In article <1210465743.962088@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
athol_SPIT_SPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> 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. :-)
>
Yes, but ****o mags don't count :-)
Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
|
