Antique Engines and Old Iron
[Home] - [HELP] - [Forums] - [Library] - [Photo Gallery] - [Groups] - [Classified Ads] - [Subscribe] - [Links] - [Books] - [Sponsors] -

Go Back   SmokStak > SmokStak® General Discussion > Alternative Fuels
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Notices

Alternative Fuels An energy source alternative to using fossil fuels. Materials or substances that can be used as a fuel, other than conventional fuels. Waste oils, vegetable oils or animal fats, which can be used alone, or blended with fossil fuels.

Alternative Fuels

Water produced in combustion


this thread has 22 replies and has been viewed 1319 times

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2016, 07:57:27 PM
Ken Karrow Ken Karrow is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 905
Thanks: 615
Thanked 463 Times in 313 Posts
Question Water produced in combustion

Anyone know how much water is produced in burning 1 gallon of gasoline or diesel as a result of the Oxygen in the air combining with the Hydrogen in the fuel? Thank you for your consideration.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-01-2016, 08:36:08 PM
Jake Jacobs Jake Jacobs is offline
Registered-II
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Spring valley, Illinois
Posts: 324
Thanks: 1
Thanked 285 Times in 129 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Short answer, about 7 pounds. Read this and it will explain how this happens. Some of the oxygen also combines with the carbon to make co2.

You may have read about the cap and trade legislation which the US House of Representatives passed in June of this year. The US Senate is due to begin work on their version of this legislation in September. This legislation has already been controversial, with opponents labeling it as a leftist plot to seize the U.S. and world financial system, or as legislation that will increase taxes or send jobs overseas.

If this legislative initiative fails, the Environmental Protection Agency has signaled that they are ready to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant , which will trigger a host of Federal regulations to limit the amount of CO2 generated in the United States under existing legislation, the Clean Air Act of 1990 . While nearly everyone agrees that new legislation would be much preferred to existing legislation, we are certain to face limits of one kind or the other on CO2 pollution in the near future.

This reality is certain to mean much higher costs for the American consumer. Electric bills may increase $10 to $25 a month or more. Gasoline will be more expensive, with some analysts predicting $4 to $5 a gallon prices within 10 years. Food costs will rise, along with any other products that are dependent upon energy or oil. Industries may be relocated to countries that produce less CO2, enabling them to compete more profitably.

One of the major culprits in CO2 pollution is the automobile. You may be surprised to learn how much pollution is produced when you drive your car. For every gallon of gasoline you burn in your car, you remove 21 pounds of breathable Oxygen from the atmosphere, as well as adding 20 pounds of CO2, or Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere. This might seem unlikely or improbable, but it is a fact.

How is this possible?

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds and is comprised of 87% Carbon (C) and 13% Hydrogen (H). When you burn gasoline, a chemical reaction occurs, using Oxygen from the atmosphere. The Hydrogen and the Carbon separate, then recombine with Oxygen from the atmosphere to form H2O, or water, and CO2, or Carbon dioxide.

How is 20 pounds of carbon Dioxide produced?:

A CO2 molecule has one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each). A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2.

Now lets see how much H2O or water is produced:

A H2O molecule has two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 1) and one oxygen atom (atomic weight of 16 each). Each Hydrogen atom has a weight of 1, and the oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of H20 an atomic weight of 18 (2 from Hydrogen and 16 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of H2O produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the Hydrogen in the gasoline is multiplied by 18/2 or 9.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the Hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline weighs 0.8 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .13). We can then multiply the weight of the Hydrogen (0.8 pounds) by 9, which equals 7 pounds of H2O or water and water vapor.

How is 21 pounds of Oxygen removed from the atmosphere?:

The combined total weight of the CO2 and the H2O produced by the burning of one gallon of gasoline is 27 pounds. Since we started with one gallon of gas that weighed 6.3 pounds, the amount of Oxygen converted to H2O or CO2 by burning the gasoline is (27-6.3) or 21.7 pounds.

This 21 pounds of breathable Oxygen was removed from the atmosphere by passing through your car's air filter, through the engine, and out the tailpipe as H2O and CO2.

