Getting a handle on how our Carbon foot-print is calculated

ircoha

Am interested in collating some easy to understand numbers on carbon foot-printing that can be used in primary schools.

For example,
Energy:
from the esb bill each Kwh is c 600g carbon

Transport
Average car produces 150g/km.

Average flight produces 160g/km per passenger assuming 80% load-factor

Manufacturing.
New car has already been responsible for 3 tonnes carbon

New fridge...., and so on.

Some of the current resources such as
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/default.ct are too hard to follow.

Gekko

I've spoken to the girl that runs this firm - she might be able to help - http://www.carbonactionireland.ie/contact.htm

ircoha

Thanks Gekko:

Interesting quote from the site, my emphasis

Carbon footprint calculators are widely available on the internet, however, many of these are UK or USA based.
Carbon Action Ireland is the only company to research and develop a footprint calculator relative to Ireland.
For example, Ireland’s emissions from electricity are greater than those of the UK as the fuel mix used to generate electricity here does not include nuclear energy.

:eek:

Capt'n Midnight

ircoha wrote: »

Thanks Gekko:

Interesting quote from the site, my emphasisFor example, Ireland’s emissions from electricity are greater than those of the UK as the fuel mix used to generate electricity here does not include nuclear energy
:eek:

Nuclear = less CO2 in the country where the plant is. Due to mining orperations and the vast amounts of concrete needed it's not as good as it would seem, waste disposal in concrete or vitrification will also use a lot of power.
But since they will have to monitor the waste for 10,000 years, even low power sensors will add up eventually

Nukes take in fuel with 0.7% U238 and the waste has 0.4% U238 so 99.7% of the fuel used is wasted. Going to a Thorium cycle would cut processing and waste handling by a factor of 300, you'd still need to monitor it for ages but probably carbon neutral. Just to say it again the overhead on current nuclear plants is 300 times what it could be and we have no idea what carbon footprint future health and safety laws will have.

Then again we are more dependant on imported fossil fuel than most other countries. Renewables would help a lot.

Húrin

Why calculate a carbon footprint? It's a purely symbolic device.

ircoha

Húrin wrote: »

Why calculate a carbon footprint? It's a purely symbolic device.

Perhaps you might like to elaborate on the above for those of us who are hard of hearing or is it simply the fact that in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king and the rest of us are all deaf?
Thanks

Húrin

ircoha wrote: »

Perhaps you might like to elaborate on the above for those of us who are hard of hearing or is it simply the fact that in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king and the rest of us are all deaf?
Thanks

I mean that reducing your use of fossil fuels is merely driving down the market price and subsidising those who use oil wastefully. It is beneficial for both your wallet and training yourself to live in a post-oil age, but the widespread idea that you're "doing your bit to stop climate chaos" is illusory.

Basically, you do not cause carbon emissions. People who take fossil fuels out of the ground cause carbon emissions.

Even were it financially and logistically possible to build all the fantasy renewable energy projects (like that farcical "cover the Sahara with solar panels" scheme) it would not deliver the needed energy to sustain a society like this, with both population and economic growth.

It is intrinsic to the affluent consumer-industrial society of this age that there are unsustainable levels of CO2 emissions. It is no coincidence that Ireland's CO2 emissions were only a fraction in the 1970s of what they are now.

bobcarpo

Here's a free carbon calculator that will calculate what you are looking for, just came across it on their blog yesterday.

http://www.kedco.com/option,com_carbon/Itemid,663/

Hope it's useful.

lostinsuperfunk

Húrin, I don't believe your analysis is necessarily correct. Large scale moderation of the demand for oil (including personal consumption reduction and international measures such carbon trading etc.) will ultimately reduce the incentive to pump more oil, resulting in a reduced rate of oil production and associated fossil fuel emissions. This scenario won't come about without a large political effort, and I would agree that it might be more worthwhile on a personal level to put some effort into lobbying politicians rather than into making minor reductions in personal consumption.
There is no need to distinguish between wasteful and non-wasteful use of oil here. Any process which turns oil rapidly into CO2 is bad from a climate perspective. Using oil to make those nasty plastics with several hundred years' lifetime is actually preferable to burning oil as far as the climate is concerned.
Of course eventually we will use up all the oil, however, the important thing is the rate at which we use it. Nuclear power has its problems, but future monitoring isn't going to cause any appreciable effect. Low level CO2 emissions over 10,000 years are ok; it is large emissions over the coming decades that are of concern. In any case, I doubt if those sensors will be running on the black stuff 1000 years from now