Remember me
▼ Content

Man-Made CO2?


Man-Made CO2?26-08-2019 18:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
On my way home from work this morning, I realized that we generate a lot of CO2, without burning anything. Beer, wine, spirits, few food items, all use fermentation, which produce a considerable quantity of CO2. Small batches at home, usually aren't dangerous, but usually a good idea to install monitors, and good ventilation. On a commercial scale, it definitely can get to an unhealthy level quickly. CO2 isn't a poison, it just is heavier than O2, so there is less oxygen to breath. We consume millions of gallons of adult beverages, was sort of wonder how much CO2 is being produced and released this way.

Basically, does the IPCC consider this type of CO2 man-made or natural. Is it 'carbon-neutral' or does it have a 'carbon-footprint'? What sort of impact on 'global warming' does our favorite beverages have anyway? Obviously, fossil fuels are a non-issue, will they go after fermentation too?
26-08-2019 19:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
HarveyH55 wrote:Basically, does the IPCC consider this type of CO2 man-made or natural. Is it 'carbon-neutral' or does it have a 'carbon-footprint'? What sort of impact on 'global warming' does our favorite beverages have anyway? Obviously, fossil fuels are a non-issue, will they go after fermentation too?

The IPCC is fanatical religious organization that thinks all CO2 is the result of human activity (bad humans! bad!) and that every single CO2 molecule will be the death of us all.

This is why they want to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, so as to kill all plant life and to be the death of us all.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-08-2019 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
On my way home from work this morning, I realized that we generate a lot of CO2, without burning anything. Beer, wine, spirits, few food items, all use fermentation, which produce a considerable quantity of CO2. Small batches at home, usually aren't dangerous, but usually a good idea to install monitors, and good ventilation. On a commercial scale, it definitely can get to an unhealthy level quickly. CO2 isn't a poison, it just is heavier than O2, so there is less oxygen to breath. We consume millions of gallons of adult beverages, was sort of wonder how much CO2 is being produced and released this way.

Basically, does the IPCC consider this type of CO2 man-made or natural. Is it 'carbon-neutral' or does it have a 'carbon-footprint'? What sort of impact on 'global warming' does our favorite beverages have anyway? Obviously, fossil fuels are a non-issue, will they go after fermentation too?


It is obviously something they discuss over a few beers.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
Into the Night wrote:It is obviously something they discuss over a few beers.

... before they just put the entire topic on dry ice.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-08-2019 02:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
On my way home from work this morning, I realized that we generate a lot of CO2, without burning anything. Beer, wine, spirits, few food items, all use fermentation, which produce a considerable quantity of CO2. Small batches at home, usually aren't dangerous, but usually a good idea to install monitors, and good ventilation. On a commercial scale, it definitely can get to an unhealthy level quickly. CO2 isn't a poison, it just is heavier than O2, so there is less oxygen to breath. We consume millions of gallons of adult beverages, was sort of wonder how much CO2 is being produced and released this way.

Basically, does the IPCC consider this type of CO2 man-made or natural. Is it 'carbon-neutral' or does it have a 'carbon-footprint'? What sort of impact on 'global warming' does our favorite beverages have anyway? Obviously, fossil fuels are a non-issue, will they go after fermentation too?


It is obviously something they discuss over a few beers.


Like most things, after a few beers, it just doesn't seem important enough to discuss.
27-08-2019 06:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1413)
I was just about to haul off to bed...and then I read this. Now there seems to be a few cold ones in the fridge screaming my name. Your fault Harvey if I don't make work tomorrow.
27-08-2019 19:32
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Google is most definitely not my friend... It's make me work at finding an answer to the alcohol industry CO2 production question. Need to do some more searching. But it did give me some useful insight into it, sort of a rough guess to the magnitude. CO2 seems to be a dirty little secret for wineries and breweries. They don't give any total outputs, did get some per bottle numbers, that I'll need to look into further. It was more of the carbon-footprint crap, where they are claim the carbon produce making the container, transporting the beverage, ect... One home brewer did some math on a 5 gallon batch, almost 2 pounds of CO2 produced. Something I hadn't thought of, but it's huge. They have been adding ethanol to gasoline for years, least here in Florida, about 10%. As a rough guess, sort of looks like alcohol production releases mega tons of CO2 each year. Have to look at the IPCC repot again, and see their scary fossil fuel CO2 production numbers, but pretty sure it was expressed in mega tons as well. Adding ethanol to gas is worse than burning straight gas, least for CO2 production. Making the stuff produces a lot of CO2, then it produces more when it's burned.

