. It also ought to state somewhere that most NOX gases, by their very nature, have quite a short lifespan as they are chemically unstable and will react with many other things in the atmosphere.
These are the percentage changes in emissions conventional diesel vs. 20% bio-diesel as reported by the EPA in 2003. Full article can be found at www.epa.gov.
NOx +2.0%
PM -10.1%
HC -21.1%
CO -11.0%
I think the slight increase in NOx emissions is by far outwieghed by the reductions in particulate matter (linked to cancers), unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
On 100% bio-diesel the NOx emissions increase is just under 10% whilst the others are even more significant reductions.
I don't know how or where the UK reports scientific measuring was done but it bears no resemblance to the results that the EPA achieved.
Post a Comment