Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to
mean anything.

Earle

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
>
> > I can believe the emissions
> >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure
> >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better.
>
>
> Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel
> has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced
> doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because
> they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway).
> Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is
> called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl
> alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market
> and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87
> octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with
> a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it
> at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular
> diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer
> greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based
> fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of
> it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold
> the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in
> its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol
> having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out
> needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as
> they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass
> production.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:

>Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
>counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to
>mean anything.


Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
"cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
term answer.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:

>Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
>counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to
>mean anything.


Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
"cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
term answer.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:

>Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
>counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to
>mean anything.


Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
"cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
term answer.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:

>Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
>counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to
>mean anything.


Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
"cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
term answer.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
> >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them
> >for it to mean anything.
>
>
> Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
> "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
> term answer.
> -----------------
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus"
natural gas.

Earle

 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
> >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them
> >for it to mean anything.
>
>
> Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
> "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
> term answer.
> -----------------
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus"
natural gas.

Earle

 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
> >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them
> >for it to mean anything.
>
>
> Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
> "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
> term answer.
> -----------------
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus"
natural gas.

Earle

 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:lq4243h8dn80qcfu28670umh146qqhrbdg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:03:10 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
> >counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them
> >for it to mean anything.
>
>
> Agreed but in all fairness they make a lot of green house gas
> "cracking" crude oil too. Realistically, growing fuel is not a long
> term answer.
> -----------------
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus"
natural gas.

Earle

 

"Earle Horton" <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:

> Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you
> are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of
> them for it to mean anything.

Gee, another "Inconvenient Truth" that Al forgot to mention. ;-)