The best solution so far is Natural Gas of which methane constitues up
to 90%.
This is how various fules are listed in term of efficiency/greenhouse
effect.
H is Hydrogen and it is what burns. C is cabron and it is what should
contribute to the greenhouse effect
Methane is C1H4, (ratio H/C = power/greenhouse effect is 4/1=4)
gasoline is C8H18, (ratio H/C = power/greenhouse effect is 18/8=2,25)
Diesel is C16H34 (ratio H/C = power/greenhouse effect is 34/16=2,12)
Biodiesel is C19 H36 O2, (ratio H/C = power/greenhouse effect is
36/19=1,89)
When you burn either coal or biodiesel you anyway produce CO2 and that
should be responsible for the global warming. I read that there are
studies about what they call 'clean coal' and they are aimed at
increasing the efficiency of burning it or at ways to avoid introducing
CO2 in the atmosphere. I heard of projects about hiding it somewhere
below the ground or mixing it with other elements.
Biodiesel appears to be good because it is not a fossil fuel and so can
be produced, but anyway it produces the same CO2 as normal diesel (or
more). The difference is that they claim that the plant has absorbed
some CO2 when it was in the field and it is giving it back when you
burn it.
Anyway, producing it, needs processes that will pollute in some way and
you are not giving the nutriment back to the ground. Since it seems
that most fertilizers are made with fossil fuels, it would be amazing
nonsense to
use fossil fuels to fertilize land where we grow crops to be used as
biodiesel.
It is utopia to think that we can plant enough crops for biodiesel
production because of the amount of
land needed and other problems that would come from deforestation
(imagine planting crops in brazil (where they do a lot with methanole
already) in the amazon forest).
It is an interesting idea to reuse better some waste, but it should not
be thought as nothing more than a marginal solution.
I think that our future with fuels may lie in many small solutions
rather than in 'the' solution.
During the war in Italy they used to run cars on gas made burning wood
(the device was called 'gassogeno' or gas generator). If we started
doing the same we would soon destroy the forests, as it happened in the
16th century in england, when a huge amount of forests were burned to
produce the coal needed for the steel industry.
Massimo Portolani
On 17/mag/05, at 19:31, Michael Perelman wrote:
Clean coal is a joke. They just spray crap on the coal, which does
nothing, & then claim
an enormous tax break. David Cay Johnson discusses it. Also
Democracy Now did a feature
on it.
Bio-diesel has some potential, but it means that organic matter does
not go back to the
soil. It is much better than burning the rice stubble, which pollutes
the air in N.
California.
But now that GE is going green, everything will be nice.
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:19:41AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
do any pen-pals have any specific knowledge about "clean" fuels such
as bio-diesel and "clean" coal? do they help moderate global warming?
other kinds of pollution?
--
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