I'm not sure if the exclude alcohol, as man-made CO2, because it comes from plants, not out of the ground. Well, except Vodka, potatoes come out the ground, right? Russians... Could also be bad PR, since a whole lot of people think alcohol is too damn expensive anyway, many make their own these days. Hard to tax something, they have no hope of controlling, or collecting. Prohibition didn't work out all that well. Any hint they might consider messing with our favorite beverages, would lose a lot of 'believers'. Can't believe France supports Climate Change so strongly, they probably produce a considerable quantity of CO2 with their wineries.
27-08-2019 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Google is most definitely not my friend... It's make me work at finding an answer to the alcohol industry CO2 production question.


Does this help?

https://byo.com/article/master-the-action-carbonation/


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-08-2019 01:35
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Google is most definitely not my friend... It's make me work at finding an answer to the alcohol industry CO2 production question.


Does this help?

https://byo.com/article/master-the-action-carbonation/


.


Not so much, the article was mainly focused on the final product. I was really think about the CO2 being let off during the fermentation process, not so much what is left in the capped bottle,

this part might be useful, if I don't find what I'm looking for...
Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44.01 and glucose has a molecular weight of 180.16. During fermentation each molecule of glucose creates two molecules of ethyl alcohol and two molecules of CO2. A mole is the number of molecules that has a weight in grams equal to the molecular weight of the molecule. That means that one mole of glucose weighs 180.16 grams and ferments to produce two moles of carbon dioxide weighing 2 x 44 g = 88 g.


Attached (hopefully), is from a government beer tax report. About 174 million barrels (31 gallons each) of beer taxed last year (2018), just in the United States. I'm sure the amount of CO2 in every bottle, can, and keg, is still quite a bit, I'm still more interested in the waste CO2. Still looking like just the beverage industry is producing a lot of CO2 though. I did find out there is another ethanol process for fuel, not sure if it's mostly used, or byproducts yet. Really having to dig on this one, which leads me to believe Google doesn't want me to know the truth, damn socialists...
Attached image:

28-08-2019 01:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 production question

It's captured so the net effect is zero.
"In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. "
28-08-2019 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 production question

It's captured so the net effect is zero.
"In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. "


Fermentation does not come from a liquefaction plant. It is generated by the fermentation of the beer mash.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2019 03:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 production question

It's captured so the net effect is zero.
"In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. "


Fermentation does not come from a liquefaction plant. It is generated by the fermentation of the beer mash.


So for the person managing the fermentation process, what's the radiance coming off their body and how do they maintain body temperature?
28-08-2019 04:20
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 production question

It's captured so the net effect is zero.
"In fact, the CO2 that makes the bubbles in your soda comes from those same power plants. "


Fermentation does not come from a liquefaction plant. It is generated by the fermentation of the beer mash.


So for the person managing the fermentation process, what's the radiance coming off their body and how do they maintain body temperature?


Don't see how that applies to the thread. You got all the answers you are going to get on that one here. Get yourself right, and move on, or confine the philosophy to your own thread.

I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here, and keeps growing. CO2 is released in large quantities from making cheese, and roasting coffee beans, both are large industries.

It's been very frustrating searching so far. Very little on the CO2 from the yeast, most everything I'm finding, focuses on everything else, like the energy use for everything related to the process. None of these things are closed, trapping the CO2, or capturing it (some might). Basically, you have to release some of the CO2 constantly, or you don't get the product you wanted, kills off the yeast, explosions...

CO2 is an unwanted byproduct, that is vent, rather than collected, since the process is sensitive to a lot of things, and product quality is the number one concern.
28-08-2019 05:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:Don't see how that applies to the thread. You got all the answers you are going to get on that one here. Get yourself right, and move on, or confine the philosophy to your own thread.

Harvey are you really not the least bit upset you've been lied to this whole time by these jokers? Really? And now you're going to pretend that you're on a serious line of inquiry?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here, and keeps growing.

And I hate to disappoint you. It was an interesting question to ask but the effect is zero.

