Math question, CO2?

John's recent post on burning coal and CO2 got me to thinking. Yes, that can be dangerous,
especially when I was thinking while driving. BTW, I got home safely.

My math question has multiple parts. Last January my electric bill was a little under 3000 kw-hrs. February bill was a little less, but my Jan bill was the biggest. To make the calculations easy, let's say I used 3000 kw-hrs to heat my 2000 sq ft house with resistance heat, electric baseboards.

1. Calculate the BTU's in 3000 kw-hrs.

2. Calculate the CO2 produced by the most efficient power plant to generate 3000 kw-hrs:

A. using coal?

B. using NG?

3 Then using the best geo-heat pump on the market, calculate the CO2 generated by the best power plant to produce the BTU's in question 1:

A. using coal?

B. using NG?

4. Calculate the CO2 produced the make the BTU's in question 1 by using the most efficient:

A. NG furnace?

B. LP furnace?

Please list what efficiencies,% or COP, you used to answer the questions. I went with a geo only because during my coldest month, a good chance an air to air HP would be on back up. Some of my night time temps sub zero and day time highs may have been in the teens and 20's .

I haven't crunched the numbers yet. ONLY GUESSING, the furnaces will produce the least CO2. Because the methane molecule is one carbon and 4 hydrogen and the LP molecule has 3 carbons and 8 hydrogen, My GUESS is NG will produce less CO2.

Have fun. Be interesting to see how good of a guesser I am or not.
George

The first issue is the efficiency of the heating sources, the higher the efficiency the less fuel consumed and therefor the less CO2 produced.

The second issue is the efficiency of the electrical transmission lines.

And if you are trying to get the impact to the environment there is also a CO2 impact caused by pumping the natural gas to the furnace.

All that being said, from a first principal standpoint, a good high efficiency natural gas furnace would have the least CO2 produced because there should be less efficiency losses due to transporting the energy.

Rich

Why all the big concern about CO2 ?

Calculate the amount of CO2 that you EXHALE as a waste by-product of your breathing.

Everything that breathes AIR exhales CO2 as a waste by-product. If you're that concerned about adding more CO2 to the atmosphere . . . STOP BREATHING. More Air for me to breathe, LOL.

Actually, we all need to plant more trees & shrubbery as they absorb CO2 and through photosynthesis give off OXYGEN as a waste by-product, which we need to breathe. Can we all say SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP with the plants. LOL


:>)

George: you are capable of doing the math.

Burning 1 lb of coal produces 13,501 btu and 3.4 lb of CO2 (3971 btu/lb CO2).

Burning 1 lb of nat gas produces 23,884 btu and 2.75 lb of CO2 (8685 btu/lb CO2).

Sorry I don't have the numbers for propane and I am not chemist enough to do it from the C to H ratio.

Note: the above assumes burning at 100% efficiency.

1 KWH = 3410 btu

Be sure to report back on your findings.

Whoops hit submit twice.

I knew a guy years ago that worked for a natural gas transmission company.
He claimed that more than 50% of the gas that went through the pipeline was used to run the engines that turned the compressors that moved the gas to point of delivery.
Not sure how accurate his numbers were but it is something to factor in if you are trying to figure total co2 output of different fuels.

Ken,
I've crunched the numbers already. I'm just
waiting for those who criticize my math skills to
post their calculations.

My original guess turned out to be correct. NG
furnaces is the least, followed by LP. The worst
is the obvious, using electric furnace or
baseboard. So, I'm responsible for a large carbon
foot print, almost 4x more than NG furnace.

Calculations may vary a little depending on
quality of coal, COP of heat pump and efficiency
of furnace. So I will post my sources and answers
after my critics post theirs.
George

There are 2 gas mains in TH. One goes to Indy the
other to Chicago. A guy who worked at one of the
stations said the pumping station he worked at
used a 1000 hp gas turbine to move the NG.

I got in trouble for hear say. Saying something a
friend told me who worked at a power station. So
I will just say the 1000 hp is hear say. I'm sure
it takes energy transport gas through pipe lines.

