"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in
:

> "APLer" wrote...
>>> "jeffareid" wrote
>>> That so called clean diesel is only 5% bio-diesel, with the
>>> other 95% conventional diesel, so this seems more like a
>>> case of "clean coal", then an actually clean fuel source.
>>>
>>> Indy race cars, now running ethanol should be considered
>>> more "green", even though the milage is much worse.
>>>
>> There is nothing green about ethanol. It costs more in
>> conventional gasoline to produce and transport than
>> it delivers, and is still a hydrocarbon so produces the same
>> sort of exaust as gasoline.
>
> It's renewable, though, whereas fossil fuels aren't.
>
How you figure if it a) consumes more fossil fuels in production than it
gives and b) there is no way fror the US (as an example) to replace all
it's fossil fuels (or even a large chunk) with bio-ethanol? There *is*
some talk about ethanol from corn stalks as opposed to just the kernels,
but it still doesn't generate enough. All it is is PC marketing. Nothing
more. However Hydrogen is in *every* organic molecule and storage of it
is already used for the boring fuel cells. Good for NASA, but for cars
just makes them less desirable.