You are fermenting a plant you grew. CO2 came out of the air to grow the plant and create the sugar and then it was released again as it fermented:

why-is-carbon-dioxide-produced-in-alcohol-fermentation


So it's all no different than any other grow it then let it rot / eat it / burn it scenario.
28-08-2019 10:39
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Don't see how that applies to the thread. You got all the answers you are going to get on that one here. Get yourself right, and move on, or confine the philosophy to your own thread.

Harvey are you really not the least bit upset you've been lied to this whole time by these jokers? Really? And now you're going to pretend that you're on a serious line of inquiry?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm on to something here, and keeps growing.

And I hate to disappoint you. It was an interesting question to ask but the effect is zero.

You are fermenting a plant you grew. CO2 came out of the air to grow the plant and create the sugar and then it was released again as it fermented:

why-is-carbon-dioxide-produced-in-alcohol-fermentation


So it's all no different than any other grow it then let it rot / eat it / burn it scenario.


That's not exactly true though. Besides the usual rot/eat/burn scenario, we free CO2 directly, and in massive quantities everyday. Beer alone, in just the Unite States, for December 2018, 12.8 million barrels of beer were produced/taxed. Lot of people home brew, and there are probable some, that don't get taxed or reported. One barrel is 31 gallons, so 396.8 million gallons/month. Even with evading the fermentation CO2, there still is considerable energy use involved, even just in transporting the product from brewery to distribution. I haven't gone down the wine or spirits road just yet, but pretty sure either, vent a lot more CO2 directly. Most all the solids are removed as well, since it's just the liquid portion left, that is the final product. It is sort of looking like the CO2 output, is along a similar order, as burning fossil fuels. It's CO2, that would never have existed, if we hadn't deliberately extracted and released, just like burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels exist naturally as well, but don't release CO2, until burned. There is only on kind of CO2, doesn't matter if it's natural, or man-made, the IPCC makes a specific claim of the dangers of too much CO2. Their focus is on fossil fuels, but fermentation is looking to be a very high level producer as well. Alcohol is also one of the 'green' alternative fuels, which makes it less attractive as marketed, if it's producing a considerable amount of CO2 in the fermentation, and then again in the burning.
28-08-2019 13:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:Besides the usual rot/eat/burn scenario, we free CO2 directly, and in massive quantities everyday. Beer alone, in just the Unite States, for December 2018, 12.8 million barrels


We grow the grain, hops and ingredients. We don't dig them up out of a deep hole in the ground where they've been stowed away since the dinasaurs. That's the only way we "free" CO2 that is "new" to the system. If a farmer grows some hops and grain, CO2 is sucked from the air to make the plants. Later when someone eats it, or ferments is first, that same CO2 is released.

So the net effect is zero.

This is why some consider it totally "green" and cool to burn plants for a power plant or gasoline as long as you grew the plants for that purpose.
28-08-2019 18:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Besides the usual rot/eat/burn scenario, we free CO2 directly, and in massive quantities everyday. Beer alone, in just the Unite States, for December 2018, 12.8 million barrels


We grow the grain, hops and ingredients. We don't dig them up out of a deep hole in the ground where they've been stowed away since the dinasaurs. That's the only way we "free" CO2 that is "new" to the system. If a farmer grows some hops and grain, CO2 is sucked from the air to make the plants. Later when someone eats it, or ferments is first, that same CO2 is released.

So the net effect is zero.

This is why some consider it totally "green" and cool to burn plants for a power plant or gasoline as long as you grew the plants for that purpose.


Not all the carbon from burning plants, is released as CO2, it's not that clean. Fermenting releases quite bit, that wouldn't have be, if we just burned the plants. Beer, and probably spirits, are from dried plants, so those can be made all year long, where wine would be seasonal. With beer and spirits, ypu would be pumping out CO2, in very large quantities, every day, even though plant growth is taking a winter vacation.

Still should be easier to find out just how much CO2 is being produced. Going to try the safety angle today. There must have studies done, safe levels, ventilation and monitoring. Should be something related to volume of production, and level of safety requirements.

Now, if burn plants is okay, how come we just don't encourage people to grow more, and preserve the plants and trees we have already? How do you know the rising CO2, is entirely from fossil fuels, and not the reduction of plants? Part of the industrial revolution, also meant clearing large tracts of land. Forests were commonly clear-cut, meaning they build a lumber mill in the forest, and cut every tree they could drag over, and mill for building materials. Huge tows and cities were born, meaning more land cleared of vegetation. The planet lost a lot of plant growth and forest land, right along with fossil fuel burning.