When you multiply that 21 pounds by the United States daily consumption of gasoline (378 million gallons), the result is 7.9 Billion pounds of Oxygen that we are removing from the atmosphere and converting into 7.5 Billion pounds of CO2 and more than 378 Million pounds of water or water vapor each and every day of the year.

On a yearly basis, the total gasoline related CO2 output of the United States is 2.8 Trillion pounds.

This CO2 stays in our atmosphere until it is absorbed by the oceans or broken down by plants through the process of photosynthesis. Also, it seems reasonable that this CO2 would remain at or near ground level, since the CO2 molecule would be heavier than molecules of H2O, or Oxygen or Hydrogen alone. This is a contributing factor in the huge increase in respiratory illness and childhood asthma the US has experienced over the last 30 years.

Change the climate and change the future

Climate legislation is important. We must find ways to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel and decrease CO2 pollution. The recent cash for Clunkers legislation was part of the solution. While initially attached as an amendment to HR 2454, the amendment was moved to the stimulus bill and then signed into law. While stimulating the economy through the sale of new cars, it also traded less fuel efficient cars for more efficient ones, thereby theoretically reducing the amount of CO2 pollution produced. We must continue to reduce the amount of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere, and by doing that, we will increase the amount of available Oxygen. Many coutries around the world are looking to the United States to provide leadership in climate legislation before they draft legislation of their own.

As a nation, we must pass climate legislation this year and partner with the rest of the world at The United Nations Climate Change Conference to reduce pollution.

We will all breath a little easier if we can achieve this goal.

This article based in part on: Environmental Protection Agency frequent questions

© 2008 by blinkin. This material may not be reproduced, rebroadcast, or distributed. Photos are copyright of their authors

keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment

---------- Post added at 06:36:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33:56 PM ----------

1 gallon of fresh water is about 8.36 pounds
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jake Jacobs For This Post:
  #3  
Old 12-01-2016, 09:45:57 PM
akuna akuna is online now
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 155
Thanked 730 Times in 572 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

I call foul on all that fancy calculation and assumptions.

1. Burning gas in a infernal combustion engine creates more then CO2 and H2O.

2. Gas also contains more then just, well Gas.

3. Combustion is not 100% efficient as assumed in the calculations.

Given time I could come up with more fouls, no need to, the three will suffice.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to akuna For This Post:
  #4  
Old 12-01-2016, 10:05:57 PM
SmokinFlux SmokinFlux is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 256
Thanks: 92
Thanked 154 Times in 90 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Quote:
© 2008 by blinkin. This material may not be reproduced, rebroadcast, or distributed. Photos are copyright of their authors
And you copied this from Newsvine?

---------- Post added at 09:05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59:58 PM ----------

Heres a cut and paste that is allowed;

Gasoline
Like jet fuel, gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons, the exact composition of which depends upon the crude oil from which it was refined. In addition, most gasoline contains additives like antioxidants, static inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, and more.

What we purchase at the pump is a mixture of hundreds of compounds. However, given the boiling points used to distill gasoline (120 - 400 degrees Fahrenheit), we know its hydrocarbons have between 6 and 12 carbon atoms. Most people consider octane - C8H18 - an acceptable average value1. Octane has a density of 0.703 g/mL or 2,661.14 g/gal.

Combustion
In a gasoline engine, a mixture of gasoline and air is combusted to drive pistons. The pistons turn the drive shaft, and the drive shaft turns the wheels. In the combustion reaction, gasoline (aka, octane, C8H18) combines with atmospheric oxygen (O2) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20):

C8H18 + O2 -> CO2 + H20 (1)
This is the same combustion reaction that occurs in our bodies to generate energy from food. Of course, other elements in the air such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide are burned in the engine as well as oxygen. Those other elements will create other molecules like nitrates and ozone, but we'll ignore them in our calculations.

Of course, we need to balance the equation so the same number of elements enter and exit our reaction:

2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H20 (2)
We can see for every two octane molecules that enter our combustion reaction, 16 carbon dioxide molecules are produced (or, reducing the fraction, one molecule of octane produces eight molecules of carbon dioxide). However, octane molecules and carbon dioxide molecules are not the same mass, and mass must be conserved.

