Not exact matches
A 5 percent
ethanol solution was no
more effective than water at cutting the
burn.
«Fueled with mostly
ethanol, these race cars
burn more fuel cleanly and release mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor into the air,» said Mathur.
From the atmosphere's point of view, growing biomass to
burn in a power plant and using the electricity to move a car avoids 10 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per acre, or 108 percent
more emission offsets than
ethanol.
The gasoline also did contain some hydrogen that
burned to form water, so the 3:1 ratio Jeff references probably was for gasoline (not containing
ethanol) but adjusted for the mass content of the hydrogen in the gasoline and is likely
more accurate than the 3.67 ratio of carbon to carbon dioxide masses.
And the researchers deliberately excluded CO2 emissions from
burning the
ethanol in car engines, making their findings of a net increase in GHG's even
more damning.
An analysis by the American Solar Energy Society indicates that
burning cellulosic crops to directly generate electricity is much
more efficient than converting them to
ethanol.
A new study shows that
burning crops such as corn and switchgrass to create electricity to power electric vehicles would actually yield
more transportation miles than turning those crops into
ethanol.
Ethanol reduces c02 slightly but
burns with a lot
more polluting solids as found by testing recently, it also clogs motors and catalyic converters and produces nitros oxide which is a lot worse and that is smog,
more lies, c02 is essential for every living thing on the planet not a pollutant.
Researchers found that
burning biomass to produce electricity for electric vehicles would produce 81 percent
more transportation miles than using the same crops to produce
ethanol.