carbon footprint anybody!
#1
Posted 06 June 2007 - 05:06 PM
#2
Posted 06 June 2007 - 10:08 PM
Edited by MFX, 06 June 2007 - 10:12 PM.
#3
Posted 07 June 2007 - 04:02 PM
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
Posted 07 June 2007 - 10:01 PM
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 ).
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 ).
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
Posted 07 June 2007 - 10:07 PM
#6
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
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
Posted 08 June 2007 - 10:12 AM
#8
Posted 08 June 2007 - 06:56 PM
#9
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:09 AM
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!
thegreenman
#10
Posted 12 June 2007 - 10:09 AM
#11
Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:06 PM
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
Posted 12 June 2007 - 05:16 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users