On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:09:28 +0000, johannes
<johs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Yes I know. So I didn't look at any adverts. The article is full of
>Bo****cs. Firstly, the car is hardly Swedish, that was a thing of the
>past. Turbo charging a smallish petrol engine as a means of improving
>efficiency is now much more common these days, almost every manufacturer
>have small engined turbo cars: VW TSI, Fiat T-Jet, Renault TCE; they're
>all at it these days.
>
>The idea that bio-fuel is "carbon neutral" is also suspect. Yes, I know
the
>standard green argument that because the bio-fuel comes from plants which
>absorbs CO2, it doesn't add CO2 to the atmosphere.
>
>But wait a minute...! Plants absorb CO2 from all combustion engines, not
just
>the bio-fuelled engines. The plants can't distinguish the source of the
CO2.
>The CO2 volume coming out of the exhaust of a bio-fuel engine is no less
than
>the CO2 from any other combustion engine. Since most engines run on
non-bio,
>it follows logically that most of the CO2 which is trapped by plants, is
from
>non-bio fuelled engines.
>
>In other words, if the bio-fuel is claimed to be carbon neutral, then
fossil
>fuels should be *****sed with a considerable CO2 discount, since the
plants
>absorbs CO2 also from that source.
>
>Furthermore, production process of bio-fuel require high energy input;
that
>is CO2 from one source or another.
Bio-fuel is not the panacea once thought. Governments worldwide have
realized this and started to put various programs on hold or stop them
all together.
Not only are the problems you cited there, but it's resulting in
reduced food for consumption and higher food costs to poor countries
as well as additional destruction of rain forests for farming
(furthering the CO2 problem).
|
