CO2

[sandall]

Flicking through the latest L&SI I spotted a mention of (yet another?) CO2-powered fogger. In these days of every event claiming to being even lower-carbon, & our energy bills being more than doubled by subsidies paid to generators of "low-carbon" electricity, the promotion of yet another expensive box spraying neat CO2 over our stages struck me as somewhat ironic.

[alistermorton]

That CO2 isn't going to be new CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels, though; it's going to be CO2 extracted from the existing pool. So while there is likely to be some CO2 generated by the manufacturing process (true of anything manufactured) the actual CO2 the fogger is "generating" isn't increasing the overall pool. So it's not as bad as it seems.

[cedd]

We're discovering that it's flipping expensive to run such a machine. Our Le Maitre Freezefog unit goes through a big cylinder every 8 minutes. During a run of a show that soon stacks up, and we often end up changing before a cylinder is fully used up because we don't want it running out part way through an effect.

 

Looks absolutely fantastic though!!!!!

 

 

 

[Jivemaster]

IMO it's similar to solid fuel, Coal has a CO2 emission wood is considered recycling atmospheric CO2.

[Brian]

To put things in context...

 

A big LK/VK cylinder holds about 33kg of CO2. My car, a Ford Focus, generates that much in 115 miles.

[adam2]

That CO2 isn't going to be new CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels, though; it's going to be CO2 extracted from the existing pool. So while there is likely to be some CO2 generated by the manufacturing process (true of anything manufactured) the actual CO2 the fogger is "generating" isn't increasing the overall pool. So it's not as bad as it seems.

 

Yes.

 

The CO2 sold in cylinders and used for various purposes is a by-product of large scale brewing* as this process produces large volumes of almost pure CO2. If the gas was not captured and compressed into cylinders it would escape into the atmosphere anyway. And even this large volume of CO2 produced by brewing* is not as bad as it sounds, it is only returning to the air the CO2 that was recently absorbed by the growth of the barley, grapes, sugar or whatever else is being fermented.

 

The production of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is quite different and is of great concern. Fossil fuels were produced in ancient times when the earth was much warmer and covered largely in tropical forest and inhabited by dinosaurs. The release of this carbon that has been "locked up" since ancient times is likely to lead to dangerous climate change.

 

The re release of recently captured carbon is of no concern. For Example the growth of say a ton of barley will absorb a known amount of carbon. Exactly the same amount of carbon will be returned to the atmosphere when the barely is used to make bread, to brew beer,, is eaten by wildlife, or left to rot.

 

*much of the CO2 sold in the UK is from Distillers PLC, a company noted for the production of distilled spirits, It is not the actual process of distillation that produces the bulk CO2, but rather the brewing of the relatively low strength alcohol that is then distilled into whiskey, gin, vodka etc.

 

 

 

[Oovis]

To put things in context...

 

A big LK/VK cylinder holds about 33kg of CO2. My car, a Ford Focus, generates that much in 115 miles.

That's 33kg of liquid CO2 in a K size bottle. There's an expansion ratio of 553:1 liquid to gas so wouldn't the released gas be much more than 33kg?

[alistermorton]

No, it would still be 33kg - it would just be a lot less dense.

 

It's a bit like asking which weighs more- a pound of lead or a pound of feathers.

[adam2]

No, it would still be 33kg - it would just be a lot less dense.

 

It's a bit like asking which weighs more- a pound of lead or a pound of feathers.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

[sandall]

No, it would still be 33kg - it would just be a lot less dense.

 

It's a bit like asking which weighs more- a pound of lead or a pound of feathers.

 

I suspect the container might weigh a bit more though!

 

My original point is that if an excess of CO2 is going to cause us all to be drowned in our beds (or fried, depending on which "climate science expert you believe) then it is somewhat irrelevant as to whether this CO2 was "captured" in the days of the dinosaurs, in the last century, or even last week.

 

Trying to make a distinction between "good" CO2 & "bad" CO2 seems a touch academic, if not downright delusional. If it's as bad for the planet as some would have us believe, then the habit of covering our stages with the stuff strikes me as being not very "green", even if, as noted above, it does look fantastic.

[alistermorton]

The relative rates of capture and release matter, though, that's the point. CO2 released on a stage was captured very recently and released at a comparable rate, so the overall balance isn't really upset. Fossil fuels were captured over thousands of millenia, and then were released over about two centuries. So they're being put back into the system much faster than they were taken out, and this is unbalancing the system.

 

That's the theory, anyway.

 

It's a bit like spending a decade inflating a balloon - imperceptible changes which can then be released in one bang by popping the balloon.

 

Or to put it another way, would you prefer a stage weight gently placed on you, or dropped on you suddenly from the top of the fly tower? Same weight. Different outcome.

[sandall]

would you prefer a stage weight gently placed on you, or dropped on you suddenly from the top of the fly tower?

 

I take your point (I am a fan of Newton; he was a real scientist), though I have more trouble with the way data gets "adjusted" to fit pre-conceived theories (I realise this might lead to the global-warming police kicking my door in), rather than doing research the scientific way. But getting back on-topic, I still think there is a certain irony in venues claiming to do their utmost to be "green", while nightly pouring gallons of liquid CO into their auditoria.

[Dave m]

But our building has "energy saving lights" all controlled ( that being a debatable point) by a central computer. The lights come on and off based upon ,movement sensors and daylight sensors so that in theory all the non theatrical lights are using less energy.Part from the fact that there is now miles of cabling running all over the shop to the central computer that doesn't seem to work, resulting in hordes of engineers driving down from Yorkshire to sort it out.

Then you stick 30 k of stage lighting on

I am all for saving the planet but the amount of wire and technology has to be made from something and I bet the factory isn't that green

[sandall]

Then you stick 30 k of stage lighting on

You mean you don't have an all-LED rig, that saves a bit on power, but costs a fortune, uses lots of rare minerals that have to be dug out of the ground & processed, & consumes an awful lot of energy from a coal-fired power-station in China to manufacture. Call yourselves green?

[kerry davies]

Just one minor point in all this. Nobody is actually "saving the planet". The planet couldn't give a damn and were we to get within a ciuntry mile of threatening it would shuck us off like fleas.

 

It doesn't help the debate to start out in denial of the fact that humanity doesn't give a fig for the planet and are really interested in "save the humans."

Lou Reed put it best;

Well Americans humans don't care for much of anything

land and water the least

And animal life is low on the totem pole

with human life not worth much more than infected yeast

Americans humans don't care too much for beauty

They'll sh1t in a river, dump battery acid in a stream

They'll watch dead rats wash up on the beach

and complain if they can't swim