I have heard that transportation is the largest use of natural gas in this country. There is a compression station every 50-100 miles on every pipeline, they vary between 2000-40000 HP depending on capacity required.

Wouldn't corn and soybeans produce as much oxygen as trees and shrubbery? It's all photosynthesis. My corn crop is limited by water and nutrients. I assume trees are limited by water and nutrients. Since I fertilize my corn and not my trees, wouldn't an acre of fertilized corn produce more oxygen than an acre of unfertilized trees?

Read the article about what it means to be carbon neutral. The CO2 trees remove is put back in the air when the tree decays or is burned.

So the only way trees can remove CO2 long term is to never die, rot or be burned.
carbon neutral

(quoted from post at 23:03:13 01/03/15) There are 2 gas mains in TH. One goes to Indy the
other to Chicago. A guy who worked at one of the
stations said the pumping station he worked at
used a 1000 hp gas turbine to move the NG.

I got in trouble for hear say. Saying something a
friend told me who worked at a power station. So
I will just say the 1000 hp is hear say. I'm sure
it takes energy transport gas through pipe lines.

Click to expand...

There are probably 15 compressor stations within a 15 mile radius of my farm. One of the closer ones had a public DEP meeting to increase the size of the compressors.

-an excerpt from the news article about the meeting-

"Officials from MarkWest have asked the DEP for permission to increase the capacity of the station, near Route 22 in Smith Township. The station is currently operational with two 1,980-horsepower Waukesha rich-burn engines, but MarkWest has recently petitioned the DEP to expand to as many as eight engines in order to meet demand."

So, 8 engines that are 2000 hp each for a total of 16,000 hp for one station. Potentially, there could be 240,000 horsepower in compression, within a 15 mile radius of my farm.


The thing that people don't realize about co2 is that releasing it from being locked up in coal or shale or oil, will eventually raise greenhouse gas levels to previous levels, when that plant and animal matter (dead dinosaurs and rain forest jungle) got locked up by a catastrophic event.





[i:3ad94432c1][b:3ad94432c1]However...[/b:3ad94432c1][/i:3ad94432c1]


The most abundant source of locked up CO2 that exists from that time, is not a fuel we are unlocking. It is calcium carbonate formations that we are not altering. Sure, acid rain and natural ground leaching of acids has dissolved large portions in places like Florida, creating sinkholes. But for the most part, as long as that specific CO2 stays locked up in calcium carbonate, we shouldn't have to worry about some unpredictable global change that will turn everyone's life upside down over night.

Worst case scenario would be Indonesia floods but the added unlocked frozen water, alters jet stream patterns thus changing deserts back into the fertile plains they used to be. It will take 750-1000 years for that scenario to play out, anyhow.

George, I'm not going to run through your calculations, although I think your conclusions are right.

When you look at the total carbon footprint, there are a number of areas where natural gas has a big advantage over coal and a lesser advantage over LPG. The main one is transportation: Even though it takes a lot of energy to pump gas through pipelines, that's done by relatively clean NG-fired compressors. Coal is transported by train, sometimes thousands of miles to generation plants. Coal from Wyoming is shipped to Nebraska, then back to Colorado due to lack of north-south rail capacity. And of course transmission losses of electricity waste a huge amount of generated power.

One of the greatest crimes of our time is the natural gas that's being wasted from the Bakken oil fields.

>The most abundant source of locked up CO2 that exists from that time, is not a fuel we are unlocking. It is calcium carbonate formations that we are not altering.

John, that's a bit of a red herring. Just because we aren't tapping into calcium carbonate to release huge amounts of CO2 (only because nobody has figured out how to make money by doing it) doesn't mean the CO2 we ARE producing is insignificant. Take a look at the CO2 levels reported by the NOAA observatory on Mauna Loa. They are rising very fast, and have reached levels not seen for several million years.
Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide

I am going to guess that you extrapolated "millions of years" from the data set that went back 50 years in their data?