To determine how many grams of carbon dioxide are produced, we need to calculate the molecular mass of carbon dioxide, the molecular mass of octane, and the ratio between the two:

(1 m * 12.011 amu) + (2 m * 15.999 amu) = 44.009 amu (3)
(8 m * 12.011 amu) + (18 m * 1.008 amu) = 114.232 amu (4)
44.009 amu / 114.232 amu = 0.385 (5)
We know that for every octane molecule that enters our reaction produces eight carbon dioxide molecules (Equation 2), and we know that one carbon dioxide molecule is 38.5% the mass of an octane molecule (Equation 5). As a result, we can calculate how many grams of carbon dioxide are produced by one gram of octane (aka, gasoline):

8 * 0.385 = 3.080 g CO2 / g C8H18 (6)
Given the density of octane (0.703 g/mL or 2,661.144 g/gal), we can calculate the pounds of carbon dioxide generated by one gallon of octane (aka, gasoline):

2,661.144 g C8H18/gal * 3.080 g CO2/g C8H18 * 1 lb/453.592 g = 18.07 lbs CO2/gal (7)
Conclusion
There you have it! To the best of our ability, on average, one gallon of gasoline produces 18.07 pounds of carbon dioxide. If your car gets 20 miles-per-gallon and you drive 10,000 miles in a year, you'll produce 4.5 short tons of carbon dioxide.

Don't forget! There are other molecules in the reaction. We aren't saying that you get 18.1 pounds of carbon from 5.7 pounds of carbon (about the weight of a gallon of gas). That would defy physics! We're saying you get 18.1 pounds of carbon dioxide and 8.3 pounds of water from 5.7 pounds of gasoline (1 gallon) and 20.5 pounds of oxygen.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SmokinFlux For This Post:
  #5  
Old 12-02-2016, 03:05:23 PM
Andrew Mackey Andrew Mackey is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rockaway, New Jersey USA
Posts: 11,667
Thanks: 1,513
Thanked 5,158 Times in 3,341 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Gasoline is now not a major component of 'gas'. The additives make up more than what they are calling gasoline nowdays. Take E-10. It is supposed to be 10% ethanol, plus additives like detergents, antiknock agents (octanes), lubricants (sulfur and others), aeromatic combustables (like isobutene, iso-propane), Cleaning agents (tolulene), and some methanol for good measure. There are other additives with chemical names that are scary at best. As for E-10, it has been found that it may contain as much as 27% ethanol, from the pump! Besides CO2 you get CO, Sulfur Di Oxide, Hydrocarbons, Soot (carbon particals), water vapor, un-attached Oxygen, Nitrous oxides, and even more noxious items, too numerous to mention!

There are many other pollutants besides CO2 to worry about. SO2 combines with water to make acid rain (sulfuric acid) nitrogen by products make Nitric acid. CO and CO2 combine with other chemicals to make carbonic acid. You also get Ozone - O3. It reacts with other pollutants, creating smog. Not healthy stuff!.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Andrew Mackey For This Post:
  #6  
Old 12-08-2016, 12:25:07 PM
Ken Karrow Ken Karrow is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 905
Thanks: 615
Thanked 463 Times in 313 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Thanks to all who answered. The reason for my question is that I moved from an area that is relatively arid but fracking is occurring. Many people are complaining that the water used as a base for fracking is gone forever from the earth's water recycling system. I don't know how much water is used but the amount is small enough that is brought to the site in trucks so in the grand scheme of things is not that much. Also some is recaptured and reprocessed and/or reused. Therefore it is obvious that there is not a net loss but a net gain of water to the earth's system because much more water is gained by the burning of the fuels made from the oil produced as well as the natural gas the by products such as propane. Many more gallons of oil comes out of the ground than water is injected, if it were not the case there would be no economic incentive to do it, and each gallon of oil causes an increase of about one gallon of water even though it is the form of water vapor for the time being. At some point that water vapor becomes liquid water. The extra water and carbon dioxide encourages the growth of plants particularly in arid regions and tends to balance the system.

