On May 10, 10:24=A0pm, the_dawggie <the_dawg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 10, 9:29 pm, "Michael C" <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:79a89f4e-f750-45fe-8802-ae563ff171c8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > Correct. It can be 100% plant produced, equipment to produce
> > > it can be run from it.
>
> > > Drilling dino juice out of the ground is still required as the
> > > world's vehicle fleet needs more than the green thing can
> > > produce. I could set myself up driving my truck around
> > > using only what I could produce from growing stuff, any
> > > 'lectric could come from the product or solar.
>
> > The real problem with plant based fuel is not the carbon but the
efficie=
ncy.
> > Apparently less than 1% of the energy that lands on the plants from
the =
sun
> > can be used to drive a car forward. Considering cars about 10%
efficient=
> > that's pretty bad. Solar panels and batteries are much more efficient.
>
> It is a slightly different thing. People need oil to cook their
> fatty foods in, the waste product will and does make a difference
> for biodiesel.
>
> You got a double usage in that. Agree as I typed there is not
> enough of it to power everyone's vehicle. Ethanol I think is a
> bit different - can it be made from waste products with the same
> efficiency?
Ethanol is unlikely to be the best choice, all things considered,
regrdless of choice of feedstock or production methods, but it's by no
means as poor as some anti-ethanol campaigners assert.
Making it from corn (apart from the waste residues) is dumb, but
raising it from biomass waste, or from algae or switchgrass or
miscanthus or even sugar cane is defencible. Butanol however is almost
certainly a better fit with the existing trans****t fleet.
Fran
|
