Could someone help me do a comparision between various fuels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saska
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on comparing various fuels from environmental and energy perspectives. Participants emphasize the importance of the energy-to-weight ratio in determining the best fuel, with hydrogen often cited as the most environmentally friendly option due to its low pollution levels. However, the extraction method of hydrogen is crucial, as it requires energy that can impact its overall environmental footprint. Additionally, analyzing the energy released during combustion versus the CO2 emissions produced is essential for a comprehensive comparison. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of evaluating fuels based on both energy efficiency and environmental impact.
Saska
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Could someone help me do a comparision between various fuels? I need to know which fuel is the best/worst, seeing this out of a environmental and energy perspective.

substance] [combustion]
Etanol -1367 kJ/mole
Metanol -726 kJ/mole
Metan -890 kJ/mole
Olja -50 kJ/mole
Vätgas -286 kJ/mole
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We're not going to do your homework for you. Most of this information can be found by using googe or wikipedia.

- Warren
 
I don't want an answer, I want a decent discussion about it!
 
"environmental and energy perspective"

What the hell does that even mean?

The "best" fuel is the one with the highest energy to weight ratio. You've already been given the energies, so lookup the weight for each one and figure out the ratio.
 
The "best" from an environmental standpoint would be the one that pollutes the least. That would be hydrogen. Hydrocarbons can be ranked according to relative hydrogen content.
 
True about hydrogen being hte "best" fuel from an environmental perspective, but then that also depends on how the hydrogen is extracted as this requires energy in itself. You should look at the energy released during combustion verus the CO2 released in the product side if you're thinking about burning the fuels as they are.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top