Jump to content


Photo

carbon footprint anybody!


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 dr thrust

dr thrust

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 05:06 PM

hi just bought some 44 swg nichrome,nothing bad here? i hear you say but yes,i couldnt find any so i looked on ebay and found some in the states,but on the description i find out it was made in europe! so my piece of wire has a yeti sized footprint!my question is what is the carbon footprint of say a small fountain,packaging,transport,the c02 the thing gives off! what volume of c02 does a fountain comp produce say 100 grams as it ever been measured?

#2 MFX

MFX

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:08 PM

:-) We did a gig at the Eden project for Womad as part of the Live 8 event. Afterwards they asked for the quantity of "gunpowder" used so they could calculate how many trees they needed to plant to offset the CO2 produced by the display! We didn't think to mention at the time that the charcoal part of black powder is carbon neutral, you're only releasing CO2 that the original tree absorbed!

Edited by MFX, 06 June 2007 - 10:12 PM.

If it looks like it's coming towards you, it probably is!

#3 fishy1

fishy1

    Name

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 659 posts

Posted 07 June 2007 - 04:02 PM

Assuming a mixure of 24 parts charcoal, 16 parts sulphur and 60 parts kno3, also assuming the charcoal was 100% carbon, if 100g was ignited,
C+02->CO2
24g carbon (2 moles) = 2 moles CO2
Molar volume CO2=roughly 24l/mol.

2X24=48l of CO2.
Volume of gas is variable depending on temp, so for fireworks this is not a good measurement.

Mass 1 mole CO2=14+2X16=46g

Mass of CO2 produced by igniting a 100g fountain = 92g.

This is however carbon neutral. The Co2 emitted would come from energy to make the kno3, extract the sulphur, and transport and packaging.

#4 Andrew

Andrew

    Rocket Scientist, no really, I am!

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 07 June 2007 - 10:01 PM

The carbon in the firework indeed would be carbon neutral, but to be considered more over is the more dangerous stuff, like gaseous sulphur compounds, and toxic sh*t left floating around. When one takes a look at the "Full Life Cycle Analysis" of fireworks, are you ready for this?

The trip form china (which is the most efficient bit by the way).
The energy used to make the fireworks.
The energy used to light and (lack of) heat the factory for the slaves (ohh sh*t did I say that).
The energy transport raw materials to the factory.
The worker's transport costs in carbon to and from work.
Any protective equipment (lmfao :lol: ).
The manufacturing emissions caused by the factory being built spread over it's usable life (approx 8 years till it blows up).
The costs from the manufacture of the equipment spread over it's usable like (that'll be 8 years again then :lol: ).
The offset carbon costs form the equipment of teh make the factory and teh equipment in the factory.
The distribution of the fireworks here.
The personal emissions of the lorry drivers to and from work.
The lighting and heating of the shop.
The personal emissions of the shop employees to and from work.
The absolute emission for the firework and the tubes decaying over time carbon (now that's a bastard, the difference between absolute and cumulative emissions)
I'm getting f**king bored now, I can't even be bothered to * out the expletives.

That there is the reason why no bugger can actually be bothered to do a Full Life Cycle Analysis on anything. I get really f*cked off when people say we shouldn't have apples during the winter. Did you know that the carbon footprint (derived from one of only a few Full Life Cycle Analysis' that have ever taken place) of growing apples in New Zealand and transporting them here is less than the carbon footprint of storing apples grown here in expensive refrigerated chemical storage vats till the winter months and beyond. It's insane to even contemplate. And for the people that plug, 'well if we didn't have them at all during winter we would cut the absolute emissions', well yes, but consider this, one ton of apples transported from NZ to the UK by container ship emits less carbon than one ton of apples transported from Southampton to Edinburgh by road. Therefore, by rights, we should not have apples in the summer either, because it actually causes about the carbon emissions as when we have apples in the winter. Also, on the same token of green living, no f**ker outside of the south of England and the Midlands (where they are mostly grown) should ever see seasonal strawberries, because the carbon footprint of distributing refrigerated strawberries around the colder climes of the UK is about the same as getting apples in during the winter and spring. It is all that much difficult to really tell what is green and what is not. We should really be looking at ditching empty buses for car pooling and CHEAP INTEGRATED trains, like the rest of Europe and stop complaining at sea travel (the most energy efficient and carbon neutral form of transport), and building energy efficient houses. Even though Scotland is on the same latitude as Sweden, if you took Scottish building regs over there the Swedes would piss themselves laughing. And 4x4s, even planes are better than 4X4s and buses that are empty.

Anyway, all in all the carbon footprint of fireworks (importantly taking into account the actual amount we use) is negligible, even compared to you just being alive and breathing over the year. If you compared the emission of carbon caused by your yearly usage of fireworks to that of your car, I jest not, you'd shit yourself. Several orders of magnitude separate the two.

#5 MFX

MFX

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 07 June 2007 - 10:07 PM

:) All of that is the reason why we just plucked a figure out of thin air to give them and they went away happy (hope they're not reading this !)
If it looks like it's coming towards you, it probably is!

#6 Andrew

Andrew

    Rocket Scientist, no really, I am!

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 08 June 2007 - 08:43 AM

:) All of that is the reason why we just plucked a figure out of thin air to give them and they went away happy (hope they're not reading this !)


lmfao :lol:

I'm getting f**king bored now, I can't even be bothered to * out the expletives.


Good thing the forum does it for me.

Edited by Andrew, 08 June 2007 - 08:45 AM.


#7 seymour

seymour

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts

Posted 08 June 2007 - 10:12 AM

Ha ha ha! The media here makes it look like you brits are trying to declare eco sanctions on us. Our strawberry growers were shitting themselves.
The monkey leaped off it's sunny perch and flew off into the night sky.

#8 dr thrust

dr thrust

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 08 June 2007 - 06:56 PM

phew thanks! didnt think anybody would answer my question i thought it might of been a bit silly,and it was my first topic so the pressure was on!

#9 phildunford

phildunford

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:09 AM

And of course if you are an old sceptic like me and don't believe the current carbon madness you might think that man made C02 will make no difference at all to the current (natural) warming phase of the earth.

When I was a kid, the earth's temperature was dropping year after year and we were being warned about the impending ice age...

oooh - contentious!
Teaching moft plainly, and withall moft exactly, the composing of all manner of fire-works for tryumph and recreation (John Bate 1635)
Posted Imagethegreenman

#10 Creepin_pyro

Creepin_pyro

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 10:09 AM

Hear hear!

#11 EnigmaticBiker

EnigmaticBiker

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:06 PM

The carbon footprint of fireworks?! That's ludicrous, my guess is infinitesimal, compared with people going down to the massively overheated shops in huge inefficient vehicles to buy crap toys they don't need.

Agree with Andrew, the waste from households and lousy transport systems are many many times larger than fireworks could ever be.

Funny this should come up, I was talking to a power station engineer recently on a similar subject. The pollution caused by various fuels, coals v Orimulsion v burning waste etc. I agreed with his comment that the models often used to calculate various figures can be read both ways and the global warming theories are exactly that, theories with some evidence. Given the variability and the number of variables in such a complex system I don't believe anyone can give a definitive answer.

The question I posed was "IF it is happening, have we any chance of reversing the process?"

I'll stop ranting now.

#12 dr thrust

dr thrust

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 05:16 PM

hi my nichrome has arrived from its around the world trip and it works a treat, so it was worth those thousands of gallons of jet fuel :D




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users