Rain forest burning in Brazil... What's the big deal, it's okay to burn plants, right? Net zero emissions, why are the climatologist so upset? Strange thing about the CNN video of the fires, doesn't look much like forest land, looks more like farm land, grazing land. Are these really forest fires, like in California every year, or is it just farmers using fire to clear off their land, getting ready for the next year's crop. We use to burn fields quite a bit in the United State, into the 1970s, then congress pass some clean air act thing, and it's not done so much. Imagine it still practiced though, it's quick, cheap, and fairly simple, if done correct, reasonably safe. Fossil fuels have always been number one on the hit list. It's the demon that must be defeated, one way or another. Even fixing the air-quality issues, the fight goes on, with CO2, and global warming. It isn't fossil fuels, it's wealth and prosperity that is really under attack. Burning fossil fuels, enabled most people to labor less, profit more, live better, longer lives.
28-08-2019 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Besides the usual rot/eat/burn scenario, we free CO2 directly, and in massive quantities everyday. Beer alone, in just the Unite States, for December 2018, 12.8 million barrels


We grow the grain, hops and ingredients. We don't dig them up out of a deep hole in the ground where they've been stowed away since the dinasaurs. That's the only way we "free" CO2 that is "new" to the system. If a farmer grows some hops and grain, CO2 is sucked from the air to make the plants. Later when someone eats it, or ferments is first, that same CO2 is released.

So the net effect is zero.

Guess the tractor used to grow the grain or the truck used to ship it to the mill and later to the brewery and later to you is being ignored, eh?
tmiddles wrote:
This is why some consider it totally "green" and cool to burn plants for a power plant or gasoline as long as you grew the plants for that purpose.

Plants to not make gasoline.

Oil does not come from dinosaurs. It comes from carbon dioxide, hydrogen, heat and pressure that naturally exists underground. Carbon dioxide is DESTROYED in the process to produce the hydrocarbon. It is CREATED again when you burn the hydrocarbon.

Carbon dioxide is not an inert molecule that just always exist. Plants do not store carbon dioxide at all. They DESTROY it. They make carbohydrates with it.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 00:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Yeah, that carbon-footprint thing is the road block I run it to most. There are a lot of details of all the energy burned, that goes into the final product, but very little about the CO2 produced during fermentation. Did find another interesting fact though. Apparently, 5,000 ppm is relatively safe, to working. Didn't catch if there was a time limit to staying in a room with that much CO2. Surprising that most every living thing can tolerate much higher concentrations of CO2, plants do incredibly well. Only the atmosphere doesn't support it?

Ran across this from NASA...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2016/cg_3.html

Pioneer Energy's CO2 Craft Brewery Recovery System can recapture about five tons of carbon dioxide per month, enough for a brewery that generates up to about 60,000 barrels per year, and units can be stacked to increase that capacity.


Will look into that system a little closer, maybe I can get a few more details on the actual amount of CO2 generated in producing each barrel of beer. 5 tons a month X 12 =60,000 tons per year of CO2, for a small brewery. 182.74 million barrels of beer produced in the United States (government tax records), 15,228 tons? Seems a little low, maybe missed a zero... Maybe the NASA system only catches some of the CO2, have to look closer.
29-08-2019 22:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:Apparently, 5,000 ppm is relatively safe, to working.
Apollo 13 hit 60,000 ppm before symptoms appeared
29-08-2019 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, that carbon-footprint thing is the road block I run it to most.

The only carbon footprint you really have to worry is from the boots of a coal or charcoal worker in your house.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a lot of details of all the energy burned, that goes into the final product, but very little about the CO2 produced during fermentation. Did find another interesting fact though. Apparently, 5,000 ppm is relatively safe, to working. Didn't catch if there was a time limit to staying in a room with that much CO2. Surprising that most every living thing can tolerate much higher concentrations of CO2, plants do incredibly well. Only the atmosphere doesn't support it?

CO2 can displace oxygen. Staying in a room with such high concentrations will make you feel sleepy. Higher concentrations will make you pass out. You might possibly get a headache before that happens.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ran across this from NASA...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2016/cg_3.html

Pioneer Energy's CO2 Craft Brewery Recovery System can recapture about five tons of carbon dioxide per month, enough for a brewery that generates up to about 60,000 barrels per year, and units can be stacked to increase that capacity.


