still just me wrote:
> 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).
Yup, and I will make sure I don't use it knowingly.
:-)
Charles
--
Please remove _removeme_ to reply.
|
