Pollution (in CO2) of the pantone engine
published: 02/06/07, 12:29
Hi folks, I just signed up!
I see that you mainly focus on the consumption of these engines (important for the pecuniary aspect), but what matters for the environment is pollution!
From what I read from the principle of this engine, it is able to work with just about any hydrocarbon and uses water as a catalyst.
It seems established that one can obtain an equivalent power by consuming less. But what about CO2 emissions?
In my opinion they are equivalent to those of a conventional engine, for the same resulting power.
To draw the power from an equivalent quantity of fuel, it is necessary to break an equivalent number of chemical reactions. Energy does not fall from the sky!
I think that in a conventional engine, the combustion of the hydrocarbon is partial, but in a pantone one reinjects the emissions in the combustion chamber to finish the combustion of the carbon chain well.
Result: to make better use of the hydrocarbon molecule by breaking all of its bonds and extracting the most energy from it.
The problem is that by breaking these CC bonds, instead of creating CO2 molecules. So in the end we pollute as much by consuming less. And that's where it becomes worrying: we will be able to pollute more with the same amount of oil ...
It is as if we had just discovered new oil deposits ...
Automobile manufacturers have no interest in developing such a system, because it would not lower their CO2 emissions, and neither would tankers lower world consumption. So the pantone seems to be a kind of chimera of ecology. It is only good for the consumer's wallet.
Tell me if I'm wrong, you have emission data in grams of CO2 / 100 km as for conventional vehicles?
I see that you mainly focus on the consumption of these engines (important for the pecuniary aspect), but what matters for the environment is pollution!
From what I read from the principle of this engine, it is able to work with just about any hydrocarbon and uses water as a catalyst.
It seems established that one can obtain an equivalent power by consuming less. But what about CO2 emissions?
In my opinion they are equivalent to those of a conventional engine, for the same resulting power.
To draw the power from an equivalent quantity of fuel, it is necessary to break an equivalent number of chemical reactions. Energy does not fall from the sky!
I think that in a conventional engine, the combustion of the hydrocarbon is partial, but in a pantone one reinjects the emissions in the combustion chamber to finish the combustion of the carbon chain well.
Result: to make better use of the hydrocarbon molecule by breaking all of its bonds and extracting the most energy from it.
The problem is that by breaking these CC bonds, instead of creating CO2 molecules. So in the end we pollute as much by consuming less. And that's where it becomes worrying: we will be able to pollute more with the same amount of oil ...
It is as if we had just discovered new oil deposits ...
Automobile manufacturers have no interest in developing such a system, because it would not lower their CO2 emissions, and neither would tankers lower world consumption. So the pantone seems to be a kind of chimera of ecology. It is only good for the consumer's wallet.
Tell me if I'm wrong, you have emission data in grams of CO2 / 100 km as for conventional vehicles?