Remember when I said there's naught difference in the tail-pipe emissions? That's because no matter if we're burning gas or E85 we've really got the tail-pipe to CO2, water and some trace compounds for aroma.
The engineers had essentially won the emissions war.
Notice that the debate changes from ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur, etc. and becomes a debate about how much carbon dioxide is emitted once we have sequential multi-port fuel injection and cars that have 436 horsepower getting 30 miles per gallon? To put that in perspective, my '79 Camaro (not emissions legal) got 16 miles per gallon and put out about 200 hp; '86 Civic got 40 mpg, but only had 60 hp and the '91 Biscayne with a '95 engine gets 21 mpg with an output of 250 hp.
EDIT:
The pic is from a 34 mile run from a friend's place to home, almost all interstate running the speed limit.
Do you see the progression?
The irritating thing about this entire, tiresome, debate is that the solution is always the same; no more burning fossil fuels. Since the gas crisis in the early seventies, how many problems have arose where the solution was to stop burning? It's always the same people and organizations finding the problems too. That makes me suspicious.
We had one, count them, one incident with a nuclear reactor in this country. In that incident, the safety systems worked and there was no catastrophe. Compare and contrast Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. Three Mile Island killed nuclear power here because the environmentalists latched onto the accident and got outstandingly sympathetic press.
Step one: Tell the greenies to shut up, fuck off, and get them out of the way.
Step two: Fission baby!
Step three: Use the energy produced to make gas.
Step four: Burn baby burn!
The Germans were making gasoline from scratch in WW2. It's not efficient. We start doing it on a larger scale, we will learn more about the process and then we can refine and improve upon it. What manufacturing gasoline from scratch does is change is from an energy source to a method of energy storage. Other advantages should appear too; this will be very pure gasoline with hardly any of the contaminants found in natural petroleum. Synthetic motor oil has discovered this as well.
It's been said that if gasoline didn't exist, we would have to invent it. I think that's true. It's easily transported, stored, and transferred. It has an amazing energy density. All we have to do is admit that CO2 is not Sarin and let people burn it.
Comments
28th-Aug-2010 03:04 am (local) ravenclaw_eric
I believe you, if only because my brother, who works as an engineer, says the same things.
28th-Aug-2010 09:33 am (local) fuzzy_geff
Bonus fun points: in order to make gasoline, we have to get carbon from somewhere. If we take it from anywhere in the carbon cycle, we're still reducing CO2 emissions, just like the greenies say they want.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.