Alternate fuels?

[Skiz]

Obviously gasoline/deisel are not going to be around forever, and with technology is advancing research more and more, what are your thoughts as to realistic alternative fuels in the future?

Some say corn is possibly the solution as it can be turned into ethanol, but all I see is that skyrocketing the price of corn. Hydrogen is another one of the suggested fuels, but again, I see the price being driven up.

To me, the only logical solution is electric or water powered vehicles. Even electricity has it's limitations though.

Long distance trips are currently not a possibility with those vehicles as most need recharging after 100 or miles or so. But they seem great for most day-to-day commuting.

I found a video on YouTube about water powered vehicles and it seems fantastic. The video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCyeOs-ysHo) shows one of the concepts explained on a vehicle that reportedly gets 100 miles from 4 ounces of nothing but water.

Thoughts?

[devilsadvocate]

For electric cars to be a solution first they need to find some kind of alternative to the national grid to charge them. Our grids struggle with hot days when everyone is running their air conditioning, what effect would mass switching to electric cars have?
Plus, as already mentioned with corn, the extra demand would have the effect of pricing household electric out of reach
Perhaps the solution would be to build more power plants, but then all that would be doing is switching the problem from cars to the power station.

Circle circle circle.

Masterblaster runs bartertown. (I hate that movie)

[Skiz]

Right now, some of the hybrid cars use the friction when braking to build an electrical charge that helps to recharge the vehicles batteries. Perhaps in a few years the cars will be made so that the spinning of the wheels will create the charge, thus allowing the vehicle to charge itself and eliminate the power plant issue.

[Barbarossa]

I don't understand why oil won't be around forever.

The oil we are using now is what, decomposing rainforest from millions of years ago or whatever, so why isn't more being created all the time, from the decomposing rainforest from like thousands of years ago? There should be a steady stream of new oil being created all the time shouldn't there, otherwise what happens to all the decomposing rainforest?

I'd like someone to explain this properly to me please.

[Skiz]

I suppose the simplest explanation is that we're using the stuff far quicker than mother nature can produce it.

A current barrel measurement is "42 US gallons, 158.9873 litres"

The average daily world consumption in 2007 was 83,607,000 barrels.

Or...

3,511,494,000 gallons/day

13,292,451,191.1 litres/day

There's no way nature is producing that much on a daily basis to keep oil fields replenished. I have no sources to back that up, but I can't imagine it being false. I suppose if someone wanted to debate it I could poke around for some concrete answers.

[bblogs]

I've heard about plenty of solutions like that, but the reality is they're not as good as they sound. My guess is it's way too expensive to make the machines, at least at this point in time. We may reach a point where it becomes viable, but if it's not as viable than what we're doing now then we haven't got anywhere at all..

It's always nice to think soon we'll be doing 100 miles on 4 ounces of water...but if it was as good as that move suggests then this thread wouldn't exist.

[Barbarossa]

Does anyone believe that the oil companies have been suppressing research into alternative fuels?

[Skiz]

I've heard about plenty of solutions like that, but the reality is they're not as good as they sound. My guess is it's way too expensive to make the machines, at least at this point in time. We may reach a point where it becomes viable, but if it's not as viable than what we're doing now then we haven't got anywhere at all..

It's always nice to think soon we'll be doing 100 miles on 4 ounces of water...but if it was as good as that move suggests then this thread wouldn't exist.

Too expensive? I'm paying approx. $10K on gasoline annually at the current pump prices. I'd say whatever the cost is, the public would recoup it rather quickly. The problem it seems is getting the industry standard auto manufacturers to make the switch.

The technology may not have been perfected, but it is here.

IMO, a new manufacturer is going to emerge in the coming years with either electric or water vehicles and set the standard.

[Skiz]

Does anyone believe that the oil companies have been suppressing research into alternative fuels?

I do.

There's a great documentary that came out a few years back called "Who Killed the Electric Car" (Usenet link (http://www.newzleech.com/usenet/?group=&minage=&age=&min=min&max=max&q=who+killed+the+electric+car&mode=usenet&adv=)) which details how California was setting the bar here in the US to be the first zero emissions state by something like 2020. They began setting strict emissions laws and companies began using California as their test markets for zero emission vehicles, all the while fighting the new laws tooth and nail. One of the more popular makes was the EV1, but it was offered to customers as a lease only. While it didn't look too spiffy, it was a great car. 100% electric and was even faster than a corvette in acceleration. But when the auto makers finally got some tough laws barely overturned, they demanded that the EV1 owners turn in their cars. General Motors then destroyed every single car and ceased production, regardless of the exploding popularity. I highly recommend watching it.... some startling truths. :dabs:

[lynx]

The so called "water-powered" car is a con, and it's not even a new con.

