Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Yes they're different engines. Not the point on if Biofuel is dense and often needs special conversions to run.
Ethanol isn't very efficient, requiring and here's that profit, twice as much, by comparison, and neither are other Biofuels by every comparison, not naming all of them. Ethanol = gasoline, biodiesel = diesel. Biodiesel is far more corrosive, thicker/denser, kills your car even quicker but belief it is less toxic, and it is also less efficent. After factoring in the burn factor. It is more toxic. You deforested growing crops, and made waste for fuel. The planet already made it, with fossil fuels. Despite of any other slicks.
That is why to make the planet suitable for biofuel we have to burn all our fossil fuel, to release the carbon necessary for building plants that will cover all planet and make growing plants for biofuel reasonable.
Also, quality and efficiency of biofuel depends on refining and cracking process. You could get any necessary grade, including one that fits regular diesels. Also, it is not hard to convert ethanol to gasoline-like fuel using conversion on specific catalyst. All that crap with fuel incompatibility is just a money making on expensive engine conversions.
I made mistake in earlier replies on biodiesel. Where there was the partial confusion. Because I simply associated Biofuel as Biodiesel when comparing density with diesel. Biodiesel is thicker than diesel. Other Biofuels are different.
Crops require, deforestation, resources to grow and produce, they are completely fallible, but then are converted into fuel to burn. It defeats the very point of a push to use biofuels, lessening emissions.
How is your proposal more efficient at reducing less carbons and creating less pollution? Destroy the planet. Then we can get free gas like on Venus. I swear that's what happens if you burnt all our fossil fuels. First we got dig them all up.
Biofuels are literally another con. A badge for do-gooders who think they solved jackshit. Instead of paying another guy more. Despite of hypocritically recycling some waste, but in that cycle, they emit far more than their fossil fuel counterparts. The debate moves into toxicity, pollution. Reducing it, is foremost. I am not convinced by them. Like in the past Amazon example. Peak their demand now grow even more crops to use.
No they literally need engine conversions unless they're the standard of engine. There is biobutanol = butane gas, it needs no conversion to run in butane engines. These are different engines?
We need more carbon, not less. To return normal Earth climate and restore our green planet after last ice age we need 1000-2000ppm CO2 in atmosphere. Now we have only 300ppm.
No, because we haven't got the forest cover. If we had the forest cover it would mitigate absorbing the increased carbon instead of causing increasing warming.
Where there are smaller vegetation blooms due to the increased carbon. But they're not mitigating the carbon increase. The carbon increase at this point is increasingly planetary instead of man made. Natural release like the permafrost melting, natural disaster, oceans warming, the Amazon. We have simply exasperated it due to our habitats. Where we are warming rapidly.
We haven't got the forest cover because of our habitats, agriculture, urbanisation, and resource extraction and production. Forests take a long time to grow before they reduce carbons. Without mitigation our forests are simply increasing the carbon cycle. The fires, even the Amazon is causing increasing carbon now.