[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
>Way back a few days in <4u3op5$6r0_004@pm6-87.hal-pc.org>,
>charliew wrote:
>>You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here. It
is
>>likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than
>>carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules). Thus, 1 pound of
>>gasoline can probably propel an automobile farther than 1
>>pound of natural gas, which would partially offset the
>>"carbon tax advantage" that methane seems to have.
>
>Tony Tsakiris of Ford promptly published the heating value
>of methane and octane, showing that methane contains
>substantially more energy/mass than octane. This
>was completely lost on charliew.
OK, jerk. I speculated on this one and was wrong. There, I
admit it. Are you happy now?
>
>Yesterday, in a private communication in response to
article
><4u7g6n$ckj@condor.ic.net>, charliew wrote:
>%>Your new homework assignment is to calculate the heat of
>%>combusion of methane and iso-octane per unit mass of
CARBON,
>%>in your choice of consistent units. Extra credit:
assuming
>%>a $50/ton carbon-emission tax and that a car consumes the
>%>energy-equivalent of 100 grams of iso-octane per mile,
>%>calculate the tax advantage of methane fuel over
iso-octane.
>%>
>%>Maybe you'll learn something this time.
>%
>%I wasn't so concerned with learning something last time.
>%However, if I take the time to read about the comparison,
it
>%would be nice to have physical units that mean something.
>%Comparisons on a molar or volume basis are meaningless.
>
>In other words, you are unable to convert from quantities
per
>mole to quantities per unit mass. Dividing by the
molecular
>weight is too difficult for you. Determining the energy
per
>unit mass of one chemical element in a compound is beyond
>your abilities. Finally, you are unwilling to stretch them
>to meet the challenge.
>
No. The correct conclusion is that I don't take
"assignments" from a pompous asshole like you. Do your
owned damned homework, fool.
References: