Display:
Somehow I've gotten the idea there isn't a liquid fuel replacement for oil when considered gallon for gallon.  So measured in dollars-for-ergs any replacement is necessarily more expensive and less efficient.

True?  False?  Half-truth?

by ATinNM on Sat Oct 27th, 2007 at 07:38:43 PM EST
My impression is it's a truth.

But then we will hear the argument that says it doesn't matter if liquid this or liquid that is cost/energy less efficient than oil, we can pay a premium for the fact that liquid fuels are useful and indeed necessary...

To go on running a civilisation that... needs liquid fuels...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Oct 28th, 2007 at 07:08:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
biodeisel is pretty close -- 7-9% lower per this source:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Biodiesel_Blends_Above%20_20_Final.pdf

I'd be willing to bet if energy/gallon were critical, they're be a few PhD ChE's who'd develop ways to close that gap.  But I'd guess the real issue is energy/mass since how much mass you have to haul around hits your econs more than stretching a fuel tank's size a bit.

by HiD on Sun Oct 28th, 2007 at 11:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... a gallon of biodiesel, not the net energy yield of a gallon of biodiesel.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Oct 29th, 2007 at 04:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In terms of net energy yield... synthetic liquid fuels from nuclear might have a shot.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 1st, 2007 at 11:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series