Will look into that system a little closer, maybe I can get a few more details on the actual amount of CO2 generated in producing each barrel of beer. 5 tons a month X 12 =60,000 tons per year of CO2, for a small brewery. 182.74 million barrels of beer produced in the United States (government tax records), 15,228 tons? Seems a little low, maybe missed a zero... Maybe the NASA system only catches some of the CO2, have to look closer.

Meh. We can get all the CO2 we need from a liquefaction plant. Might as well just vent the stuff the old fashioned way.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-08-2019 23:22
30-08-2019 01:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, that carbon-footprint thing is the road block I run it to most.

The only carbon footprint you really have to worry is from the boots of a coal or charcoal worker in your house.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a lot of details of all the energy burned, that goes into the final product, but very little about the CO2 produced during fermentation. Did find another interesting fact though. Apparently, 5,000 ppm is relatively safe, to working. Didn't catch if there was a time limit to staying in a room with that much CO2. Surprising that most every living thing can tolerate much higher concentrations of CO2, plants do incredibly well. Only the atmosphere doesn't support it?

CO2 can displace oxygen. Staying in a room with such high concentrations will make you feel sleepy. Higher concentrations will make you pass out. You might possibly get a headache before that happens.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ran across this from NASA...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2016/cg_3.html

Pioneer Energy's CO2 Craft Brewery Recovery System can recapture about five tons of carbon dioxide per month, enough for a brewery that generates up to about 60,000 barrels per year, and units can be stacked to increase that capacity.


Will look into that system a little closer, maybe I can get a few more details on the actual amount of CO2 generated in producing each barrel of beer. 5 tons a month X 12 =60,000 tons per year of CO2, for a small brewery. 182.74 million barrels of beer produced in the United States (government tax records), 15,228 tons? Seems a little low, maybe missed a zero... Maybe the NASA system only catches some of the CO2, have to look closer.

Meh. We can get all the CO2 we need from a liquefaction plant. Might as well just vent the stuff the old fashioned way.


I think Pioneer Energy is a gimmick, they have other capture schemes, not just CO2. Their website is really thin on details and specs. Read more like a scam to me. Their pitch, is that CO2 is added at packaging stage, which is bought, rather than recycled. A brewery using their machine could save money. The captured CO2 isn't clean though, has other components of the brewing process, likely effects the taste. I think the 5 ton CO2 number, was just the capacity of the machine (tank?). They gave no details at on at the website, just call a phone number, talk to a representative. Some breweries seem to be aware of the CO2 output, and are working to reduce it. Some, I think are just taking advantage of climate change marketing hype. Some seem to be trying to get something in place, before the volume they release, becomes a climate change issue. It is sort of a safety issue, buy mostly managed through monitoring and ventilation, which can fail, or be ignored.

Been watching the hurricane hype, possible Florida landfall Sunday-Tuesday. I'm right in the center path, but much of the eastern coast of the state falls in the margin of error (cone of uncertainty). Still a long way to go, and several things that will effect the strength and path. Little worried it might slip around the southern tip, and into the gulf, where it can strengthen to a Cat 5 pretty easy, make landfall anywhere, with just a few hours warning. If it makes it into the gulf, it'll pick up a lot of water, and there will be a lot more rain.

Still think it's being over hyped, as typical these days. The media definitely has people panicked, and spend happy. Good for the local economy. Only really need a couple days worth of food and water around here, enough to get the roads clear, and power restored. Usually some organization passing out water and ice, within a day, if we get tore up bad. If your house is destroyed, or you have to evacuate, you can only take so much with you anyway.
30-08-2019 02:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, that carbon-footprint thing is the road block I run it to most.

The only carbon footprint you really have to worry is from the boots of a coal or charcoal worker in your house.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a lot of details of all the energy burned, that goes into the final product, but very little about the CO2 produced during fermentation. Did find another interesting fact though. Apparently, 5,000 ppm is relatively safe, to working. Didn't catch if there was a time limit to staying in a room with that much CO2. Surprising that most every living thing can tolerate much higher concentrations of CO2, plants do incredibly well. Only the atmosphere doesn't support it?

CO2 can displace oxygen. Staying in a room with such high concentrations will make you feel sleepy. Higher concentrations will make you pass out. You might possibly get a headache before that happens.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ran across this from NASA...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2016/cg_3.html

Pioneer Energy's CO2 Craft Brewery Recovery System can recapture about five tons of carbon dioxide per month, enough for a brewery that generates up to about 60,000 barrels per year, and units can be stacked to increase that capacity.