I didn't see any information in the link that showed ppm levels of co2 from millions of years ago. The best I can figure is that cold and ice did a lot of damage, killed off almost everything living on land, and left us with layers of flammable material deep under ground. I'd prefer to be heading into a warming cycle, rather than a cooling cycle. Warming cycle brings weather that can create and sustain life. Cooling cycle brings weather that causes death. Could you imagine the wars and destruction if people started fighting for small food reserves and heating fuel?

I have yet to see anyone link the ppm to a specific average temperature increase or decrease. Doing some simple math should be able to tell us just exactly how much warmer the planet will be if all the coal, oil, and gas is depleted.

Mark, here are my calculations.
1. Calculate the BTU's in 3000 kw-hrs.
Ans. 10.236M BTU's
2. Calculate the CO2 produced by the most efficient power plant to generate 3000 kw-hrs:
A. using coal? Bitumious coal 2.08#/1 kw-hr
Ans. 6240# CO2
B. using NG? NG = 1.22#/1kw-kr
Ans. 3669# CO2
3 Then using the best geo-heat pump on the market, calculate the CO2 generated by the best power plant to produce the BTU's in question 1:
I found geo-heat pump water closed loop with COP = 3. So this calculation was easy, heat pump would only use 1000 Kw-hrs.
A. using coal? Bitumious coal 2.08#/1 kw-hr
Ans. 2080# CO2
B. using NG? 1.22#/1kw-kr
Ans. 1467# CO2
4. Calculate the CO2 produced the make the BTU's in question 1 by using the most efficient:
I found the most efficient gas furnaces to be 97%. 1 M BTU's NG = 117# CO2. 1M BTU's LP = 139#
A. NG furnace?
Ans. 1235# CO2
B. LP furnace?
Ans. 1423 # CO2

If my critics like, I will post links to the data I used in my calculation. However, there are many things my calculation don't show.

Energy needed to mine and transport the coal.
Energy needed to pump NG or LP in pipelines or transport in trucks.
I question if the COP includes operating the circulating pump.
The energy for blowers and draft fans are not included.
Energy losses in power lines.

Conclusion,
Old people don't like cold houses and my house is not cold. Most months, I use around 800 kw-hrs. My average rate is about $.16/kw-hr. If I use 3000 kw-hr my rate is a little under $.10. I had my NG turned off about 10 years ago and installed cheap inefficient baseboard heaters in every room with room thermostats. My fixed electric bill with Duke energy is $135/mo plus tax. So, my dirty inefficient electric is cheaper than my NG plus electric bill. Gas company charged for reading the meter. An extra charge for boosting the gas pressure that increased the heating value a few points. So total electric is the best deal for me.

It stands to reason that if a power station is only ABOUT 33% efficient at converting heat to electricity, that burning the fuel in a furnace at 97% would produce more heat.
So in order of the best to worst for producing CO2:

NG furnace, LP furnace, Geo closed loop using electricity produced by NG, followed my Geo closed loop using electricity produced by coal and last place baseboard electric, toaster heat.

If I were in charge of coming up with an environmentally friendly energy policy, I would have an incentive to lower the price of NG and LP. Perhaps give tax incentives to convert to 97% NG and LP furnaces. Put the country to work building pipelines to get the NG to market instead of burning it off at the well.

If you agree with my numbers, please post yours.
Have a nice day.
George

John,
You somehow missed my point. I don't care what the
Co2 levels were in the past and what they are now.
I simply wanted to know which energy source is the
most enviromentally friendly. I think I did that.
All due respect, You got side tracked some how.
George

I had a high school teacher who used to say that saying "with all due respect" was just a polite way of giving someone the finger. :lol:

I never tried to inform you of co2 levels past and present. I answered your question about compressor horsepower and gave some insight into the compressor density in my area. I did rant a bit about carbon dioxide and the elephant in the room, but it wasn't directed at you. It was just me ranting.

I do applaud you for being environmentally conscious.

I think we can all agree that N.G. puts less CO2 into the air then coal. The problem most have is agreeing if it is really needed; or can the planet absorb these higher CO2 levels.
I believe that we should be worried about CO2 levels and looking for ways to cut our CO2 output.

But lets look at what that does to us on a global level.

