Of course they are Primus. It’s the excuse they use to fool the public into thinking that it’s okay to fly planes because most of the lawmakers fly around the world on a regular basis. If they can produce a fuel that doesn’t pollute for planes, why can’t they do it for diesels and petrol engines?
As far as I’m concerned, if you burn a combustible fuel it produces by products, and the least of which are CO2.
with stop start engines they use a different type of car battery (more heavy duty) and to charge it up one should use something like this on AGM batteries
Happened to catch part of a series on Radio 4 yesterday called 39 Ways to Save the Planet.
The bit I heard was about co2 capturing/recycling. Worth having a listen to since we’re not too far away from working towards nor just being zero carbon neutral, but negative carbon within a couple of decades.
Of course. Think the game plan is to try to remove the excess amount of CO2 that has been produced by our activities and is still floating around the atmosphere, rather than kill off all life forms
If only gases didn’t move about via convection, gravitational effects etc etc…
We’ve chatted about micro changes potentially having catasastrophic macro outcomes before, and didn’t really get anywhere. Not sure we’re going to unblock the logjam this time round my old friend😊
@Dextrous63 ,. Because plants breath IN the CO2 and breath OUT the
Oxygen, ( algae in the ocean being the biggest contributor)
But l think you allready know this ??
Its also the reason Plants developed long before creatures, as there was
an abundance of CO2 at that time due to volcanic emissions so the plants
had plenty to feed on, creatures arrived when enough oxygen had been
produced by the plants for them to evolve !!
I was kinda questioning the concept of gas being in layers, with co2 being at plant level.
Doesn’t really matter, apart from the fact that IIRC humans tend to breathe out CO2 rather than oxygen, so the more of us there are, the greater the number of plants we’d need in order to split the chemicals back up to their component parts. Which is compounded by the curious fact that we seem to spend a lot of time and effort cutting down the very plants needed and polluting the seas to make algae less abundant.
But hey ho, the markets need more people to be born if they are to expand, so we’re all doomed anyway.
@Dextrous63 , Fort that was what l said, except l used the word ‘creatures’
and not ‘humans’
Yes l agree that the atmosphere is largely homogenous but what about
the ’ ozone’ layer , how does that work ??
Point taken about “creatures”. Thanks for reminding me of the word “homogeneous” as I couldn’t think of it.
No idea about O3 “layer” and I’m not going to insult you by posting a link which you’re more than capable to look up and read yourself
Not that nature is a living cogent entity, but it does seem to me that at times “it” throws a curveball at us “designed” to reduce population and restore order. But somehow, we keep on thwarting these attempts.
Because us humans and other animals only need about 21% of Oxygen (which is also heavier than air) to survive. If you looked at my pie chart (which is derived at sea level) you will have noticed that only 0.038% of the air we breath is CO2. The majority is Nitrogen. Hence the reason why we don’t suffocate Dex…