On Mar 11, 3:14 am, "djimbo" <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Peter Chant" <REMpete...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:7vdda5xvfc.ln2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Not that I expect Bob reads the newsgroup...
>
> > Pete
>
> Hi Pete.
> These spammers with their improbable claims are always good for a laugh
> though..
> I think the words 'UP TO' , as are now compulsory in all insurance adds,
is
> the give away here.
> It's long been known that there are small benefits to water injection
but
> the cons outweigh the pros.
>
> My favourite though was the magnet next to the fuel line that lined up
all
> the fuel molecules
> I almost bust my stictches with that one.. ;-)
>
> Djimbo.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Or ethanol - the US petrol-substitute. Except that each litre of
ethanol (usually made from corn) requires more than the energy-input
equivalent to a litre of petrol, to produce. Not to mention vast
amounts of water and big increases in the price of corn - with all
sorts of unpleasant consequences (and despoilation of vast areas of
marginal land as corn-growers try to increase the supply).
There is talk of making ethanol from waste - stuff like sawdust. But,
as far as I know, noone has produced a litre of ethanol from any
source where the energy balance is favourable.
And virtually all alternative fuel production seems to yield adverse
consequences in terms of vast water usage and pollution.
As with the failed anti-drug war, there are massive vested interests
anxious to perpetuate the myth that we are winning the war against oil-
dependence. We aren't - any more than putting one in every hundred US
citizens in gaol has had any significant effect on the volume of
consumption of illegal drugs.
I'd better stop before I get any further off topic!
|