We quit hauling coal from a mine in Pa. (to lets say) a electric plant in Ill because the electric plant has converted over to N.G.
The train that hauled the coal put out more CO2 than the pipe line for the N.G. so we cut CO2 even more by switching.

But what did we really do?
We created a glut in the coal market. It now makes it profitable to ship said coal over seas.

So now the train hauls the coal all the way to New Orleans doubling the CO2 output of the train.
We load the coal on a ship that burns #6 bunker fuel in its engines....



putting out even more CO2.
We load the coal back on trains taking it from a port on the coast of England or Germany to a electric plant in their country putting more CO2 into the air.
And then we burn the same coal; in plants that are most likely not as efficient as ours here in the states; putting even more CO2 into the air.

So in the long run you have now put more CO2 into the air by switching to N.G. But you did make yourself feel good by cutting your CO2 output if only in your small world.

John, unfortunately, as you point out the data from Mauna Loa only goes back to the late fifties. So scientists have to indirectly measure CO2 levels for earlier times from things like glacial ice. So there is some dispute as to how long ago it was that CO2 levels are where they are today. Some say 800,000 years, some say five million, some say 15 million years ago. Regardless, it was long before the industrial revolution. And there is a strong correlation between the rate we've been burning fossil fuels and the rate at which CO2 levels are rising.

Lots of folks have done the calculation of how much the earth's temperature will rise if all known fossil fuel reserves are used up. Most say that will raise the average temperature more than 2 degrees Celsius, which is considered the "tipping point" for catastrophe. You can read more at the link below, but I'll give you the short version: We can burn 565 gigatons of fossil fuels and stay below two degrees Celsius increase. The countries of the world INTEND to burn 2795 gigatons.
Global Warmings New Math

George, I have no argument with your numbers.

I am, however, surprised to learn that your total utility bill went down after switching from natural gas heat to all-electric. That's contrary to what I would expect.

John,
Doing these calculations has shown me that the electricity I use for 8 months a year, around 1000 kw-hrs/mo, produces about a ton of CO2 using a coal fired boilers. That's equivalent to the CO2 I would produce using a NG furnace to heat my house during the coldest month.

Look at the issue from another perspective. What is done with NG at the well? Some is torched off. Like it or not that gas is being wasted and it's producing the same CO2 that a power station would produce. So even if half the NG makes it to a power plant and the other half is used to power pumping stations, isn't that better than just burning it at the well and burning coal instead?

I can see the advantage of converting our country to NG. T Boone also thinks the same way.

I can't comment on your numbers George,but remember the NG shortages of past and now we have all you people going ape for 100% NG.If we didn't have the Fracking now the supply wouldn't be any better,so how long is this going to last.I have a NG line less then 500Ft.away and people that had NG and disconnected for some reason(New remodeled home,fire,wind damage etc)CAN NOT GET NG AGAIN and have had to go OIL or LP.(Business too)I'am just against putting all the eggs in one basket.

Infrared satellite pictures during the growing season show the corn belt lit up like a stoplight from the photosynthesis. So yes, crops make oxygen, for part of the year. I'd guess a lot shorter period than trees. I've never heard any number on it though.
All across the plains there's more trees than there was before the white man arrived. Thicker grass, too. Without active management of range lands the weeds take over and grasses tend to die off.

John,
Please, I was trying to be polite. I am sorry you
took it the wrong way. Some on YT are rude to me
too and I know how you may be feeling. SORRY.
George

John,
I was surprised too. You have to understand the more electricity I use, the cheaper it gets. 8 months a year I don't use over 1000 kw-hrs/mo. Most can't comprehend just how energy efficient my place is.

My tenants are pleasantly surprised when they get one bill on my total electric homes. Especially when they have had $4-500 NG bills in the past.
George

George I tend to like many of your insights; however, NEVER cite t boone pickens to me. He is a greedy money hungry capitalist who raided and crushed Gulf Oil here in WPA. It hurt our area bad.

Mark,

I read that whole article, and got lost and/or side-tracked in the 14,400+ comments that followed. Almost 2 hours of reading the same thing I have seen over and over.


