CO2 continues rising, N2O continues rising and its impact is about one-third of CO2 overall, Methane, however, has stabilized and is falling.
Posted on 09/22/2007 6:13:26 AM PDT by LoneStarGI
All plant life is rich in Nitrogen. So all bio fuels that are burned have a chemical reaction that consist of many things such as H20, CO, CO2, NO2. For example, Natural gas will put out less CO2 than coal; however natural gas puts out much more NO2 than coal.
This is the first I heard NO2 was a greenhouse gas. I thought the concern was NO3, which is theorized to be a carcinogen. That is why compression ratios were turned down in gas engines in the 1970's and diesel engines recently have had exhaust modification to reduce NO3.
However, personally, I do not trust any of these studies and can't keep up with the new dooms day theory of the day. Oh, and ethanol is a boondoggle
Thanks for the figures. Is the figure for gasoline representative of regular unleaded or the 10% ethanol?
Gasoline: 1 Gal Gasoline (mid grade) = 125,000 Btu's Ethanol: 1 Gal Ethanol = 76,000 Btu's
Another showed the difference to be less than 4,000 Btu's. So I guess we have a wide range of opinion on how much work one can get from a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline vs. a gallon of ethanol (10%).
Ideally, but the study was more concerned with the additional amounts of oxides of nitrogen put into the atmosphere.
NOX concerns began over the relative ease with which the oxides could lose atoms of oxygen during hot, sunny days which mixed with other pollutants tending to form ground-level ozone - smog.
125 is a good number. N2FO can be 130-135. Reclaimed lube oil at 25 API is about 138-140. My biz is in the heavies (a man’s barrel.)
Unfortunately, here in NE you can't tell the corn farmers that. They are ecstatic about the price per bushel they're getting for corn now, and it seems like there is an ethanol plant sprouting up near every town.
Compiled from Jack Herer.com
HEMP as Fuel:
Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America’s energy needs.
1
Hemp is Earth’s number-one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months. 1
Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Pyrolysis (charcoalizing), or biochemical composting are two methods of turning hemp into fuel.
2
Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution.
The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming.
And for the dolts out there who think you can get high from this form of hemp.......you can’t!
Since man made global warming is a myth to start with we don't need a "panacea" for oil. What we do need is more drilling in the US and someone to work on a way to make Hydrogen a viable fuel source, not to offset global warming, which does not exist, but to take the place of oil when it runs out, which it has to do sooner or later. Get your brain fixed, it obviously needs it if you believe in global warming.
CO2 continues rising, N2O continues rising and its impact is about one-third of CO2 overall, Methane, however, has stabilized and is falling.
bttt
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I have tried to make the same point; the energy used to grow and make the fuel HAS to be less than the energy obtained in order for any alternative fuel to allow energy independence to happen.
If the energy balance is negative, then energy independence will not happen and we will dig a deeper hole. We may as well use the fossil fuels directly for what the biofuels being made are intended since in that case we will be further ahead.
Whenever anyone suggests the energy balance of biofuels may not favorable, they are shot down as disciples of Pimintel without discussion.
Pimintel claims that the energy used to make the machinery (etc) used to create the fuel must be included in the energy balance and his detractors say that is not valid since this is activity that is not included in the energy balance for fossil fuels.
This is a point I am not certain about but am very interested in. I can't help but to think that biofuel production and the industry that supports it is like a big energy perpetual motion machine that will eventually use more energy than it creates, ultimately coming to a screeching halt. There are some very smart people on both sides of this issue and I am not sure which side is correct. I'd like to see biofuels make sense, but I think the bandwagon is a bit premature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.