Fran <Fran.Beta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
It's only ever going to be a way of diluting petrol to reduce the
volume of crude required. While 100% ethanol is theoretically
possible, in reality it won't happen.
> 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.
I believe that biomass producing methane, then polymerising that methane
into propane makes a lot more sense. Once it's pure propane, it goes
into existing infrastructure and technology without any problem at all.
A year or two ago, I even had a letter published in a US magazine
suggesting exactly that. :-)
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
|