Will look into that system a little closer, maybe I can get a few more details on the actual amount of CO2 generated in producing each barrel of beer. 5 tons a month X 12 =60,000 tons per year of CO2, for a small brewery. 182.74 million barrels of beer produced in the United States (government tax records), 15,228 tons? Seems a little low, maybe missed a zero... Maybe the NASA system only catches some of the CO2, have to look closer.

Meh. We can get all the CO2 we need from a liquefaction plant. Might as well just vent the stuff the old fashioned way.


I think Pioneer Energy is a gimmick, they have other capture schemes, not just CO2. Their website is really thin on details and specs. Read more like a scam to me.

I have not looked into them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Their pitch, is that CO2 is added at packaging stage, which is bought, rather than recycled. A brewery using their machine could save money. The captured CO2 isn't clean though, has other components of the brewing process, likely effects the taste.

Hmmmm. You might be right. Of course, the CO2 is coming from the mash anyway. Maybe people like that taste...? or maybe that's just their claim?
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the 5 ton CO2 number, was just the capacity of the machine (tank?). They gave no details at on at the website, just call a phone number, talk to a representative. Some breweries seem to be aware of the CO2 output, and are working to reduce it. Some, I think are just taking advantage of climate change marketing hype. Some seem to be trying to get something in place, before the volume they release, becomes a climate change issue. It is sort of a safety issue, buy mostly managed through monitoring and ventilation, which can fail, or be ignored.

Yeah. It does sound like a scam.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Been watching the hurricane hype, possible Florida landfall Sunday-Tuesday. I'm right in the center path, but much of the eastern coast of the state falls in the margin of error (cone of uncertainty). Still a long way to go, and several things that will effect the strength and path. Little worried it might slip around the southern tip, and into the gulf, where it can strengthen to a Cat 5 pretty easy, make landfall anywhere, with just a few hours warning. If it makes it into the gulf, it'll pick up a lot of water, and there will be a lot more rain.

Are you in Central Florida are are you near the eastern coast?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Still think it's being over hyped, as typical these days.

Probably.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The media definitely has people panicked, and spend happy. Good for the local economy. Only really need a couple days worth of food and water around here, enough to get the roads clear, and power restored. Usually some organization passing out water and ice, within a day, if we get tore up bad. If your house is destroyed, or you have to evacuate, you can only take so much with you anyway.

Sounds like an experienced Floridian. Well, I'll understand if you're offline for a day or so. You'll have to get on and describe your experience. It might help others in Florida that are here to handle it better.

Good fortune to you and stay dry!


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 10:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
The latest on the hurricane has it making landfall as a Cat 4 or even 5, making landfall on Tue.
It could stall over land, an dump a lot of rain for 2-3 days over the state, 15"-20". Flooding is expected in a lot of areas. Could be kind of bad, since there have been several places flooding, from our usual afternoon storms, past few weeks. Couple were near some new construction, which might not have been just clogged storm drainage. I know that my back road route to work will probably flood some, road along the tracks for our new ObamaTrain were slightly under water a couple of times. They were working on it past couple of weeks, but still the ditches have a lot of water still standing. Doubt they are going to shut down the warehouse for the storm, so it should be a fun week, or two. Should be great for business, we service a lot of the convenience stores. Our new warehouse in Ocala is going to have a rough time, well they've been having a tough time since they opened it. Even if the storm doesn't cause a lot of problems, it's still much higher volume, and a little chaotic for us. For some reason, our company wants to staff the new warehouses, with all new employees, even management. No experience, means no problem solving skills or experience to draw on. Probably need to bring in some help, again, from out of state. Pretty sure we will have our own problems. The just open one in north Texas, just like Ocala. If the storm hits the gulf, they are going to be in real bad shape too.

