Gashostage.com

One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the atmosphere, a scientist suggested today.

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools the planet by reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.
 
Most researchers say the warming effect has been winning in recent decades.

Injecting sulfur into the second atmospheric layer closest to Earth would reflect more sunlight back to space and offset greenhouse gas warming, according to Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.

Crutzen suggests carrying sulfur into the atmosphere via balloons and using artillery guns to release it, where the particles would stay for up to two years. The results could be seen in six months.

Nature does something like this naturally.

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in1991, millions of tons of sulfur was injected into the atmosphere, enhancing reflectivity and cooling the Earth’s surface by an average of 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in the year following the eruption.

“Given the grossly disappointing international political response to the required greenhouse gas emissions, … research on the feasibility and environmental consequences of climate engineering of the kind presented in this paper, which might need to be deployed in future, should not be tabooed,” Crutzen said. 

This proposal is detailed in the August issue of the journal Climatic Change.

Read more >>

This is a little scary.  I understand that mother nature did this on her own with out any ill effects but it scares me when people decide they want to make like god and meddle.  I don’t think we are helping our planet by putting so many greenhouse gases into our air, but should we be mucking around with the planet but coming up with these schemes?  Who gets to regulate this?  What happens if one country says they don’t want to take the chance on this causing more long term damage to the environment?  I am not suggesting we should do nothng, but I would like to think that there are a lot of less potentially damaging solutions that can be employed first.  But hey that is just me. What do you think?

Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50% and carbon dioxide by 78% on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earth’s crust. (Sheehan, 1998)
Biodiesel contains fewer aromatic hydrocarbons: benzofluoranthene: 56% reduction; Benzopyrenes: 71% reduction.
It also eliminates sulfur emissions (SO2), because biodiesel does not contain sulfur.
Biodiesel reduces by as much as 65% the emission of particulates, small particles of solid combustion products. This reduces cancer risks by up to 94% according to testing sponsored by the Department of Energy.[citation needed]
Biodiesel does produce more nitrogen oxide (NOx emissions than petrodiesel, but these emissions can be reduced through the use of catalytic converters. As biodiesel contains no nitrogen, the increase in NOx emissions may be due to the higher cetane rating of biodiesel and higher oxygen content, which allows it to convert nitrogen from the atmosphere into NOx more rapidly. Properly designed and tuned engines may eliminate this increase.
Biodiesel has higher cetane rating than petrodiesel, and therefore ignites more rapidly when injected into the engine. It also has the highest energy content of any alternative fuel in its pure form (B100).
Biodiesel is biodegradable and non-toxic - tests sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture confirm biodiesel is less toxic than table salt and biodegrades as quickly as sugar.[citation needed]
In the United States, biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have successfully completed the Health Effects Testing requirements (Tier I and Tier II) of the Clean Air Act (1990).
Since biodiesel is more often used in a blend with petroleum diesel, there are fewer formal studies about the effects on pure biodiesel in unmodified engines and vehicles in day-to-day use. Fuel meeting the standards and engine parts that can withstand the greater solvent properties of biodiesel is expected to–and in reported cases does–run without any additional problems than the use of petroleum diesel.

The flash point of biodiesel (>150 °C) is significantly higher than that of petroleum diesel (64 °C) or gasoline (−45 °C). The gel point of biodiesel varies depending on the proportion of different types of esters contained. However, most biodiesel, including that made from soybean oil, has a somewhat higher gel and cloud point than petroleum diesel. In practice this often requires the heating of storage tanks, especially in cooler climates.
Pure biodiesel (B100) can be used in any petroleum diesel engine, though it is more commonly used in lower concentrations. Some areas have mandated ultra-low sulfur petrodiesel, which reduces the natural viscosity and lubricity of the fuel due to the removal of sulfur and certain other materials. Additives are required to make ULSD properly flow in engines, making biodiesel one popular alternative. Ranges as low as 2% (B2) have been shown to restore lubricity. Many municipalities have started using 5% biodiesel (B5) in snow-removal equipment and other systems.

BP is facing a criminal grand jury investigation into the biggest oil spill ever on US soil – a corroded transit line that leaked up to 270,000 gallons of crude in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, triggering investigations by federal and state agencies.

If the investigation goes against BP the company will face prosecution which – in the worst case scenario – could result in prison terms, significant fines and tighter restrictions around BP’s operations.

The Financial Times on Wednesday obtained an e-mail from Steve Marshall, president of BP Alaska, telling staff the UK company had received on April 26 a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Alaska. The grand jury, he said, had asked for “a variety of documents and data from BP Alaska concerning the transit line and certain other operational areas.” He urged them to treat the matter as confidential.

The investigation is not only highly unusual for a major oil company but embarrassing for BP and could result in legal proceedings against the company and individuals. The company has denied claims it failed to maintain the transit line, saying it had “manageable corrosion rates” in the pipeline.

Mr Marshall said BP was fully committed to cooperating and told staff they may be contacted to assist in helping BP answer the subpoena, also urging them to cooperate.

Daren Beaudo, BP spokesman, confirmed the message, noting that Mr Marshall had said: “I believe that the information we provide will show that the actions of BP Alaska were, at all times, proper.”

The grand jury investigation comes as BP’s US operations are under heightened scrutiny following a string of accidents and regulatory violations – most notably the March spill in Alaska and an explosion last year at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 people and injured an estimated 500.

BP is already facing a grand jury probe in Texas for that accident – at the company’s biggest refinery – meaning it could face legal retributions from two of its biggest US operations.

Ronnie Chappell, BP’s Texas spokesman, declined to comment on the investigation of the Texas refinery, at which the US Department of Labor uncovered more than 300 violations, leading to a settlement to improve processes and pay a maximum allowable $21m fine.

Read more >>

If BP has done anything wrong they need to pay.  I guess the point is that mistakes happen, but mistakes shouldn’t happen when you follow the rules that are in place and if the rules were not followed there should be remunerations made. 

BP has recently had a string of bad luck and it will be interesting to see if the bad luck has been created because they have cut corners.  I like the fact that publicly BP is willing to work with the investigators.