Is burning gasoline in the open as bad as dumping it?

Great Debates
1

Ok, this question came up in a GQ thread which was locked because someone (no need to point fingers here) got a bit to vehement about it and the whole classroom was punished with the locking of the thread. I believe the question is interesting and I want to raise it again with the hope that we can discuss it rationally.

My opinion, already stated in that thread is that dumping gasoline (or other petroleum products, organic solvents etc) to the environment is far worse than burning it because the initial product causes cancer and the products of the combustion do not.

My observations seem to corroborate this. Industries are not allowed to dump these products but are allowed to burn them. Why shouldn’t I do the same?

Home heating furnaces burn petroleum products pretty much like they would be brunt in the open air. What’s the big deal? If I burn a gallon of oil in my furnace it’s Ok but if I burn it in the yard it is not? What’s the difference?

I would like to hear from those who may have an opposing view. I will repeat the points I made in my last post in the thread which was closed and hope to hear the opinions of those who have an opposite view.

All I ask is that you keep it civil so we can discuss this without having this thread locked.

Point 1

You have not answered my point about CO2 being “toxic” as you now prefer to call it. By your definition of toxic, every single substance in the universe except molecular oxigen O2 is “toxic” as it does what CO2 does: it takes the place of oxigen and the body can’t get the oxigen it needs. I do not think anyone would consider this definition valid.

By this definition nitrogen, which forms 70% of our atmosphere, is also poisonous. If you increase the percentage of nitrogen and reduce that of oxigen, you end up not being able to breathe.

OTOH I would guess that in an atmosphere where half the nitrogen had been replaced with carbon dioxide and which still retained the 20 or 21% (or whatever it is) oxigen you could live quite comfortably.

But in an atmosphere 95% nitrogen and 5% oxigen you could not. That does not make nitrogen toxic or poisonous.

Please comment on the above. (Carbon monoxide is, very toxic, BTW.)
Point 2:

Ok, so your main contention is that burnt and unburnt gasoline are just as toxic and by burning we are just diluting the effects. Let me try to create a situation which I think defines well the gist of this and ask for your answers:

(A) Suppose in a classroom in a school there are 40 children. Some work was done and the workers left some rags in the room soaked in kerosene. This kerosene is evaporating at the rate of a quart a day and filling the room with kerosene fumes which the children are breathing.

(B) Suppose another classroom has a kerosene lamp which burns kerosene at the rate of two quarts a day and the children are breathing the CO2 and water vapor resulting from it.

Would you say the correct answer is
(1) B is much more unhealthy because of the greater amount of kerosene involved
(2) B is more unhealthy because of the greater amount of kerosene involved
(3) They are about the same
(4) A is a bit more unhealthy because it is kerosene they are breathing rather than the products of its combustion
(5) A is much more unhealthy because kerosene vapor are much more unhealthy than the products of their combustion

What is your answer to this?

Can you tell me if there any laws banning the burning of kerosene lamps or parafine candles in enclosed places? I remind you they sell non vented kerosene heaters at Kmart as well as kerosene lamps. If you were actually breathing the kerosene rather than the products of the combustion, you’d probably get cancer faster than lab mice.

OTOH I am quite certain there are regulations which would not allow people working in places with high concentrations of petroleum vapors of any kind.

I am using Kerosene as an example but any petroleum product would be just as good. Use gasoline in the example if you prefer.
Point 3: Let me present another problem:

I often collect diesel fuel from the bilges of my boat. I know for a fact that if I were to dump this on the Chesapeake Bay, the Coast Guard and the State of Maryland would be all over me and I would get a BIG fine, plus cleanup costs plus jail if I had done it on purpose. Cases have been documented of the Coast Guard abusing some poor guy who spilled a small quantity and called the CG to ask what he should do about it. The CG slapped him with a huge fine and endless litigation which goes to show you the stupidity of econazism.

Now, can you tell me what law says I cannot take that fuel and burn it in the open? I do not believe there is one. I would like to hear your take on that too.
Point 4: I am quite certain charcoal briquettes used in barbacues produce way, way more carbon monoxide and other harmful, cancerigenous, stuff than burning straight fuel. I believe this is common knowledge but I am willing to find cites in support. Do you agree or dispute this?

If you agree, how do you justify not banning charcoal briquettes?

2

sailor wrote:

While perfect combustion results in only CO[sub]2[/sub] and H[sub]2[/sub]O, burning petroleum products out in the open will produce anything but perfect combustion. We get carbon monoxide, partially-combusted hydrocarbons, NO[sub]2[/sub], ozone, and – if you include diesel fuel among “other petrolem products” – diesel soot, benzene, and formaldehyde.

Ya can’t tell me that diesel soot, benzene, and formaldehyde don’t cause cancer. Or that the other incomplete-combusion products don’t cause things even worse than cancer.

