Re: Shell's 100-RON fuel - what actually is it?

Don Stauffer wrote:

> th wrote:
> > Don Stauffer wrote:
> > .
> >>
> > True, but as the fuel is mostly produced from plants absorbing CO2 the
> > net effect is almost zero. Compare with gasoline that uses a source
> > where the CO2 from the atmosphere was stored millions of years ago and
> > no CO2 is pumped back into the earth.
> >
>
> The problem I see is that ethanol is a double whammy.  Not only do you
> get CO2 from the combustion, but the fermentation itself also produces a
> lot of CO2.  I doubt if the extra corn you plant will absorb all of it.

Where do you think that carbon came from then ?


> There ARE other alternate fuels that do not require fermentation.  In
> this case maybe the growing DOES offset the combustion gases.  Again, I
> repeat that I am NOT against alternative fuels. But I think we must
> select the proper ones so that we do not worsen one problem when solving
> another.

Well, I reckon ethanol is handy step in the right direction. It *doesn't*
worsen anything - quite the reverse.

Graham