The simple fact is that you can't get energy from nowhere. You'll notice that he's having to burn a mixture of gasoline and HHO, that's because he's using some of the energy produced by burning the gasoline to produce electricity, which in turn electrolyses the water into hydrogen and oxygen (or as he calls it HHO). You'll hear him say that if you listen carefully. He subsequently feeds the HHO back into the engine.

In actual fact all the energy comes from the gasoline, and some energy is wasted in the inefficiency of electrolysing the water and then burning the products. Without the gasoline there would be a net energy loss, which means he can't keep up a sustained reaction.

I suspect that he's not actually doing any of that, but simply trickle feeding water into the inlet manifold. Water droplets in small quantities can actually improve the efficiency of an internal combustion engine by increasing the pressure in the cylinder as the droplets turn to water vapour. Put too much in though and you lose efficiency. You effectively "drown" the engine by reducing the burn temperature.

As for the water powered flame, that's simply a oxy-hydrogen torch, and he's using a standard electrolysis cell to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. And of course an electrolysis cell is powered by electricity.

I hope to god that he'd feeding the oxygen and hydrogen to the torch separately, because if he's mixing them and feeding the product through a single tube there's going to be a big bang before too long.

At the rate we need fuels, biofuel is really a no hoper. We are already seeing massively inflated food prices because of a shortage of grain, if it continues we will soon see starvation on a massive scale, followed by riots and wars. This is a direct consequence of the actions of the "homogenic global warming" theorists, you know, the ones who say there is no downside to following their theories.

The only real options are hydrogen and electricity. Both currently have problems with storage, but the chances look more hopeful for long range hydrogen powered vehicles, simply because of the ability to perform a comparatively quick refill. The downside is that you have to use electricity to make the hydrogen and the conversion process therefore makes it less efficient.

Assuming we can get the electricity from renewable sources that shouldn't be much of a problem. It also shouldn't be any more expensive because we would use the excess capacity available at periods of low electricity demand, and at the same time allow the generating stations to work at peak efficiency at all times.

[bigboab]

Electric cars could be a possibility. Cars could be designed so that the batteries can be interchangeable. You would only need to go into a garage and get your battery replaced every so many miles.

It would only be a matter of time until someone invented
a battery that would last longer than we have at present.

The new electric car would require a 'stick change' in order to keep the male testosterone levels at the required height.:lol:

[devilsadvocate]

Electric cars and more efficient batteries are just the user end of the problem. It still doesn't address the alternative fuel source that would be required to generate the electricity they would need.
As far as I can imagine the only solution to this would be smaller and incredibly more efficient and longer lasting solar cells that would even work in less sunny climates.
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but as it has been raised I do think that the oil industry, with a lot of government in its pockets, has been something of a firewall in developing these efficient solar cells.
I've heard that development of faster computer chips is far ahead of software/hardware that can handle them. I hope one day this could happen to solar cell tech.

[JunkBarMan]

Anyone seen this guy's (http://push.pickensplan.com/) ads? (american oil tycoon)

He has vowed to spend the same amount of money on ads for a new energy, as the two presidential candidates are on their campaigns.

He seems to want everyone to take an active approach to this problem and try and solve it together. Seems like he has a few good idea. For one he thinks natural gas is one solution...I think he just has a ton of natural gas reserves. :lol:

[lynx]

Anyone seen this guy's (http://push.pickensplan.com/) ads? (american oil tycoon)

He has vowed to spend the same amount of money on ads for a new energy, as the two presidential candidates are on their campaigns.

He seems to want everyone to take an active approach to this problem and try and solve it together. Seems like he has a few good idea. For one he thinks natural gas is one solution...I think he just has a ton of natural gas reserves. :lol:
Apart from the wind farms, he's simply talking about replacing imported oil with locally produced (ie produced by his company) natural gas, and that too will run out eventually. That's not an alternative fuel, it's an alternative source.

[Barbarossa]

Electric cars and more efficient batteries are just the user end of the problem. It still doesn't address the alternative fuel source that would be required to generate the electricity they would need.
As far as I can imagine the only solution to this would be smaller and incredibly more efficient and longer lasting solar cells that would even work in less sunny climates.

Don't discount the nuclear option

[ilw]

I think theres two discussions going on here, one about alternative fuels for your car and the other about alternative energy sources. The fuels one is imo a bit of a non-starter as it all depends on cracking the energy source side of things. So...

