electric < gas
Gas < Biofuel & ethanol
ummmm.....no it isnt.
"Biofuel" is meaningless greenwashing jargon. Even fossil fuels are biofuels. Ethanol subsidies just line the pockets of a few agribusiness schmucks getting rich off farm subsidies.
On the other hand, if Beijing started requiring that a certain proportion of fuel for freight and public transport come from biodiesel, it might solve the gutter oil problem. But diesel is only suitable for the big stuff, not crotch rockets.
Bumping 'cuz I'm looking for a second-hand e-bike, too.
@Bear Beard (your honorific name) you might not be all bad.... but don't forget the above graphic you used could be tweaked to fit battery production..
Ethanol subsidies just line the pockets of a few agribusiness schmucks getting rich off farm subsidies.
Ethanol is more of a cunningly marketed ten second distraction than a solution
the above graphic you used could be tweaked to fit battery production..
Obviously, Alex, because the industrial process of manufacturing a reusable electrochemical fuel cell is so very, very similar to the process of cultivating and fermenting corn for a non-reusable unit of fuel.
But please, do tweak it for us with those photo manip skills you were bragging about.[br]
Ethanol production is a net energy loser. Battery manufacturing, although not entirely environmentally friendly, is not a net energy loser. That's a lazy equivocation.
But please, do tweak it for us with those photo manip skills you were bragging about.
FFS beardy weirdy not bragging u just JELLY.
Ethanol production is a net energy loser. Battery manufacturing, although not entirely environmentally friendly, is not a net energy loser.
Sigh.... reread your graphic, net energy is not the only bottom line. Pollution of our global environment is also a pertinent consideration. Battery technology as it exists today creates a whole mess of toxic waste to deal with. Will its effective disposal require use of energy? Do please answer me that one, oh weird internet taught gnome (teddy) bear sage.
COMMMMEEEEEEEEEEHN EEEEEEHN YERRRRRRRRR BOMMMMMEEEEEEHHHHHHHN!
(sung to 'friggin in the rigging')
I'll buy that sugarcane works well as a fuel supplement in countries where that crop grows, but
skipping the process of transformation from carbohydrates to sugar for fermentation
Is a bit misleading, as sugar is a type of carbohydrate. But I catch your drift. Corn starch requires a lot of energy to break down into more useful carbohydrates. I think I read somewhere that hominy (corn that has been soaked in lye) is more easily metabolized than raw corn. I'm sure that anaerobic yeast microbes would agree.
reread your graphic,
Reread the username to the left of that graphic.
recapitulation of shit previously alluded to
You seem to be missing the point that a battery is a container and ethanol is a fuel. A battery can be reused enough to compensate for difficulty of dealing with the toxic materials used in its manufacturing. Moreover, it's far more efficient for everyone to draw energy off of the same electrical grid rather than sustain a petroleum industrial production chain just so you can enjoy the pleasant vibrations of an internal combustion engine on your macroclitoris.
Not to mention you need a battery for the ignition system on anything larger than a bike.
Reread the username
should have said "that you referred to". big deal.
You seem to be missing the point that a battery is a container and ethanol is a fuel.
Your statement of this irrelevancy proves that you are missing the actual point by an even greater margin than I. I could use the same argument: "the ethanol molecules are the just "containers" for the energy they release." (Weaksauce) Incidentally, that has nothing to do with anything, anyway.
A battery can be reused enough to compensate for difficulty of dealing with the toxic materials used in its manufacturing.
Define 'enough', then define 'compensate'. (How you work either out depends entirely on personal priorities and bias, nothing to do with measurable "gains" or "losses" which are in themselves not measurable in this case...)
Moreover, it's far more efficient for everyone to draw energy off of the same electrical grid
More energy efficient maybe, but less polluting? Not when the power generated to charge the batteries comes from coal or oil burning power stations. (I am not even considering CO2 in this case to be a "pollutant").
sustain a petroleum industrial production chain just so you can enjoy the pleasant vibrations of an internal combustion engine on your macroclitoris.
I didnt say that petrol bikes were perfect, I just said that they were "<" electric bikes. When I said "<" in this case, I meant faster, more reliable and more enjoyable to ride. The issue of "green guilt" had not even been raised by this point.
[Caveat lector: In the case of burning fossil fuels with the use of catalytic converters, it shouldn't even BE an issue....but the REAL environmental movement got hijacked entirely by 'global warming' alarmist profiteers about 20 years ago...but that's another story kids.]
you will not be needing an 'e bike' in that case.
(among, on, and in other things ...)
Nothing to say about this topic, but since people are talking about sex toys:
lol... im leaving before things get too twisted.