F2004 wrote:Next to the BS you spew out, everyone looks like Einstein. Do you realise how stupid everything your said is. Someone might think that in all that spew you accidently say something right but you got zero.
Lets leave this for now as your maths calculation seems to contradict some of the things you later say which dont imply zero.
F2004 wrote: Yep diesel can be bio and you said internal combustion engines and spark plugs, so, you moron, a diesel is an internal combustion engine that has no spark plugs.
a diesel engine is an ICE that can use different fuels - there is a clear distinction between the common diesel derived from crude oil and BIODIESEL, we were discussing the petrol F1 engines - these dont use spark plugs. You introduced the idea of diesel engines that dont use spark plugs, however you didnt differentiate between petrodiesel (the eponymous type) and biodiesel - therefore thats a big FAIL for you. A bit like saying 'red is ferrari colour' then changing the argument later to say 'yellow was the lesser known colour'
So are F1 hybrid engines ICE? - yes, are they diesel? no, do they have spark plugs - - do biodesiel engines have spark plugs? no (well done einstein) - Are F1 hybrids related to biodiesel engines? only in lalaland
F2004 wrote:biomass and biofuels can come from lots other places not just farms, so your stupid comments about cant grow enough mean nothing. Biomass can come from water, oceans, algae, garbage dumps, sewerage as well as what you grow.
The context is the alternative fuel to greenhouse emitting fossil fuels for mass transportation relevant to the companies in F1. water, oceans, algae, garbage dumps, sewerage, well done einstein (you can rad wiki, but cant understand it)
Are these currently able to replace oil for the planets transportation? are they therefore relevant to the manufacturers of cars? Are they an alternative in the near future to oil? Or are hybrids and electric cars much better placed?
yes to produce the battery or the energy to charge the battery takes fossil fuels or (shock horrow) nuclear - but is the environmental cost of the energy to make and charge up a batery for 40 years of transport more or less than 40 years of burning fossil fuels in the same car? Is the environmental cost less or more than producing energy from algae and sewerage for the same car for 40 years? Is it an academic question because it is not even vaguely feasible yet to replace oil with ANY bio fuel
So electric or hybrids are still the ONLY alternative in the real world available to the car makers that WILL make any difference in net carbon emision
So big FAIL again McFly
F2004 wrote: But you go on living in your lalalala land thinking the forumla e cars were so green seemings as they got their electricity from nice clean safe NUCLEAR power in China.
There is a green formula - the basis is a unit of carbon emitted, how much would you like to bet with me right now (i Suggest $1000) that the NET (after production) carbon unit cost of all our cars run for 40 years on a battery recharged by nuclear is much less than that of running on petrol for 40 years? and on biodiesel AND all the exotic biofuels in question
If you win I give you $1000, if I win you give $10 to this site via Pay Pal - ofcourse you will chicken out of that one so another big FAIL McFly
F2004 wrote: Lets stick those nice clean spent rods up you and then tell us how clean it is.
Clean in this context of greenhouse gas emission? or are you saying the spent rods are poluting the environment when disposed of correctly? You need to calm down and stop the hysteria dorothy, you are confusing clean with the risk of an accident that causes radiation leaks. How many accidents have there been at nuclear plants and how many at traditional fossil fuel plants, another big FAIL
$10 vs £1000 is surely a way of proving that you understand what you find on wiki?????