Damian Anderson wrote: >Hmm. If you run a car on compressed air, does it not take energy to >compress it? What do you run the compressor on? Gasoline?
Check the archives, it's all been discussed here a few times. >Also, if fossil fuel is from dinosaurs, is it not already bio fuel? From dinosaurs? Whatever gives you that idea? It comes from ancient, fossilized forests. Which means that, yes, it's biological in origin, but no, in the broadly accepted sense it's not a biofuel. Greg explained the difference a few days back: >Some people might argue that oil, coal and other petrochemical stocks are >derived from ancient biological sources, and so they might be included, but, >true BioFuels come from renewable sources, that do not add to the burden on >the atmosphere. Some people ask, " How can BioFuels be better for the >atmosphere, if you still burn them? ". It is simple, the carbon dioxide >(CO2 ), that is made when biofuels are burnt, recycles, back in the the plant >material which they came from. So, fossil fuel is a finite resource, not renewable, it pollutes, and it raises atmospheric CO2 levels - the CO2 in fossil fuels was sequestered from the atmosphere over a long period, hundreds of millions of years ago, and now we're releasing it all within a century, overloading the atmosphere. Biofuels are renewable, not pulluting or very much less polluting, and the CO2 released when burning them is part of the current biological cycle and is simply reabsorbed by growing plants. >There are those who say however that petroleum is primordial and that it >was created with the Earth itself. Do we really know the origin of >petroleum? I think the conventional explanation is satisfactory, despite various fringe theories which don't hold a lot of water (let alone oil)... not that it matters. >I was in Costco over the weekend and looked at the price of corn oil. It >was about $3.20 a gallon. If nature, or nature's God, has provided us >with a vast supply of naturally occurring petroleum, it seems like it >does not make economic sense to make bio fuels, even if you had no tax at >all. Even with the tax, gasoline is only $1.50 a gallon, and that is in >the middle of a crisis of the world oil supply because of the prospect >of another Gulf War and also the political crisis in Venezuela. So, >if there were no tax on gasoline, or a lot less, it would be even more >favorable than biofuels. It does not seem to make sense to do the >chemistry yourself when it has already been done for you, and there are >vast untapped resources of it sitting in the ground. If we ever run out >of petroleum, we can always still grow corn and turn it into corn oil >or alcohol to burn. But for now, both are economically a bad idea. This is pretty thorough-going nonsense, see my reply to your other poist. >It is analagous to turning lead into gold. It can be done today with our >knowledge of nuclear physics, but the cost of doing so is more than the >market price of gold. Why make gold when there is an abundant supply >sitting in the ground just waiting to be mined? > >There is virtue in not being dependant on Middle Eastern oil, mostly >because it is foolish to tie our national economy, and hence its security, >to a region of the world devoid of democracy and social justice, where >most of the countries are backward dictatorships. Even our "friends" >the Saudis, are a backward corrupt dictatorship. There's also a lot in the archives about this. You take a peculiarly American view that somehow leaves out of the whole equation the crucial effect US interest and interference, both official and corporate, have had on that whole region, and continues to have. Time and again the US has suppressed democratic initiatives there for the sake of Big Oil. Now when it starts to backfire on you you simply want to walk away from it all. Typical. Please check the archives before dragging up all the old arguments again that have already been dealt with. And please remember that there are list members here from all over the world, including the Arab countries, not just Americans - not even a majority of Americans. Keith Addison >Damian Anderson > > >On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, murdoch wrote: > > >There is a discussion group for the air car here: > >http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/mdiaircar/ > > > >I've always thought it was an interesting concept and I try to keep my > >eye on it, though they have not impressed me as really making progress > >yet in business. Perhaps they will yet. Their business model seems > >to be to franchise out their idea in some way. I'm not a fan of that. > > > >The air car was mentioned a few years ago in relation to trying to > >help Mexico City cure some of its air pollution problems (i.e., zero > >non-air emissions at the vehicle). > > > >As to the derivations of petroleum, I guess there could be some > >debate, but anyway, I just tend to think of all bio and other fuels > >outside of ground-sourced as "synthetic" insofar as they're made by > >man taking action to do some chemistry. > >-- >Damian J. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.unification.net Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
