Biogas in Quebec with household waste

[C moa]

get your greenhouse gas wiki link: "Water vapor is responsible for 55% of the greenhouse effect." : isn't it the continuous cooling columns of nuclear power plants? well ... you're not going to tell me it's a NATURAL cycle either? without counting hexafluorides ...
but nothing that says that CH4 is only 21 times worse than CO2, sorry we will have to quote!

For the rest I drop but there, do not exaggerate, YAKA read !!!
In the beautiful table at the bottom, you have to look at the last column (PRG at 100). So the water vapor SO (ie not applicable = null effect), CO2 = 1 (this is the reference value), CH4 = 23 (actually I was wrong it is not 21 times more harmful it is 23 times). Well, I'm not going to do them all, I think you understand.
You can also look at the column before "lifetime". I go no further, I think it is sufficiently explicit.

In fact these data come from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Grouping of Study on the evolution of the Climate), are they serious enough for your taste?

[jonule]

no, it's like the weather: it's zero and imprecise, and their measurement uncertainty corresponds to their data: it's blank but it allows some to control certain commercial parameters. I want proof of this: the origin of the debate concerned "the ozone layer" several years ago, with the famous hole, yes it is localized; then it changed directly to CO2 to sell cars comparatively ... so I'm kidding. they themselves invent the criteria which lead to statistical confusion which often does not compare the same thing.

if not to return to the PRG, since you raise it:

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a simple way to compare the different greenhouse gases that influence the climate system. It is used to predict the relative impacts of different gases on global warming based on their radiative properties (radiative forcing).

This tool most often gives correct estimates (good order of magnitude, acceptable precision to guide decisions of a political nature) provided that it is used in accordance with the assumptions which accompany it, in particular the period considered and the scenarios of evolution of various atmospheric concentrations. Otherwise, the PRG is often imprecise or even completely false when it is used outside its scope.

for example, the GWP for methane over 100 years is 23, but over 20 years, it is 62!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiel_ ... ent_global

we therefore look for the GWP of CO2 and H2O over 20 years, a lot more palpable.




thus, H20O over 100 years is not applicable: it is not counted at all, that does not mean that it is zero! because precisely, it is the one that is most quickly palpable.

we come back to our sheep: that CH4 is x times worse than CO2 we don't care: we must not let this energy waste, period.

in addition, a CET uses biogas but does not use the resulting fertilizer.
proof :
https://www.econologie.com/forums/cet-de-cle ... t5953.html