I'll go on another rant about people out west with their programs to plant a tree - save the planet. Do they not realize that in some areas like here in western Missouri there is more tonage of long term biomass, (trees, shrubs, vines) in a square mile of farm ground that is waste ground (too steep to farm, creek beds, etc.) than they can possibly grow in a square mile of urban landscape? It doesn't have to be irrrigated here. Another rant could be started because of the conversion of marginal ground to farm ground due to an artificially high price for corn to make ethanol to save the planet has caused a decrease in the very trees and brush that take carbon dioxide out of the air as well as an increase in the amount of fuels used to produce it. Now I'll retreat back in my hole and shut up.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-08-2016, 01:11:18 PM
Jake Jacobs Jake Jacobs is offline
Registered-II
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Spring valley, Illinois
Posts: 324
Thanks: 1
Thanked 285 Times in 129 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

1000 gallons of water used to make 1 gallon of ethanol!!!!!!!! http://gas2.org/2008/10/16/1000-gall...green-is-that/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-10-2016, 04:43:27 PM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,044
Thanks: 38
Thanked 469 Times in 309 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Karrow View Post
Thanks to all who answered. The reason for my question is that I moved from an area that is relatively arid but fracking is occurring. Many people are complaining that the water used as a base for fracking is gone forever from the earth's water recycling system. I don't know how much water is used but the amount is small enough that is brought to the site in trucks so in the grand scheme of things is not that much. Also some is recaptured and reprocessed and/or reused. Therefore it is obvious that there is not a net loss but a net gain of water to the earth's system because much more water is gained by the burning of the fuels made from the oil produced as well as the natural gas the by products such as propane. Many more gallons of oil comes out of the ground than water is injected, if it were not the case there would be no economic incentive to do it, and each gallon of oil causes an increase of about one gallon of water even though it is the form of water vapor for the time being. At some point that water vapor becomes liquid water. The extra water and carbon dioxide encourages the growth of plants particularly in arid regions and tends to balance the system.
Geologist with a bit of a background in hydrogeology here:

The issue isn't a total net gain/loss of water on Earth. The issue is ground water. If you're in an arid region, chances are your water is coming from ground water aquifers. Aquifers flow extremely slowly, and also recharge extremely slowly. The water in today's aquifers took thousands of years to build up to the levels they are at today, but we are pumping them much faster than they naturally recharge. And since the Earth and humanity are both very dynamic, chances are the water you created from burning that fuel won't actually condense back into rain water anywhere near where it was extracted. Especially since we pipe oil and gas all over the country.

Another issue is that as you draw water from an aquifer, the sediments that make it up tend to compact tighter together, and the land above it starts to subside and sink. Once the aquifer compacts, it will never go back to it's pre-compacted state. The storage capacity of the aquifer is permanently reduced, and it will never be able to hold as much water as it did before.

Whether or not the fracking is impacting your ground water levels depends on a lot of things - how much water they're bringing in to a site, how many sites there are, whether or not you're in a water shortage with already excessive ground water pumping, etc...

This is such a big issue that before California completed it's extensive surface-water canal system, some areas were sinking by feet per year. Here's perhaps one of the most famous images of it. The tags show where the base of that pole was located at that given year. The land sunk over 30 feet between 1925-1977

Last edited by Lead Head; 12-10-2016 at 07:32:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lead Head For This Post:
  #9  
Old 12-10-2016, 06:03:21 PM
akuna akuna is online now
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 155
Thanked 730 Times in 572 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Nice picture. I doubt the pole is in the ground far enough to show the ground sinking 30 feet.

I also like that it is in a farmers field. Only better place would be a golf coarse to show total waist of water. No way you need that much grass for such a small ball. Farmers at least produce something important to humanity as well as nectar for bees.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-10-2016, 06:46:14 PM
Glenn Ayers Glenn Ayers is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bethany, West Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,265
Thanks: 1,398
Thanked 1,414 Times in 585 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Yeh ... whatta crockashit. Poles that were put in the ground 30 ft.
Gullible much ?
Besides that ... the pole would have sunk along with the ground it was stuck in.
Geeeze.


