<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Technocratic Trap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/the-technocrati.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/the-technocrati.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/the-technocrati.html/comment-page-1#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:49:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/the-technocrati.html#comment-362</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Keith is right. I&#039;ve always understood, and agreed with the EPA regulating HC, CO, NOx from vehicle emissions. (Which I have more knowledge in). These emissions are hazardous to the public as well as the environment.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;However, CO2 is the conclusion of clean combustion. There is no way to &quot;clean up&quot; CO2 as there is with CO, HC, and NOx. In fact, my old VW Beetle puts out way more HC and CO than the most modern yet fuel inefficient gasoline vehicle on the market. But it probably produces far less CO2! &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;First, one must know how HC and CO are formed. HC is &quot;hydrocarbon&quot;. It *is* the fuel. HC simply is fuel that didn&#039;t burn at all. CO is partially burned fuel. During combustion, O is processed with HC. Ideally, the Oxygen combines with the Hydrogen to make H2O. More Oxygen combines with the Carbon to make CO2.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But during combustion, sometimes, the process runs out of Oxygen, leaving CO, or Carbonmonoxide. This means that less CO2 was made. The same goes for HC. Sometimes, the process runs out of HC. Since combustion needs heat, fuel, and oxygen, combustion stops dead in its tracks leaving these emissions behind.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;When this happens, CO2 production is reduced. Introduce enough Oxygen into the combustion process, and less of these CO and HC compounds are left behind, and you get more CO2 and H2O.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That&#039;s what emissions control devices attempt to do. Whether is be the old AIR pump, or the catalytic converter, or even fuel injection to better regulate fuel to the combustion process. All of these devices attempt to add air to the process in some way and put it to work. In the case of the catalytic converter, it uses Oxygen to combine to HC and CO to form H2O and CO2. Keep in mind, my old VW doesn&#039;t have any of these devices. Thus, it will produce less CO2, and more CO and HC.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith is right. I&#8217;ve always understood, and agreed with the EPA regulating HC, CO, NOx from vehicle emissions. (Which I have more knowledge in). These emissions are hazardous to the public as well as the environment.</p>
<p>However, CO2 is the conclusion of clean combustion. There is no way to &#8220;clean up&#8221; CO2 as there is with CO, HC, and NOx. In fact, my old VW Beetle puts out way more HC and CO than the most modern yet fuel inefficient gasoline vehicle on the market. But it probably produces far less CO2! </p>
<p>How?</p>
<p>First, one must know how HC and CO are formed. HC is &#8220;hydrocarbon&#8221;. It *is* the fuel. HC simply is fuel that didn&#8217;t burn at all. CO is partially burned fuel. During combustion, O is processed with HC. Ideally, the Oxygen combines with the Hydrogen to make H2O. More Oxygen combines with the Carbon to make CO2.</p>
<p>But during combustion, sometimes, the process runs out of Oxygen, leaving CO, or Carbonmonoxide. This means that less CO2 was made. The same goes for HC. Sometimes, the process runs out of HC. Since combustion needs heat, fuel, and oxygen, combustion stops dead in its tracks leaving these emissions behind.</p>
<p>When this happens, CO2 production is reduced. Introduce enough Oxygen into the combustion process, and less of these CO and HC compounds are left behind, and you get more CO2 and H2O.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what emissions control devices attempt to do. Whether is be the old AIR pump, or the catalytic converter, or even fuel injection to better regulate fuel to the combustion process. All of these devices attempt to add air to the process in some way and put it to work. In the case of the catalytic converter, it uses Oxygen to combine to HC and CO to form H2O and CO2. Keep in mind, my old VW doesn&#8217;t have any of these devices. Thus, it will produce less CO2, and more CO and HC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: litesong</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/the-technocrati.html/comment-page-1#comment-361</link>
		<dc:creator>litesong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/the-technocrati.html#comment-361</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Keith...You really are in the &#039;burn fossil fuels for energy&#039; mental block. Lots of energy  comes from hydro, wind &amp; solar. Lots of energy will come from tidal &amp; wave power. Since nuclear isn&#039;t actually a &#039;burning&#039; process, lots of energy comes from nukes too.    &lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith&#8230;You really are in the &#8216;burn fossil fuels for energy&#8217; mental block. Lots of energy  comes from hydro, wind &#038; solar. Lots of energy will come from tidal &#038; wave power. Since nuclear isn&#8217;t actually a &#8216;burning&#8217; process, lots of energy comes from nukes too.    </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/the-technocrati.html/comment-page-1#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/the-technocrati.html#comment-360</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;What&#039;s even worse is that the writer of this article obviously never took high school chemistry.  They keep talking about &quot;cleaner technologies&quot; and &quot;reductions in emissions&quot; as if CO2 was just like SOx or NOx.  This ignorance continually frosts me since the only way to decrease CO2 is to cut down on the amount of energy used and, hence, decrease everyone&#039;s standard of living.  There is no &quot;cleaner technology.&quot;  ANY hydrocarbon burned with 100% efficiency will give you CO2 and H2O.  You can&#039;t change this basic chemistry.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s even worse is that the writer of this article obviously never took high school chemistry.  They keep talking about &#8220;cleaner technologies&#8221; and &#8220;reductions in emissions&#8221; as if CO2 was just like SOx or NOx.  This ignorance continually frosts me since the only way to decrease CO2 is to cut down on the amount of energy used and, hence, decrease everyone&#8217;s standard of living.  There is no &#8220;cleaner technology.&#8221;  ANY hydrocarbon burned with 100% efficiency will give you CO2 and H2O.  You can&#8217;t change this basic chemistry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

