On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:46:21 -0400, you wrote: >On 13 Oct 2002 at 0:36, Bruce EVangel Parmenter wrote: > >> The only way to reduce carbon dioxide from tailpipes is to >> burn less gas, > >NO! THIS IS WRONG! > >Sorry to shout, but where does this misinformation come from? Could it be >originating at the automakers' PR departments? > >You can reduce CO2 from vehicles by fueling them with electricity, hydrogen, or >natural gas. In fact, any hydrocarbon fuel with a lower carbon content will >reduce CO2.
To be as accurate about this as possible: CO2 reduction would factor in both the Carbon ratio in the fuel and the mpg. A fuel with a lower Carbon ratio, like Methane (CH4), would result in lower CO2 emissions only if its mileage was sufficient. If it got terrible mileage, then its CO2 emissions might even be higher than petrol emissions. On balance, I think the for NG vehicles, the CO2 emissions picture is excellent. A fuel like Ethanol, (C2H3OH) I don't know. I don't think the mileage per BTU is particularly bad, but I don't know how the CO2 calculations would go. I'm sure the opponents who assume the worst about biofuel derivations would assume a very poor net-energy for ethanol, after energy has been invested in creating it, so they might say the CO2 emissions are enormous, over the whole process. This would even go for an EV, if the electricity is hydrocarbon-derived, and if the EV was unusually inefficient and the derivation particularly dirty (such as diesel burned at a peaker plant during a crisis, or such as petroleum burned on Hawaii if EV's are ever allowed there on a more widespread basis). I am not trying to make the case against an EV, just spelling out what occur to me to be some points here. In the case of electricity-derivation arguments, I think an unmade counter-argument is that you have to do one thing at a time: if you get the EV out on the road, then this frees you up to worry about and improve the derivation of the electricity. Having said all that: I completely agree with you: the statement is *wrong* and should be countered. It is another example of the deliberate obfuscation of the very existence of EVs. jl The automakers' lawsuit is frivolous, and CARB should be >countersuing them for harassment. >
