Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
It's not. If you don't make your biofuel same as fuel your engine designed for, it just will not work. You just have to make nearly same chemical composition of your fuel. Same composition obviously gives same emissions.
It's the first.
The second is that most part of overall ICE emissions is water and CO2. Water is harmless and it does not matter. And CO2 is helping us to return normal warm and stable greenhouse Earth climate as in eocene when the Earth was literally green from pole to pole and all surface was suitable for comfortable life. So, emissions are really good thing, and not a reason to reduce them or care about fuel economy.
The problem with biofuel is that you need a lot of land to produce decent amount. And to make more land available we need more emissions to establish greenhouse effect that will make deserts and frosen land in high latitudes available for agriculture. Egg and chicken problem.
Yawn, that's mind control.
Real simple Chuck. Biofuel is more dense than diesel after conversion.
What are you converting, not the Amazon, surely? Growing stuff to burn like another forest fire? Except you done that how many times. First you felled the Amazon, then you grew fields of crops requiring resources, transporting them to a refinery converting it. Then you burnt it again. About 3 to 5 times more.
What about if you cooked it first?
It is a bad, not useable biofuel. Typical car or tractor diesel engine will not work on "more dense" fuel. Just because high pressure pump, injectors, cylinder pressure developed and tuned for normal diesel fuel and not for "more dense" one. To make your engine run on biofuel you have to fit your biofuel parameters to the parameters of usual diesel. And as you do it, it will not differ from regular diesel.
There exists diesel engines that was developed to work on wide range of fuels, but they never was used in cars or tractors. Mostly it was used in expensive and large diesel generators, that is definitely not the case.
Seems you never experimented yourself with running diesel engine on something else.
Even gasoline engines, that could run on gasoline, LPG methane and even wooden gas, demand the specific mixture preparation device for each kind of fuel.
Why do you need to fell Amazon in the first place? And how? You have a land, you want to get a fuel, independently from corporations. why the hell you need to travel half a globe to fell Amazon to seed your field with oily plants?
And what is wrong with burning grown plants? You just release what plants you grow collected during grow, nothing else. There will be zero emissions, really.
Diesel is denser than unleaded, unleaded than rocket fuel. Biofuel is denser than diesel. Emiting more than its counterpart even with the catalytic convertors.
German, UK buses running on biofuel, because diesel was outlawed, are buying sugar cane, soy, maize from Brazil to convert into biofuel. Okay but to grow stuff, you deforest first, turning woodland scrubland marshland peatland into farmland. Farmland needed to grow ethanol, etc, not naming them all, based crops for biofuel, now that the demand has peaked by the mind control. It is then converted into biofuel and burnt in your engine. Or likewise, worse, if it converted the fat from your fryer. You done the above, growing stuff consuming it, cooking it, then took waste made it into fuel and burn burn burn more than any fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are already recycled the planet did that, they come from decayed plant and animal matter, yes also refined. It is much less than biofuel by every comparison. Except you got your idiot badge from the Greta scouts, use ethanol. So renewable. Burn burn burn.
Every time there's the huge forest fires, the carbon released into the atmosphere is often far more than our man made equivalents. Yes they are also natural and some have good affects. Burn it, it grows back stronger. Fertile soil. But not today. Too many negative affects from our man made habitats counter balance the natural cycle. Deforestation specifically, a lack of forest cover absorbing it, and instead causing temperature to steadily increase. Whether or not, we have no control over an inevitable planetary cycle occurring regardless, also due to many other factors occuring in the cosmos like the sun and planetary alignment.
You can't use unleaded in diesel engine, because density does not fit diesel engine specs. You can't use something denser than diesel by the same reason.
That dubmfucks do a lot of stupid things. Why should you care about that one? Next time they will mass kill pandas to "save the planet", so what?
None of ICE on market could run on ethanol. You could only use it as addition (no more than 25%, 10% without engine adjustments) to regular gasoline reducing efficiency. ICE for ethanol should be designed specially for it and will not be able to run on gasoline. Attempts to build such engines for casr are made from 1978 without any significant result.
It is a big question, really. Forest fires is not the only variable in equation. There is massive forestation process due to exiting from current ice age. The amount of forests that replaces tundra now could be larger than what we loose in fires and by human activity.