When it comes to the specifics of what will happen with a 2 degree temperature change, the answer is always something along the lines of, "doom and horrible things." It reminds me of Monty Python's Holy Grail movie where a man is describing a horrible beast with big pointy teeth, and then they see the beast, and it's a little brown rabbit. LOL

I just want to know what exactly will happen, but unfortunately that aspect is not being discussed or published as widely as it should. If it's a sudden and dramatic change that causes an "end of days" scenario, people would probably be more keen to do something. So where is this doom and gloom? I'm open minded. Unfortunately, I am also realistic. It's going to happen, (the majority)people won't care, and no one is going to change.

Let's go back to one topic that is highly discussed. The price of gasoline. People are now saying they don't feel guilty going for a pleasure drive, or driving more. Dancing in the streets for $1.25 propane and $2.00 gasoline, for the most part... LOL

So it doesn't make anyone want to change because they are worried about the planet or long term future. They worry about themselves and their pocket book, because that is priority. It's not just corporate greed, it's personal greed of a society that has been brainwashed to be commercial consumers with a huge appetite. I don't expect anyone to take what I say as anything other than my opinion and what I see. Since I am effected daily with life changing results of the shale gas play, I do keep informed and interested in all of this. I almost have no choice.

(quoted from post at 11:05:50 01/04/15) John,
Please, I was trying to be polite. I am sorry you
took it the wrong way. Some on YT are rude to me
too and I know how you may be feeling. SORRY.
George

Click to expand...

No need to apologize. I never felt offended or angered. I was pointing out a funny observance of a former teacher. He taught economics and sociology. I'm glad I paid attention to him. I wouldn't be a farmer in the black without him!

Forgot to say that one of the benefits of Marcellus shale gas is that it has a lot of natural pressure at the well head, and it is not a by product, so the well was drilled specifically for the gas. Nothing would be wasted or burned off. Right now, I have a 12 inch pipe running across my farm that is carrying 150-175 psi of gas from a single well pad. I pucker up pretty good when I pull the chisel plow over that thing!

If it helps in figuring any production losses or gas consumption, most lease holders around here are taking a 20% deduction from their royalties for transportation costs from well head to fractionation plant.

I didn't know that. Would it be better if I said our president wants to make our country energy independent by using NG? I don't think anyone would believe me.

So I leaning towards moving our homes to a NG diet instead of Semis, (like President O wants.) wink.

John, you are correct: people don't change their habits unless they are inconvenienced or it's hitting them in their pocketbooks. I suppose people will recognize the need to change when they're knee-deep in seawater, but that will be a little late. Two dollar gasoline sure won't drive anyone to reduce their carbon footprint.

(quoted from post at 08:56:39 01/04/15) John,
You somehow missed my point. I don't care what the
Co2 levels were in the past and what they are now.
[i:9c31a93252]I simply wanted to know which energy source is the
most enviromentally friendly. [b:9c31a93252]I think I did that.[/i:9c31a93252][/b:9c31a93252]
All due respect, You got side tracked some how.
George

Click to expand...

No, you actually didnt. You stated a question that relied on a fallacy known as "Begging the question". In short you stated that the energy source that produced the least CO2 after adding up as many of the factors as you can, would be the best for the enviroment. That is begging the question and a known informal fallacy. Because you started the argument with that and nothing else to hold it up, your whole argument falls apart with no responces needed by anybody else. A few people seemed to catch that but were very polite and simply responded by having you do the math yourself or didnt engage. Im just pointing out the fact that no matter what responces you get, you cant be right because your origional statements have no foundation. You lose by default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

As for if you want to know what energy source has the most CO2, I encourage you to figure that out, but as I have shown above, that proves nothing and is unrelated to your origional question. We have been over your energy use in your house many, many times. You have made some pretty wild claims about how cheap it is to heat with a known 40% higher energy input (electric), to the point that several people have called you out at fudging the numbers. It seems every week somebody would come here asking for advice on what heat source to use and it never fails, the cheerleader for the most expensive heat around starts telling the OP to heat with electricity. I could warm my house with the energy of all the people banging their head against the wall after you start saying that...

But keep doing the math, just understand that it means nothing when related to your question...