> Yes. Though eventually one viewpoint typically wins out over > the other.
As I am sure it will in this case too, eventually... > If you'd read the article you would have seen that both > Ethanol and Petrol production are currently net loss forms of > energy. They BOTH require more energy to refine than they > actually output when used. > The argument is mainly which loses more... I did, but it is irrelevant, if you want an alternatively fuelled vehicle to save the planet you are looking into the future as right now NONE of the alternatives are completely economically (or efficiently) viable. This being the case a push towards electricity would be the appropriate choice as large scale centrally generated power is always going to be more efficient than small scale production, a PowerStation is WAY more efficient than an internal combustion engine. A car engine typically runs with a thermal efficiency of around 20% whereas modern PowerStation's achieve about 60%. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/361 - Release Date: 11/06/2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:208789 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
