Re: Carbon-neutral liquids are not the future

Probably the same reason most professionals with a smattering of understanding
in probablistic uncertainty - vis a vis diversity of approach are here, well, other
than the classic cross discipline opportunism niche markt development which
is another paradigm raising its head ;-)

peter purple profound with paradigm shifts




Jed Checketts wrote:

> Don Lancaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "G. R. L. Cowan" wrote:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/x3l2
> > >
> > > With solar or nuclear primary energy,
> > > let's make stuff whose imperfect combustion
> > > produces a highly lethal, odorless respiratory poison.
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > > --- Graham Cowan
> > > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
> > > fireproof fuel, real-car range, nuclear cachet
> >
> > CO poisioning was extremely rare before the recent widespread release of
> > very low cost detectors.
> > It is an easily avoidable risk of utterly negligible consequence today.
>
> Dr. Zweig, a former physician in Los Angeles, devotes a good share of
> his life to the development of non-hydrocarbon fuels.   Dr Zweig saw
> respiratory related problems with his patients.  He attributes many of
> them to smog caused by exactly what Mr. Cowan is referring to:
> _combustion of hydrocarbon fuels_.
>
> Dr. Zweig does not consider the respiratory-related deaths he has
> personally witnessed to be "negligible".
>
> The problems posed by the continued combustion of and reliance on
> hydrocarbon fuels are not "utterly negligible".  One of the reasons
> why this newsgroup is even here is that we believe we can do better in
> regard to future use of fuel.
>
> Which really begs the question, WHY ARE YOU HERE, DON?
>
> Jed Checketts
> West Covina, CA
> 626-581-7119