.
__________________
Calling a Spade a Heart is the current State of the World
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-10-2016, 07:08:29 PM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,044
Thanks: 38
Thanked 469 Times in 309 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Read what I said more carefully: "The tags show where the base of that pole was located at that given year. The land sunk over 30 feet between 1925-1977".

The pole sunk with ground. The tags on the pole should where the ground surface - or the base of the pole WAS in those particular years. It's not a "crockashit" as you say. It's such a big issue that they've been carefully monitoring the ground surface movement in the San Joaquin Valley since the 1920s. Back before anyone cared about the environment. As early as the 1950s and 60s they were setting up extensometers and large spirit-level networks to track the land subsidence. It's so severe you can actually track the subsidence with GPS and see it from space with sensitive satellites. The subsidence tracks ground water usage and aquifer levels. Years with heavy rains and lots of surface water have far less subsidence since there is more aquifer recharge, and far less ground water pumping. Dry years see significant land subsidence.

The reason it's in a farmer's field, is because the San Joaquin Valley is a huge geographic area dominated by farmland, with very intense water demands on the local aquifers. You could try doing the same thing at a golf course, but you wouldn't see any change. You need large-scale pumping over an entire aquifer to see major land subsidence. In the 1960s, almost 1/4 of the entire U.S's pumped irrigation water was coming from this one area in California. They pumped enough water to drop the aquifer water levels over 150 feet.

This isn't some made up thing. It causes significant issues, since underground pipes, surface water canals, etc... are constantly buckling and breaking in the area. This is honestly one of the few large-scale environmental changes the average person could check for themselves. You can measure it yourself. Go pick up an old second-hand transit, put it on a known non-moving benchmark somewhere just outside the San Joaquin valley and shoot a measurement to something inside of it. Come back a year later, and you'll find that the point you measured is now ~6-14 inches lower than it was.

Here's a great page from the USGS on the issue. No BS, no nonsense. Just facts and figures about the land subsidence, the aquifer water levels and how they linked it to excessive ground water pumping. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/ce...in-valley.html

Last edited by Lead Head; 12-10-2016 at 07:39:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lead Head For This Post:
  #12  
Old 12-10-2016, 08:43:46 PM
Ken Karrow Ken Karrow is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 905
Thanks: 615
Thanked 463 Times in 313 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Thanks for the interest. In the area I was referring to most of the water is last winter's snow in the mountains stored in resivors until needed. The people objecting were quite specific in stating that the water is lost forever.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-10-2016, 11:59:01 PM
akuna akuna is online now
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 155
Thanked 730 Times in 572 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

California has real stupid water rules.

Interesting in one post we are told it takes for ever to recharge ground water, and in the next, if it rains lots the ground does not sink.

Aquifers cover large areas. Pumping water for a golf coarse, may be from the same aquifer. I am not familiar with California and can not wait for it to crack off and take all the crazy people with it towards Hawaii. Or better yet they vote to leave.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to akuna For This Post:
  #14  
Old 12-11-2016, 02:08:44 AM
Vanman Vanman is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mission Viejo, California
Posts: 2,846
Thanks: 3,329
Thanked 1,164 Times in 797 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

I've been wanting to leave this wretched place for all of my adult life. That hasn't been in the cards yet, but hopefully soon. When I heard about this stupid state seceding it made me very happy! Let me leave first, then let these idiots leave our county! Then elections will no longer be such a close race between the moochers and the producers.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-11-2016, 04:29:18 AM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,044
Thanks: 38
Thanked 469 Times in 309 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Quote:
Originally Posted by akuna View Post
California has real stupid water rules.

Interesting in one post we are told it takes for ever to recharge ground water, and in the next, if it rains lots the ground does not sink.

Aquifers cover large areas. Pumping water for a golf coarse, may be from the same aquifer. I am not familiar with California and can not wait for it to crack off and take all the crazy people with it towards Hawaii. Or better yet they vote to leave.
Please actually try reading my posts before you comment. You're embarassing yourself.

I quite clearly said that during years of heavy rain, there is more surface water available, so less ground water is pumped. During these years, the amount of land subsidence decreases. Dry years with little surface water and extensive pumping have lots of subsidence.