3

A few comments from someone who is ex-oilfield trash; sorry I cannot provide specific cites for this, but I believe materials on the DOE web site will back up these points:

  1. First, why would anyone want to dump gasoline anyway, especially at prices approaching $2.00/gallon in the USA?
    If it is, for example, contaminated with solids or water, these can extracted relatively easily. Other refined hydrocarbons may be less attractive commercially, but the above generally applies for other compounds as well.

  2. Off the top of my head the main problem with dumping of hydrocarbons at or near surface is the possible contamination of groundwater used for drinking or irrigation. Effectively the majority of the mass of dumped hydrocarbon of would contribute to the contamination. If the hydrocarbons are reinjected into deep strata (below ground water levels), however, this is effectively a matter of returning them from whence they came. There are many thousands of depleted oil and gas wells worldwide where this could be done.

  3. If the waste product is burned, the majority of the hydrocarbon mass will be converted to CO2 and water vapor; some small proportion will remain unburned, and any contaminants already present MAY be dispersed, along with some additional contaminants formed by the combustion process. Nevertheless, since the total mass of these contaminants is likely to be much less than 1% of the original mass, burning will be inherently less polluting than dumping at surface, even if the contaminants are dispersed more widely by wind action.

  4. The vast majority of the earth’s carbon supply is locked up in rocks formed of calcium carbonate (limestones). These limestones, BTW, are almost entirely of organic origin. The amount of carbon in recoverable hydrocarbons (which took many millions of years to accumulate) is a miniscule fraction of the total carbon supply.

My personal view is that as the human population increases, the potential reduction of natural CO2 “scrubbers” (such as land vegetation and oceanic plankton) through displacment by civilization probably will have a greater long-term effect than the relatively rapid depletion of the accumulated hydrocarbon mass, which is unlikely to continue beyond the next few decades, at current usage rates.

Incidently, re: this comment:

Actually, if the O2 content were a few percentage points higher, the atmosphere would be so severely reactive that life probably could not exist. Too much of a good thing, etc.

To summarize, burning is inherently less polluting than dumping at surface (although uncontrolled burning really should not be practiced), but the most appropriate method (and best for the environment) is reinjection of waste hydrocarbons. While there would be some extra cost involved, the cost of reinjection would likely be much less than the monetary costs of surface contamination, whether by dumping or burning.

Hope this helps.

4

everything causes cancer and is bad for you. That is not the question. the question is “if I have a quart of fuel I need to dispose of, how do these two options compare: (1) dumping it, (2) burning it”. That is the question.

As I pointed out in the other thread, and in the OP: Dumping even a small quantity of gasoline will get you in big trouble while burning it is perfectly legal.
Also, what is the difference between burning it in a furnace or burning it in the open?

And what is the difference between burning it in a car and burning it in the open?

5

Burning gasoline in the open is most definately not the same as burning it inside an internal combustion engine. In the engine, the oxygen-gasoline ratio can be carefully controlled to obtain a cleaner burn. Also, many of the harmful byproducts of the combustion can be modified by the catalytic converter.

Although not as clean as burning in an engine, burning in the open is not even comparable in environmental damage to dumping the gas in a river.

6

Cesium

>> Although not as clean as burning in an engine, burning in the open is not even comparable in environmental damage to dumping the gas in a river.

We agree totally and that is the major point of this thread. In the earlier thread which was closed ChasE was saying they are the same, the burning just dilutes the effect. In other words, it would be like taking the gas and spraying it very finely over a very big area.

That is the major point I am trying to make and you and I agree. There is a huge difference.

On your point about whether burning it in an egine pollutes more than burning it in the open we can discuss it and there are many variables. It is not the main point and i would not want to get mired in that but I will point out some things.

The purpose of the engine is to produce power. An excess of air would be better for a more perfect combustion but would decrease power. For this reason gasoline motors produce much higher levels of carbon Monoxide than you can have in an efficient open combustion. Also, notrous oxide is produced in the cylinder as a result of very high temperature and pressure which to not happen in an open combustion.

Rocket, the other thread started as a question of how to best dispose of a smal amount of contaminated fuel. We are not talking industrial quantities.

7

Yes, while your premise is true, let’s think a bit about a real open-air burn versus an IC engine burn.

An open air burn has what seems like a large level of mixing to it, but in fact would have a large amount of turbulence and uneven mixing. And a lack of containment and lower concentration of heat in the combustion process that IMO would lead to a much larger amount of CO prouced, and many more unburned hydrocarbons escaping to the atmosphere before they are fully burned. Also, the open air burn will likely have a lower temperature and thus be high on the Equilibrium reaction rate curve for CO, versus CO[sub]2[/sub], production.

You are correct completely about the lack of NO[sub]x[/sub] production in the open-air burn scenario.

An IC engine is concerned mainly with power, but also does have specific CO, HC, and NO[sub]x[/sub] requirements to meet as well.
But like you said, this is a side issue.