What ends up better depends on the use. Efficiency of one type is not the be all, end all.
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's nothing sacred about using CO2 for fracking. In fact, water is > typically used now. There could be other choices of gasses. Using CO2 does > produce some incentive for CO2 producers to compress and sell their waste. > But it still eventually goes back into the atmosphere. It would be better to > not produce the CO2 at all. But it isn't being produced for use in fracking; > it's produced as a byproduct of producing energy. > > Go do the research on biofuels and such. I think you'll find out that it's > better to use the electricity directly than to generate synfuel with it. > Similar argument as to fuel cells - better to use the electricity directly > than to generate hydrogen at a huge net loss. > > Is something not clear, here? > > Peri > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ben Goren" <[email protected]> > To: "Peri Hartman" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" > <[email protected]> > Sent: 21-Dec-14 1:01:38 PM > Subject: Re: [EVDL] PNAS report cites study that EV's pollute more than > gascars. > >>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> PH: you're assuming that there isn't some other gas that could be used - >>> perhaps compressed air or compressed nitrogen or whatever. >> >> Nitrogen is its own element; there's no carbon in nitrogen. And there's less >> than a tenth of a percent of CO2 in air; you'd have to process a few >> thousand cubic feet of air just to get one cubic foot of CO2. >> >>> Also you're assuming the CO2 has to come from a coal plant rather than >>> simply be extracted from the atmosphere or some other source. >> >> Coal plant emissions are the richest common source of CO2 we have. >> >>> Third, the reason we extract CO2 (actually coal) from the ground isn't to >>> produce CO2, it's to produce energy. Even if the need (in fracking) for CO2 >>> went away, we would still extract coal. >> >> That's exactly my point: we're going to keep mining coal, whether we like it >> or not. That carbon's coming out of the ground. But why throw it away after >> a single use? >> >>> PH: true. So what? Pump petrol or dig coal. Either way, it's more efficient >>> to directly use the electricity. >> >> Good luck fueling an airliner with electricity, or running a tractor-trailer >> rig across the country with electricity, or operating your combine harvester >> with electricity. >> >> The only way we know to do those things with electricity, even in theory, is >> to use the electricity to make syngas from CO2 and then refine the syngas >> into various petroleum distillate equivalents. >> >> Which is what I'm proposing. >> >>> When we've eliminated all the coal plants and diesel generators, then we >>> can start doing what you say. Until then... >> >> Until then, most diesel isn't used in generators to make electricity; it's >> used to move stuff from point A to point B. If diesel were primarily used to >> generate electricity, I'd be with you. But it's not, so I'm not. >> >> Cheers, >> >> b& > > _______________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub > http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org > For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) > > _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
