Timeline for Why do we mostly use fossil fuel instead of a more reliable and larger sum fuel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2016 at 9:14 | comment | added | Cees Timmerman | @nocomprende Not only has the move to Sunoco Green E15 proven to be an environmentally beneficial decision, it’s actually boosted the performance of the race cars in all three national series – lowering emissions and increasing horsepower. | |
| Apr 13, 2016 at 1:48 | comment | added | user15009 | It appears to me that the alcohol they add to gasoline (10%) is about as effective as water when it comes to gas mileage: the mileage diminishes as much as the proportion of alcohol. So alcohol makes the gas "bigger" without doing anything useful in terms of getting somewhere. Therefore, running cars on alcohol is not going to really work. Besides, how would you enforce the DUI laws? | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 19:53 | answer | added | mat | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 15:03 | comment | added | JamesRyan | Well actually nuclear is far better, cheaper, safer, environmentally friendlier. People are irrationally scared of it though. | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | JimmyB | Exactly. "Availability" is the word. There's gazillions of tons of fossil CHx buried in the ground to be pumped up. And refining that is as easy as it gets: Just heat it up. No need to transport and handle various amounts of various ingredients and wade through multi-step bio-chemical reactions to synthesize something. 1m³ or ton of crude oil delivered to the refinery gives close to 1m³ or ton of usable fuel. How many m³ or tons of bio mass are required to be shuffled around for 1m³ or ton of alcohol? | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 12:43 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | Alcohol is made of plant material. We'd need to grow enough of those plants, and that means using way more land for agriculture. The main way to get that is to burn down rain forest to make room. | |
| Apr 12, 2016 at 4:49 | comment | added | David Richerby | Alcohol contains more oxygen than fuels baed on mineral oils, i.e., some rather than essentially none. | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 23:10 | answer | added | Chris Johns | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 19:07 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMechanics/status/719602720303366144 | ||
| Apr 11, 2016 at 18:36 | answer | added | R.M. | timeline score: 23 | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 17:35 | comment | added | Eric Lippert | Oxygen content of the fuel is not relevant; air-breathing engines extract the oxygen they need from the air, not from the fuel. What you want in a complete combustion is oxygen gas comes in, the fuel is hydrogen and carbon, and water and carbon dioxide comes out the back. If you're carrying around oxygen, that's just adding weight. You get it for free from the atmosphere, so use it. | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 17:33 | history | edited | JPhi1618 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammar
|
| Apr 11, 2016 at 15:59 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | I'm not aware that we currently have the technology or resources to make alcohol or any other fuel in sufficient quantities to replace gasoline at a comparable price. What makes you think that we do? | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 15:01 | vote | accept | LostPecti | ||
| Apr 11, 2016 at 15:01 | |||||
| Apr 11, 2016 at 14:59 | comment | added | JPhi1618 | If such a thing existed, we would use it. Finding something that really does work better than fossil fuels is extremely difficult because they are just so good. | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 14:57 | comment | added | LostPecti | What I mean is a man made fuel that we can easily make in and works better and safe then fossil fumes | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 14:54 | comment | added | JPhi1618 | What is this "more reliable and larger sum" that you speak of? I'm not sure what that means? | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 14:51 | answer | added | JPhi1618 | timeline score: 27 | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 14:33 | history | asked | LostPecti | CC BY-SA 3.0 |