SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: see clearly now who wrote (169638)6/15/2009 1:18:04 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361083
 
Good dialogue between you two magnificent bastids.



To: see clearly now who wrote (169638)6/15/2009 1:34:13 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361083
 
Methane is the cleanest source of fossil carbon we have. If you burn it, instead of letting it go directly into the atmosphere, you get 4x the energy of coal, or 2x the energy of oil/ per carbon molecule (CO2). If you convert it to hydrogen, you end up with 2x the energy of coal, or the same as you get from oil; you've turned a clean source into a dirtier one.

Why not burn the methane directly? Cuz then GM can't make a hydrogen car.

Doh!!


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News