Best documentation that i've actually read was the energy white papers by the uk govt and this book http://www.withouthotair.com/

as lynx hinted at, you can pretty much ignore hydrogen and water as neither of them are energy sources, there is no naturally occurring elemental hydrogen on the planet and you can't get any net energy out of water.

My thoughts:

corn is a really bad converter of solar energy -> chemical. The only reason they're using it as a biofuel is because it makes giving farmers a subsidy easier to justify. Palm oil is currently the best biofuel but is still a bit shit, other things like algae are being looked at and could be a lot better. However, ultimately all biofuels are a bit shit, they only make sense because of the gasoline based transport system we currently have and also because battery technology has been quite a big limiter. Recent technology indicates the battery thing might be cracked in the nearish future so i reckon its better to work with photovoltaic cells and so avoid the biofuel efficiency chain: solar -> chemical -> heat -> useful power processing.

That said photovoltaic solar isn't going to provide enough power outside of the tropics unless you literally cover the countryside in it (theoretical max efficiency of a cell is 85%, realistic current tech is about 30%, average incident energy in the uk is about ~100W so covering you're entire roof in solar panels might allow you to run a conventional lightbulb). Chucking in wind and wave power helps, but the problem with renewables is that they're unpredictable so you need to back up any power generated from renewables with conventional power stations. Also you need to store the electricity because half the time you'll be generating power when you don't need it and vice versa (i.e. using it when you're not generating). Storing massive quantities of electricity is hard...

Renewables aren't enough taking Britain as an example: even though as an island we have great wave and wind power (shit solar), massive investment and implementation of renewables would produce nowhere near enough power.

Then if you assume that electric cars are going to become commonplace (and thats a fairly safe bet) then our electricity consumption is going to approximately double. I pretty much agree with the UK govt and the books author the only thing thats going to keep the lights on and give us very low CO2 emissions is a big switch to nuclear. The resulting waste is a bitch, but its not an existential threat in the way that global warming is.

Microgeneration of power in the UK is a waste of time too - for wind the turbines are pointlessly small and generally too low down and for solar we simply don't get enough sun. Its a waste of time money and resources.

[bornwithnoname]

Electric cars and more efficient batteries are just the user end of the problem. It still doesn't address the alternative fuel source that would be required to generate the electricity they would need.
As far as I can imagine the only solution to this would be smaller and incredibly more efficient and longer lasting solar cells that would even work in less sunny climates.

Don't discount the nuclear option

Barbie,

I don't think nuc powered car are a hot idea... I see dozen car accidentsa week. That could be bad

[Barbarossa]

Don't discount the nuclear option

Barbie,

I don't think nuc powered car are a hot idea... I see dozen car accidentsa week. That could be bad

I'm waiting for my on-board "Mr Fusion"... :whistling

No, I mean nuclear power-stations, providing power for battery-driven cars :)

[Something Else]

I think electric cars were probably invented a long time ago. The fuel companies probably bought them, along with the patents and then burned them to keep a coal powered plant going for an extra 5 minutes. :mellow:

[homebizseo]

The Us and European countries need to mandate hybrid motors for autos and require solar panel on new construction. If most homes could produce 20% of their own power look at the energy savings per year.

[lynx]

The Us and European countries need to mandate hybrid motors for autos and require solar panel on new construction. If most homes could produce 20% of their own power look at the energy savings per year.
At the moment, hybrid cars cost more to make (in energy terms) than they save in their expected lifetime, so as a so-called "green" option it is anything but green.

Similarly, photovoltaic solar panels of the size used in roof panels will take a long time before the energy cost of production is recovered, but at least in that case there's a chance of an energy profit in the long term.

A better option is a solar hot water system. These systems need no expensive technology, and are actually more efficient. A large proportion of household energy use goes in heating water. Creating electricity with a PV system, only to use that electricity in an inefficient water heating system is ludicrous when the sun's power can be used to heat water directly.

Of course, what we really need to see developed is a combined hot water/PV system in the same panel. There are plenty of so-called hybrid systems, but in fact they are simply separate systems on the same roof. Hot water systems tend to utilise the IR/red end of the solar spectrum, PV systems extract most of their energy from the blue/UV end of the same spectrum. I envisage that such a system would heat the water first, with the PV cell sitting behind to pick up the remaining energy. I know that the feasibility of such systems is being examined, but I'm not sure what progress has been made at present.

[bblogs]

No, I mean nuclear power-stations, providing power for battery-driven cars :)

+1. It'll take a long time for the big men to take the risk, but when desperation sets in.... :whistling