Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Shaw
It depends on the source they use to make the methanol. If it comes from vegetable sources, like the "wood alcohol" my racer uncles used to refer to, the green mafia wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because the CO2 emission is virtually zero. Methanol made from natural gas and coal would be a different story. None though have to be obtained through foreign sources, which currently is the point being used to drive this issue.
Jerry
|
Well. . . . . Ideally, the products of perfect combustion are CO2 and water, regardless of whether the fuel is gasoline, ethanol or methanol. That is why the Greens don't have a leg to stand on with any of their arguments. Just like the contention that electric cars don't pollute. They sure do, and not even considering what has to be done to make the cars and the batteries. The batteries have to be charged from some kind of source. Most electricity in this country is produced by burning hydrocarbons. When that battery is charged up, it is burning fuel to do it. And less efficiently, since there are line losses between the power plant and the outlet, losses in charging the battery, etc.
Wind, solar and hydroelectric sources will never be able to replace the energy contained in fossil fuels. It just isn't possible. It would take one average wind generator over eighty years to produce enough energy to replace one single day's import of crude oil. Not one single day's energy consumption, just one single day's amount of imported crude.
It is too bad that ******** has corrupted science.
There. I am done. Sorry about that, but there was this soapbox here, and I just had to get on it for a minute or two.