California has "stupid water rules" because they use an unsustainable amount of ground water. They simply don't get enough surface water to meet their demands so they have to pump. California produces half of the Country's fruits and vegetables, and is only behind Texas in livestock products. That kind of production requires an immense amount of water.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lead Head For This Post:
  #16  
Old 12-11-2016, 02:40:12 PM
akuna akuna is online now
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 155
Thanked 730 Times in 572 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Head View Post
Please actually try reading my posts before you comment. You're embarassing yourself.

I quite clearly said that during years of heavy rain, there is more surface water available, so less ground water is pumped. During these years, the amount of land subsidence decreases. Dry years with little surface water and extensive pumping have lots of subsidence.

California has "stupid water rules" because they use an unsustainable amount of ground water. They simply don't get enough surface water to meet their demands so they have to pump. California produces half of the Country's fruits and vegetables, and is only behind Texas in livestock products. That kind of production requires an immense amount of water.
Your Quote. "Years with heavy rains and lots of surface water have far less subsidence since there is more aquifer recharge, and far less ground water pumping. Dry years see significant land subsidence."

I see Aquifer Recharge in your quote.

Other states have little surface water. They have reasonable water rules.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2016, 03:12:00 PM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,044
Thanks: 38
Thanked 469 Times in 309 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Quote:
Originally Posted by akuna View Post
Your Quote. "Years with heavy rains and lots of surface water have far less subsidence since there is more aquifer recharge, and far less ground water pumping. Dry years see significant land subsidence."

I see Aquifer Recharge in your quote.
You're purposely twisting my words into what you want them to be. Yes, years with heavier rains will have more recharge, but it's small compared to the amount being pumped. The recharge by itself would not be enough to stop the subsidence. It's the reduced pumping.
Quote:
Other states have little surface water. They have reasonable water rules.
...and other states do not use as much water as California does. California's huge industry and immense agriculture has tremendous water demand. California produces 50% of the nations fruits and vegetables, and that requires a TON of water.

California represents 11% of the entire country's water usage. That's as much water as Indiana, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Montana and Virginia COMBINED. California needs those strict water rules because they use so much water compared to everyone else. Without those rules in place, you'd have HUGE issues.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2016, 06:13:05 PM
akuna akuna is online now
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 155
Thanked 730 Times in 572 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

California's crazy rules comment is not in reference to strict rules. It is about crazy rules.

Done, does not have much to do with original question.

Last edited by akuna; 12-11-2016 at 07:35:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2016, 07:20:34 PM
Lead Head Lead Head is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,044
Thanks: 38
Thanked 469 Times in 309 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

You have not elaborated as to what makes their rules crazy
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2016, 08:34:12 PM
Ken Karrow Ken Karrow is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 905
Thanks: 615
Thanked 463 Times in 313 Posts
Default Re: Water produced in combustion

Careful guys or we will be over in smoke, flames and gas. For the record I was talking about Colorado which has lots of water laws, most of them old. However the "lost forever" comments were coming out of the front range which is getting Californicated. I am glad to have left, the freedom of retirement is wonderful.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

F o r u m Jump

Similar Threads Chosen at Random
Thread Thread Starter F o r u m Replies Last Post
Onan RV unit no power produced hiboyford Onan Generators 2 06-21-2011 09:03:57 PM
What companies produced 6hp engines? Casemaker Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 26 02-27-2011 12:19:42 AM
What mass produced engine was the most dependable Brian Lynch Antique Gas Engine Discussion 54 10-29-2009 03:52:13 PM
Engine ID/ years produced lmm1968 Antique Gas Engine Discussion 3 09-18-2008 08:04:02 AM
Generator Dates Last Produced L. Brander Generators & Motors General Discussion 5 06-24-2006 02:38:44 AM


Use "Ctrl" mouse wheel to change screen size.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29:10 PM.

Smokstak and Enginads site search!


All use is subject to our TERMS OF SERVICE
SMOKSTAK® is a Registered Trade Mark - A Community of Antique Engine Enthusiasts
Copyright © 2000 - 2016 by Harry Matthews P.O. Box 5612 - Sarasota, FL 34277