CW9-2391 - Revision history

Instructor Bob: graded

Instructor Bob — Mon, 01 May 2006 13:29:51 GMT

graded

←Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 1 May 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	1]The disadvantage of switching to a cleaner fuel is that there are more and more cars on the road every year, and eventhough there are cleaner fuels it is like there is no difference in the atmosphere at all because there are more cars. If the car rate would stay the same there probably would be a difference being made. On the other hand if they dindn't make cleaner fuels there would be that much more pollution in the atmosphere than what they have already cut down on.	+	{{Graded}}

-	2]The ~~advantage would have~~ to be that the cleaner fuels ~~do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which~~ would ~~slow down~~. ~~The new~~ fuels ~~also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons~~.	+	1]The disadvantage of switching to a cleaner fuel is that there are more and more cars on the road every year, and eventhough there are cleaner fuels it is like there is no difference in the atmosphere at all because there are more cars. If the car rate would stay the same there probably would be a difference being made. On the other hand if they dindn't make cleaner fuels there would be that much more pollution in the atmosphere than what they have already cut down on. {{OK}}

-	3]~~Nothing in the article never says that there are vehicles~~ that the ~~population uses that could use these~~ cleaner fuels. The ~~article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a~~ new ~~car or use~~ fuels ~~that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population~~.	+	2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons. {{OK}}

-	4]~~Electricity[N/A], Biodiesel, Diesel no~~.~~2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen~~.	+	3]Nothing in the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population. {{OK}}

-	5]~~The article says that almost every vehicle can operate on gasoline and atleast one other alternative fuel~~. Gasoline ~~and deisel are the most used fuels~~.	+	4]Electricity[N/A], Biodiesel, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen. {{OK}}

-	6]NO.~~2 Diesel,~~ Gasoline~~, Biodiesel, Methanol, CNG, LNG, Ethanol, Liquified Pertolem Gas, Electricty~~ and ~~Hydrogen~~ are ~~not rated~~.	+	5]The article says that almost every vehicle can operate on gasoline and atleast one other alternative fuel. Gasoline and deisel are the most used fuels. {{OK}}

-	7]~~The safest fuel would have to be~~ Biodiesel.	+	6]NO.2 Diesel, Gasoline, Biodiesel, Methanol, CNG, LNG, Ethanol, Liquified Pertolem Gas, Electricty and Hydrogen are not rated. {{OK}}

-	8]Althoughy the web site is a government site there is no way of telling if the information is accurate or not but you could get a hold of the EPA to see if the facts are true on the charts. To me it seems like the EPA is the only organization that tells the truth or finds the truth in everything.	+	7]The safest fuel would have to be Biodiesel. {{OK}}
		+
		+	8]Althoughy the web site is a government site there is no way of telling if the information is accurate or not but you could get a hold of the EPA to see if the facts are true on the charts. To me it seems like the EPA is the only organization that tells the truth or finds the truth in everything. {{OK}}

12.223.19.77 at 21:57, 23 April 2006

12.223.19.77 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:57:25 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 23 April 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	7]The safest fuel would have to be Biodiesel.		7]The safest fuel would have to be Biodiesel.
		+
		+	8]Althoughy the web site is a government site there is no way of telling if the information is accurate or not but you could get a hold of the EPA to see if the facts are true on the charts. To me it seems like the EPA is the only organization that tells the truth or finds the truth in everything.

12.223.19.77 at 21:52, 23 April 2006

12.223.19.77 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:52:04 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 23 April 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	6]NO.2 Diesel, Gasoline, Biodiesel, Methanol, CNG, LNG, Ethanol, Liquified Pertolem Gas, Electricty and Hydrogen are not rated.		6]NO.2 Diesel, Gasoline, Biodiesel, Methanol, CNG, LNG, Ethanol, Liquified Pertolem Gas, Electricty and Hydrogen are not rated.
		+
		+	7]The safest fuel would have to be Biodiesel.

12.223.19.77 at 21:50, 23 April 2006

12.223.19.77 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:50:16 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 23 April 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	3]Nothing in the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population.		3]Nothing in the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population.

-	4]Electricity[N/A], ~~Biodeisel~~, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen.	+	4]Electricity[N/A], Biodiesel, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen.

	5]The article says that almost every vehicle can operate on gasoline and atleast one other alternative fuel. Gasoline and deisel are the most used fuels.		5]The article says that almost every vehicle can operate on gasoline and atleast one other alternative fuel. Gasoline and deisel are the most used fuels.
		+
		+	6]NO.2 Diesel, Gasoline, Biodiesel, Methanol, CNG, LNG, Ethanol, Liquified Pertolem Gas, Electricty and Hydrogen are not rated.

12.223.19.77 at 21:44, 23 April 2006

12.223.19.77 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:44:42 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 23 April 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	4]Electricity[N/A], Biodeisel, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen.		4]Electricity[N/A], Biodeisel, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen.

-	5]	+	5]The article says that almost every vehicle can operate on gasoline and atleast one other alternative fuel. Gasoline and deisel are the most used fuels.

12.223.19.77 at 21:38, 23 April 2006

12.223.19.77 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:38:40 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 23 April 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons.		2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons.

-	3]No the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population.	+	3]Nothing in the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population.
		+
		+	4]Electricity[N/A], Biodeisel, Diesel no.2, Gasoline, Ethanol, Methanol, Liquified Petrolem Gas, CNG, LNG, Hydrogen.
		+
		+	5]

Jalcst-2391 at 17:48, 21 April 2006

Jalcst-2391 — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:48:59 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 21 April 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons.		2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons.
		+
		+	3]No the article never says that there are vehicles that the population uses that could use these cleaner fuels. The article did have some really good points and ways to help the environment but if there is a choice for people to buy a new car or use fuels that are already there for them to use more than likely people are not going to buy a new car. That is only if there are not car ready fuels out in the population.

Jalcst-2391 at 17:42, 21 April 2006

Jalcst-2391 — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:42:44 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 21 April 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	1]The disadvantage of switching to a cleaner fuel is that there are more and more cars on the road every year, and eventhough there are cleaner fuels it is like there is no difference in the atmosphere at all because there are more cars. If the car rate would stay the same there probably would be a difference being made. On the other hand if they dindn't make cleaner fuels there would be that much more pollution in the atmosphere than what they have already cut down on.		1]The disadvantage of switching to a cleaner fuel is that there are more and more cars on the road every year, and eventhough there are cleaner fuels it is like there is no difference in the atmosphere at all because there are more cars. If the car rate would stay the same there probably would be a difference being made. On the other hand if they dindn't make cleaner fuels there would be that much more pollution in the atmosphere than what they have already cut down on.
		+
		+	2]The advantage would have to be that the cleaner fuels do not emit as much carbon dioxide "green house " gases which causes global warming which would slow down. The new fuels also emit 90% less toxins and ozone forming hydrocarbons.

Jalcst-2391 at 17:36, 21 April 2006

Jalcst-2391 — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:36:13 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 21 April 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	1]The disadvantage	+	1]The disadvantage of switching to a cleaner fuel is that there are more and more cars on the road every year, and eventhough there are cleaner fuels it is like there is no difference in the atmosphere at all because there are more cars. If the car rate would stay the same there probably would be a difference being made. On the other hand if they dindn't make cleaner fuels there would be that much more pollution in the atmosphere than what they have already cut down on.

Jalcst-2391 at 17:30, 21 April 2006

Jalcst-2391 — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:30:07 GMT

New page

1]The disadvantage