digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Amazing Picture of the Amount of Exhaust a Car puts out in a Day

frederiksamuel.com — you might not believe how much carbon monoxide is poduced by a car's engine.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 19, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

152 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -19/+105@salviati

    Acutally that's not the amout of carbon monoxide - it's just collecting all of the exhaust products coming out of the car (most of which is just inert nitrogen). The picture says it's CO, but that's what you get when you let environmentalists (who don't understand science) start making their claims. If the bag was the size of a trash bag (to truely represent the CO output) it wouldn't be very dramatic.
  • SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62@salviati

    Well, here's just a quick calculation to show they are full of it. The maximum permissible limits of CO output for cars is currently 2grams per mile www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/06_enviroindex/15_air.html Assuming the car is traveling at 60mph for a full 8 hours that's 480 miles in a day (which is a hell of a lot more than most people drive). That translates in to 960 grams of CO produced. At room temp and 1 atm pressure CO is 1.145grams/L. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide So, that's a total of about 838 Liters of CO gas (or about four 55 gallon trash bags). Much less than they have pictured there.

    Now if you assume a more reasonable amount of mileage...say 30 miles a day. It would only fill a 14 gallon trash bag (the size of the ones you typically find in the kitchen bin). And those are upper limits, anything above that and the car fails emissions. See it took me 5 mins to determine that. You have to ask why WWF didn't....
  • Wacer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Carbon Monoxide breaks down in the atmosphere within a few weeks so its not a long term constituent of the atmosphere.
  • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+36There's such a lack of science in this picture and presentation that I would deem it as propaganda. It's as simple as answering the question of whats heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?

    What's the density of this magical black cloud? And does it represent the pure CO output? What a joke.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Duggmirror is officially worthless. The last 10 times I went there for a mirror I got bubkis.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32The average car puts out between 4,000 and 8,000 pounds of CO2 yearly. That's something like 3 to 5 times the weight of a car. Multiply that by the number of cars worldwide, more than 500,000,000, and you've got a problem.
  • schwab002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15will you take my physical chemistry exam for me on monday?
  • Salviati, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@sillyrabbits

    I respect your thoroughness, and I agree that by those calculations, you would be correct. But keep in mind that this demonstration was in China (look at the wording), and even the website that they reference on the balloon is in 100% Chinese. I don't think I have to tell you that China's air quality standards aren't anything compared to what we are used to in the US. Just look back to a 1968 car on the site you reference, and the CO levels are 80 grams/mile instead of 2 grams/mile. I bet Chinese cars are closer to the former. I wouldn't doubt that that ad is perfectly accurate for a person living in China (where the ad was displayed), but not in the US.
  • kdmaster, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26You need to quit smoking because you are not only killing yourself when you smoke, but anyone unfortunate enough to be standing near you. It's called Passive smoking
  • broon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15This could be it: http://tendancemedia.free.fr/wp-content/wwf_blackcloud.jpg
  • shtonkalot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18sillyrabbits, That is along the lines of what I was thinking.. However how long did they run the car to fill the balloon?
    If the message is driving for a day produces that much Carbon Monoxide then I'm unsure how far off from the truth it is. Likewise are they getting at the average amount a car is driven per day or what an average car outputs in an entire days worth of driving?
    Regardless we can argue over the technical aspects all 'day' but it is missing the point.

    A clever way to get the message across.
  • dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@sithseth
    "I'll say that my car would make no more then an equivalent of 5 gallons of gas a week. Just because the molecular structure changes, doesn't mean its creating MORE then I'm putting into it."
    -You obviously don't understand changes of state. Gas (as in air not gasoline) takes up more room than the equivalent liquid.
    "So, if you think about it, my car isn't putting THAT much exhaust into the air."
    -Try thinking more.
    "Of course shown in "visual" form, it sure does look more then it actually is."
    -"Visual" form? Yes- things look like themselves visually.
  • stuman77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11When I saw this picture, I was somewhat suspicious of how honest an approximation it was, so I decided to try and crunch the numbers...so:
    Take the density of gasoline to be 737.22 kg/m^3
    1 m^3=264.127 gallons, --> density of gasoline = 2.790 kg/gal.=2790 g/gal.
    Now, since gasoline is composed of a variety of hydrocarbons, take the average chemical formula to be C8H18. Thus, gasoline would have a chemical weight of 114 g/mol.
    Thus, gasoline would have a molar density of 24.473 mol/gal.
    Now, we'll take a HUGE jump and say that the gas is ENTIRELY converted into CO (the point of this is to develop a frame of reference to see the max amount that can be produced, then we can simply take the percentage of CO actually produced in the cycle and apply it to this amount).
    So, if we take this asumption, 8 moles of CO are produced for every mol of gas, meaning we produce 195.78 mol/gal of gasoline.
    Treat it like an ideal gas (22.5 l/mol @ standard temp. and pressure), and that's 4405.26 litres of CO per gallon, which is equal to just 4.405 cubic meters of CO.

