Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565786

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    That is freaking awesome!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,922
    Thanks (Given)
    24213
    Thanks (Received)
    17726
    Likes (Given)
    9886
    Likes (Received)
    6356
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar4321 View Post
    That is freaking awesome!
    Yes, it sounds great and here today! You read the article, props for you!

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565786

    Default

    if i had money and if this was accurate, i would so invest in this company.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia!
    Posts
    11,822
    Thanks (Given)
    744
    Thanks (Received)
    677
    Likes (Given)
    1151
    Likes (Received)
    831
    Piss Off (Given)
    24
    Piss Off (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1203904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    I've disliked ethanol for a variety of reasons, the largest having to do with food supplies when it became in demand. The impact is already being felt.

    What was new in this article was the reality of producing the ethanol, with yard and crop waste, not corn or soybeans, with less energy needed and producing cleaner ethanol.
    I noticed that and that would be a big plus.
    UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION

    Above the Best

    Why the Hell should I have to press “1” for ENGLISH?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200647

    Default

    It looks like they can make hydrogen as well.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,922
    Thanks (Given)
    24213
    Thanks (Received)
    17726
    Likes (Given)
    9886
    Likes (Received)
    6356
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    It looks like they can make hydrogen as well.
    For sure. Problem with that is changing the US fleet of cars and trucks. I think it will happen, but that will take a long time.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    For sure. Problem with that is changing the US fleet of cars and trucks. I think it will happen, but that will take a long time.
    Bigger prob is that the byproduct is CO2. Looks like nukes are still the answer there.

    Also: the 33% reduction in milegae is close with flex fuel cars, based on my experience with an '04 Explorer. Engines can, however, be designed to run more efficienty on etahnol, due to its much higher octane. Its done now with certain classes of race cars. So the 33% reduction can be reduced somewhat.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,922
    Thanks (Given)
    24213
    Thanks (Received)
    17726
    Likes (Given)
    9886
    Likes (Received)
    6356
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glockmail View Post
    Bigger prob is that the byproduct is CO2. Looks like nukes are still the answer there.

    Also: the 33% reduction in milegae is close with flex fuel cars, based on my experience with an '04 Explorer. Engines can, however, be designed to run more efficienty on etahnol, due to its much higher octane. Its done now with certain classes of race cars. So the 33% reduction can be reduced somewhat.
    This is supposed to be cleaner than what is currently being used, more importantly leaves food chain stuff alone and uses less energy to produce. Nuclear is a way long ways away from production in cars.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks (Given)
    177
    Thanks (Received)
    680
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1200647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    This is supposed to be cleaner than what is currently being used, more importantly leaves food chain stuff alone and uses less energy to produce. Nuclear is a way long ways away from production in cars.
    Commercial nukes to make electricity to make hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen in vehicles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums