[Info-vax] Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign

[Wolf K]

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
> If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
> growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie, 
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the proportion 
of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres of some fuel 
does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff? A few years ago, 
Scientific American published an article analysing this question. In 
terms of energy cost/litre, gasoline was the cheapest at less than 10%. 
Other fuels (diesel, jet, bunker C, etc) were 50% to 10% more expensive. 
Biofuel was even more expensive. Ethanol costs more energy to produce 
than it contains.

In addition, as with all energy produced centrally in wholesale 
quantities and dispensed locally in retail quantities, there is the 
energy cost of distribution. Even electricity has a distribution cost: 
on average, 10% of every kilowatt-hour produced at the generating 
station has to be allowed for as line loss, transformer loss, etc.

Ultimately, all costs are energy. Dollar costs don't express energy cost 
differences very well. "Carbon footprint" is better, but it's still only 
a rough measure of the energy consumed  by a person or other entity. So 
the question is, how much of the energy we produce does any actually 
useful work? Very, very little.

Consider that in a typical commute by car about 90% of the available 
energy is used to move the car and its occupant. Since only about 25% to 
30% of the fuel's energy is converted into work (the rest is waste 
heat), that means only about 3% of the energy in the fuel is used to 
move the driver.

Modern technologies are extremely wasteful of energy.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."