    Now, observe the balloon. Assume that perhaps, 5% of the gasoline is converted to CO. That would mean, for a large tank of gas (much larger than the car here would have), only 4.405 cubic meters of CO would be produced FOR THE ENTIRE TANK. (assuming correct calculations. If there are any in error, please point them out and I'll be more than happy to apply corrections).
  • deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Buried for useless use of the word "amazing."
  • rossmcd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8one uninformed global warming "skeptic" produces more silly statements than 100 cows in a fortnight
  • Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7the human body doesnt produce CO, it does however produce CO2.
    Carbon monoxide is so bad for humans because it is absorbed by haemoglobin so well. It replaces oxygen in the blood and asphyxiates you.
    If the body produced it as a byproduct, it would never leave the bloodstream
  • edebolt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Depends on the city and the vehicle emissions compliance. If you live in Quito Ecuador or Jakarta indonesia then worry about the vehicles a lot more.

    If you live in San Francisco, Denver, Glasgow or Kyoto then the air from car exhaust is far less damaging than breathing second hand smoke.

    CO2 - the global warming issue is not a toxic emission. Plants love it.
  • igyigyigy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@diabolicdiablo
    Because it goes approximately upwards when you're in an open area. In a home it tends to hang around a lot longer.
  • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10There is nothing more detrimental to a valid concern than a poorly thought out argument.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Actually, I complain about both. I'm just cool like dat.
  • danzk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7carbon dioxide is not even the biggest greenhouse gas water vapour is.
  • pytis123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2084/wwfblackcloudry9.jpg
  • dchaosdx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7a trillion? HOLY *****, CALL BATMAN!
  • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7imus: The average human puts out 800 lbs of CO2 a year. Multiply that by the number of people worldwide, 6.7 billion Thats 5.3 trillion lbs of CO2 a MUCH bigger number than your half billion.

    :)

    BTW I get the 800 lbs based upon NASAs estimate of 1kg per day per person multiplied by 365 then converted to lbs.
  • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I actually thought the title should have been in all caps with several exclamation points.
  • lcmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can you buy one of those bags? Will finally stop people tailgating me.
  • profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's more than one car in the world. At some point that pimple becomes more of a rash.
  • dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Really? Are you sure? Because I would think the amount of CO2 would be closely related with the amount of energy expended. And propelling around a couple tons at 70mph probably uses more energy than a cow walking and eating grass.
  • DamnMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ Kdmaster

    Thats vary much his point. Do you think the Carbon monoxide and a venerable buffet of other chemicals from the hydrocarbon fuel cars burn is ***** up your lungs LESS than the few milligrams in the average cigarette?
  • rukkyg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jericho

    I shouldn't have to walk away from your smoke. You should have to walk away from me. I'm just standing here. You're actively killing ME.
  • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Beware of those accusing OTHERS of 'playing the propaganda game.'

    Of course plants and trees breathe C02. How does this negate the problems caused by too much C02?

    Water is necessary for life, but too much water is deadly, during a flood. Drinking too much water will kill you, too.

    You can die from too much oxygen, too, it's called oxygen poisoning.

    Anything can be a pollutant when it's out of its proper balance. Comprende?