I still believe they are over hyping it though, maybe a Cat 3 at landfall, but drop back down quickly. Still a lot of rain, probable flooding in some areas. Least, I'll be off the following week, vacation...
30-08-2019 19:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The latest on the hurricane has it making landfall as a Cat 4 or even 5, making landfall on Tue.
It could stall over land, an dump a lot of rain for 2-3 days over the state, 15"-20". Flooding is expected in a lot of areas. Could be kind of bad, since there have been several places flooding, from our usual afternoon storms, past few weeks. Couple were near some new construction, which might not have been just clogged storm drainage. I know that my back road route to work will probably flood some, road along the tracks for our new ObamaTrain were slightly under water a couple of times. They were working on it past couple of weeks, but still the ditches have a lot of water still standing. Doubt they are going to shut down the warehouse for the storm, so it should be a fun week, or two. Should be great for business, we service a lot of the convenience stores. Our new warehouse in Ocala is going to have a rough time, well they've been having a tough time since they opened it. Even if the storm doesn't cause a lot of problems, it's still much higher volume, and a little chaotic for us. For some reason, our company wants to staff the new warehouses, with all new employees, even management. No experience, means no problem solving skills or experience to draw on. Probably need to bring in some help, again, from out of state. Pretty sure we will have our own problems. The just open one in north Texas, just like Ocala. If the storm hits the gulf, they are going to be in real bad shape too.

I still believe they are over hyping it though, maybe a Cat 3 at landfall, but drop back down quickly. Still a lot of rain, probable flooding in some areas. Least, I'll be off the following week, vacation...

Sounds like the idiots at the warehouse are causing more damage than the storm will.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 21:15
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
The company is over 130 years old. But, I think our new owners, Berkshire-Hathaway, were wanting to modernize things, move away from our traditions. Walmart owned us for a will, and screw stuff too, democrats, and their taxes. Think these last two warehouse, were an experiment, hoping all new equipment and staff, could figure out better, more profitable ways to solve problems, without relying on what has work well in the past. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things, you just can't learn in a classroom, and what looks good on paper, seldom works well in practice. Hard for people that never actually did physical work to comprehend...

Anyway, we work Monday, start an hour early. Might be off, either Tuesday or Wednesday, depends on what the storm does. Then, we work Saturday, and/or Sunday, to make up for the day off, and the extra volume expected. Should be a chaotic mess, since we don't know about power outages, flooding, which stores want/can receive, or how to get there, if roads are closed. Obviously, shelves in many are empty, so we can expect a lot of changes. The store that are open, able to do business, will want lots of products to restock, a little surplus, since people will be out and about, checking out the damage.

Still believe the bulk of the damage will be at, and around where the storm makes landfall. It's forward speed will slow, as will the rotational speed. It'll dump a lot of rain, trying to get moving again, hard to do, when weak already, almost stalled. Don't think it's moving fast enough to pass over the state, and into the gulf. Most of us will only see topical storm winds. Everything is suppose to be build to withstand a Cat 3 storm. We see who doesn't keep their trees trimmed, and which counties/cities have been slacking on storm water management.
30-08-2019 22:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The company is over 130 years old. But, I think our new owners, Berkshire-Hathaway, were wanting to modernize things, move away from our traditions. Walmart owned us for a will, and screw stuff too, democrats, and their taxes. Think these last two warehouse, were an experiment, hoping all new equipment and staff, could figure out better, more profitable ways to solve problems, without relying on what has work well in the past. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things, you just can't learn in a classroom, and what looks good on paper, seldom works well in practice. Hard for people that never actually did physical work to comprehend...

Anyway, we work Monday, start an hour early. Might be off, either Tuesday or Wednesday, depends on what the storm does. Then, we work Saturday, and/or Sunday, to make up for the day off, and the extra volume expected. Should be a chaotic mess, since we don't know about power outages, flooding, which stores want/can receive, or how to get there, if roads are closed. Obviously, shelves in many are empty, so we can expect a lot of changes. The store that are open, able to do business, will want lots of products to restock, a little surplus, since people will be out and about, checking out the damage.

Still believe the bulk of the damage will be at, and around where the storm makes landfall. It's forward speed will slow, as will the rotational speed. It'll dump a lot of rain, trying to get moving again, hard to do, when weak already, almost stalled. Don't think it's moving fast enough to pass over the state, and into the gulf. Most of us will only see topical storm winds. Everything is suppose to be build to withstand a Cat 3 storm. We see who doesn't keep their trees trimmed, and which counties/cities have been slacking on storm water management.


Heh. Hurricanes DO act as the final judge and jury on such ill prepared individuals, towns and counties. It's certainly one way to see who kept their culverts cleaned out!


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Man-Made CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
21 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Man-Made Climate Change720-09-2019 21:46
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
CO2 emission from fossil fuels.6313-09-2019 07:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact