At first I though it was going to be because of the power generated from the restricted flowing of the water supply, but I read on to see that the writer has a very different view on organic decay at the upper base of the dam. In trying to prove their point they showed that methane and nitrous oxide (more commonly known as NOS) were created when the rotting matter at the great depths of these places restricted the amount of oxygen to the process, thus causing the two gasses that are proven more harmful when released into the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
It is now my view that the process results in the same gasses in differing quantities when oxygen is present, and that the significantly heaver molecular weight of the high depth process would be more of a risk to the oxygenation of the water than it would be to the atmospheric composition. If there were more methane and NOS, wouldn't the combustion engines burn cleaner and leaner? These are also gases made naturally by swamps.
2006-12-11 05:46:37 · 7 answers · asked by Maybe I know, maybe not 2 in Environment
Even if this were remotely true, the gases produced would be so small and insignificant. Learn all you can about science so that when someone says something like this, you can made a clear analysis of the statement and judge for yourself. Or at the very least, be able to reproduce the scenario and see the results first hand. Lot of useless info out there and you have to learn to weed through it.
2006-12-11 05:51:22 · answer #1 · answered by jgbarber65 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
first of all, algae and flora do not emit CO2 they take in it to strengthen. They emit oxygen. Ice center files has shown CO2 tiers are larger now than they have been interior the severe 650,000 years. What the ice center files shows is likewise a vogue the position because the degrees of CO2 upward thrust and fall obviously the temperature follows the precise trend because the CO2. The oceans also help interior the absorbtion of CO2, yet finally this is going to head decrease back into the ambience. a lot of human beings believe that the oceans and timber will take in all our CO2, if you must pump out as a lot as we adore. CO2 although can stay interior the ambience for an popular of one hundred years compared to methane which in elementary words remains interior the amosphere for a decade or so. increasing carbon concentrations almost continuously mirror increasing use of fossil fuels. All mutually globally we pump out 6 billion metric a large number of carbon. This ensure will strengthen with techniques from 2% each and each and every each and each and every 365 days. So the billions of ton of CO2 that we pump into the atmopshere each and each and every remains there for a lengthy time period previously getting absorbed. Now if thats how a lot CO2 is being pumped out as we talk imagine how a lot will be emitted even as international locations like India and China which between them carry a million/3 of the earth's inhabitants become industrialised and favor a similar quantity of power. the reason the U. S. hasn't signed the Kyoto proptocal is because India and China havn't and this is going to also damage their economic gadget (of route). India and China's arguement is properly carry on why might want to we signal this element even as the gases that are up there are literally not our gases they're your gases. Thats honest adequate, yet what occurs even as those international locations become as industrialied because the U. S. and others. the U. S. says properly carry we favor some insurance that once you adult males do become industrialised you'll bounce on board with us. If the U. S. is utilising 23% of the international's power with three hundred million human beings, how a lot power will India and China favor with over 2 billion between them.
2016-11-30 10:44:34 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it depends on how much FOSSIL fuel energy is required to BUILD and MAINTAIN the hydro-electric dam. If it requires a substantial amount of energy JUST to get supplies/labor/equipment to the dam-site and a large amount of daily repairs by LARGE, diesel-powered machinery..then it could be possible.
It's the same reason that "plug-in" hybrid cars are kinda worthless, because most of the electricity in America is still made by burning coal..so you're burning fossil fuels regardless of if you get your energy from the pump or from the plug.
2006-12-11 05:58:15 · answer #3 · answered by Jo C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The friction of the turbiunes alone would not be there if the dam had not been made. Breathing produces global warming, what do you want us all to do about it, stop breathing...? Please demonstrate.
11 DEC 06, 1903 hrs, GMT.
2006-12-11 05:59:31 · answer #4 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not trying to be a smart A**, but there is a better site for this kind of discussion. Go to Sciforms.com and sign up. This type of question sounds right up their ally.
2006-12-11 05:52:20 · answer #5 · answered by golden rider 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
every thing causes global warming...primarily the periodic cycles of the sun...hydro power actually causes much more damage to the earth and its natural structure... the most environmentally friendly form of power generation is nuclear power
2006-12-11 05:54:03 · answer #6 · answered by Generator gator 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you work for a Coal company?
Unless you can prove that Dam's cause more pulltion per wat then dirty energy sources like coal, what would be the point?
2006-12-11 05:50:16 · answer #7 · answered by Wyleeguy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