  • algorythm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One thing they could do is install catalytic converters to reduce emissions. It seems like the US is the only country that does this. I have been to around 30 counties and have never seen the cars equipped with these...
  • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Yes, because that balloon is filled with pure carbon monoxide. Exhaust, maybe, but not pure CO. You probably breathe out just as much in a single day too. Of course, you're not breathing out harmful gases (IIRC, O2 concentration from inhalation to expiration drops from something like 30% to 20%, though it's been a while so I could be way off). Farting a couple times probably does more harm to the environment in terms of sheer exhaust, the difference being that the refinery creating bodily methane (you) pollutes a hell of a lot less than the ones dealing with turning crude into gasoline.

    What surprises me most is that nobody's complained much about the "amazing" headline. It's actually a pretty crappy picture. "Interesting Representation of the..." would be much more fitting. But who am I to complain - if it really bothered us that much, we wouldn't keep digging them to the front page.
  • Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Cars are a "necessary" evil - which is why we bother looking for cleaner alternatives. It would require a huge change of culture, industry, and economics to completely phase out automobiles, so we pretty much have to accept their existence, and you can't expect people to ditch their gas-guzzlers for hybrid/electric overnight.

    Cigs, however, provide no necessary function. If you think you "need" cigs, it's only because you are addicted and your brain has developed a chemical dependancy... one that can be reversed simply by discontinuing the habit. People would just have to give up a bad habit.
  • klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What about the volcanic eruptions? Oh yeah, they don't damage the atmosphere at all huh.. there is a lot of stuff out that to complain about, people usually choose the one shoved in their faces the fastest. Usually the S02 emitted in ONE eruption is 10X that of all Western Industry combined, It however, helps cool the earth reversing the greenhouse effect. How ironic.
  • Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4thats it in one day? how much driving? it really doesn't seem like a lot
  • Ogedei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No plants don't breathe CO2. The use it for photosynethesis. Totally different process.

    Plants respire/breath like the rest of Earth's organisms.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yes, that's it. Matches this http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/images/wwf_blackcloud.jpg from the website.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Wouldn't the be CO + CO2 + O + O2+ H2O + whatever else is emitted from the tailpipe?
  • XandraX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Ha-ha, such an addict
  • EntangledPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to mention all-electric vehicles, transportation of the electricity of powerlines, etc, is more efficient than gasoline... thus still helping the environment with less non-point pollutants.
  • profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you can't read past a one-letter typo, you need enlightenment of a different kind.
  • rohanch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...and carbon monoxide, which this bag thing attached to the exhaust claims to be measuring, is not a greenhouse gas at all.

    CO is a highly poisonous gas that can kill if inhaled in any large quantities, but it's not a greenhouse gas (as long as it's monoxide). In fact the exhaust gas output of carbon monoxide is below 1% of all emissions output on a modern car because the catalytic converter converts it to CO2 instead (which IS a greenhouse gas, but not a deadly poisonous gas like carbon monoxide is).
  • aguynamedben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This picture lacks graphical integrity due to the fact that it juxtaposes the amount of exhaust given by a car in an entire day next to a given instance of a car. There is a disconnect in the time period over which this event occurs. That said, I'm sure it would fly in USA Today...
  • foomojive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2many studies have proven this "lengthening the tailpipe" theory to be false. CO2 levels would actually decrease even if current coal burning operations were creating the electricity for cars.
  • mal1964, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the Chinese officially enter the space race with their version of the space shuttle
  • jerichobp, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Yeah but as long as second hand smoke hasn't immobilized you, you can still walk away.
  • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When you drive an electric car you are removing the exhaust emissions of a conventional car and replacing them with greatly reduced emissions from a powerplant. The emissions are greatly reduced because of the far higher efficiency of electric cars versus gas powered cars.

    A collection of numerous well-to-wheels studies showing EVs are far, far better for the air (PDF):
    http://sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf

    More info on electric cars, and how driving EVs saves money (higher efficiency means less fuel per mile, hence cheaper driving):
    http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
  • srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, I switch from a Chevy Astro van to a Ford Focus.

    I want my carbon offsets now, please.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well Ross,
    It appears you and I have the same dislikes. It annoys the hell out of me when someone who just uses their car for commuting buys a Yukon or a Hummer. Waste of good metal, waste of gas....and yes, they're trying to project machismo and miserably failing to do so. Perhaps they'd do better if they put down the cell phone and had a little mud on the tires.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.