Prev: Herc does not understand any induction schema
Next: Cantor's First Proof
From: Sir Frederick Martin on 26 Jun 2010 17:18
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:04:23 -0700 (PDT), Cassidy Furlong <cassidyerinkat(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure!
>
>> 2. �The dumb outnumber the intelligent so the odds are that the first
>
>--the duke of oil!
>Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical
>feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of
>choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air
>pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases
>(GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the
>difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to
>calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the
>gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini-
>tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result
>is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is
>positive, it gives off more.
>Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following
>assump- tions:
>1.
>Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol
That word appears to be misspelled!
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Herc does not understand any induction schema
Next: Cantor's First Proof