Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
Good walking shoes, made of rubber, factories powered by..?
by MultiMuse - 5/3/07 6:57 AM In reply to: Feet by Frank AndrewsI wonder how much more energy would be consumed to power the factories to produce my walking treads each year...
I'd probably wear out a pair a month if I walked all my "short" distance trips. And too bad my home chores don't magically get done without my involvement while I'm out doing my bipedal "Keep on truckin', man!" stunt down the shoulder of the motorway. Safe activity that, though a bit pedestrian. - We now return you to your normal forgetful mode of life. Cheers. 
Alternate thought
by reptar - 4/26/07 5:43 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
One important way to improve our energy situation is to again require improved mpg in new cars. Encourage public transit in cities and discourage suburbs to lessen demand for fuel. Try riding into a city on an elevated train line (Philadelphia, for one) and watch the cars in gridlock below. Plus they have to pay for parking when they eventually get to their destination.
And pull the plug on using corn for ethanol. Diverting resources to it is already causing higher prices as increased demand for fertilizer makes other crops more expensive. It takes too much energy to produce ethanol, although it's a nice subsidy for ADM and agro-industry. Switch grasses are a more efficient crop to use for ethanol production than corn.
Raise the bridge or lower the river...
just a few points
by phoneguyinpgh - 4/26/07 6:31 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Dear Wayne,
I enjoyed and agree with the points you made in your article. There are a few points I would like to add that I think deserve noting.
Biodiesel, SVO and ethanol certainly do have emissions, however, any internal combustion engine will produce emissions of one form or another regardless of the fuel being used. What I feel is the key point to note about these fuels is that the carbon emissions are a closed loop. By that I mean that the bio-matter (plants) used to produce the fuel removes CO2 from the environment as they grow. We then release that captured CO2 back into the environment when we use it. No carbon is added to the environment as with fossil fuels that have carbon in them that was captured millions of years ago. Further, no carbon is removed from the environment either, it is a closed carbon loop system. I believe the use of these fuels would provide the most benefit in the short run with the current vehicle technology in our cars. As you mentioned the production capacity currently at our disposal will probably not meet our current, much less future, energy needs. It is capable of supplementing our current use of fossil fuels. Using them as a stop gap measure and to help wean us off of fossil fuels until new technology can be developed to replace them.
Natural gas does burn much cleaner than any fossil fuel currently in use. It is, however, still a fossil fuel which means releasing prehistorically trapped carbon into the environment.
Electricity, as you pointed out, produces no emissions when the vehicle is being driven, but how the electricity is generated could be producing significant emissions and adding carbon to the environment. Nuclear generation certainly produces no atmospheric emissions but does produce high level radioactive waste. Since the TMI incident in the 70’s environmentalists have strongly opposed further construction of new nuclear facilities, so it is unlikely that we could rely on that as a source for increased electricity demands without a major technological advance in the field. (Note that France generates near 80% of their electricity with nuclear power while the US is at 20-25%.) Hydro, wind and solar generation are also certainly emission free. However current estimates show that even all three combined can’t meet our energy needs, again without a significant technological break through.
Mark in Pittsburgh
Auto fuels
by davmax - 5/2/07 10:39 PM In reply to: just a few points by phoneguyinpghDear Mark,
The argument that bio fuels are CO2 neutral only reflects one issue CO2. Bio fuels produced from crops require high energy input(much of it oil based currently), chemical input, large quantities water input and nutrient input. Essentiallt this type of fuel production mines water and nutrients and they have to be replaced. Massive destruction of rain forests and the species diversity now proposed and also happening to make way for bio fuel production will cause totally negative ecosystem/environmental destruction. Let alone the issue of food having to compete with fuel guzzling vehicles. There is the prospect that global warming will further reduce the ability to produce plants on this planet creating a head to head clash. The other alternatives such as hydrogen produced with energy efficient technology looks promising. The fuel tank and other issues relating to hydrogen have been solved for decades. We have local buses running on hydrogen and I believe Iceland is going all hydrogen(from thermal power).
Actually Iceland is currently
by Species8472 - 5/2/07 11:20 PM In reply to: Auto fuels by davmaxThe worlds largest producer and consumer of Geothermal power. They use their numerous hot springs to generate electricity (the same way coal-fired plants do) and heat water for homes.
Plants & jungles thrived in the warmer global Jurassic?
by MultiMuse - 5/3/07 7:10 AM In reply to: Auto fuels by davmaxWasn't our globe a lot warmer during the Jurassic period of Earth's history than now? Were there not abundant wide-spread rain forests and plant diversity then? Or am I missing something? Maybe plants don't mind CO2 and warmth so much? Maybe the critters adapted to coastal swamps and thrived there too, when there were fewer icebergs in that world. Maybe Ma Nature is still as robust in this era as she has always been. Hmmm...
Just dreaming about a history lesson here.
Global warming
by normanoid - 5/3/07 11:20 AM In reply to: Plants & jungles thrived in the warmer global Jurassic? by MultiMuseI remember seeing some TV show about nature that said they found plant life that existed in the arctic regions in ages past that were of a tropical nature.
Also deciduous trees evolved there leaf shedding nature in the arctic regions because in the winter there would be no light for the leaves to collect.
Even though global warming is real, it's not the end of the world, or great problem that people make it out to be. Coast lines may change a bit and deserts may spread. But people that currently live in colder climates will be enjoying warmer and more milder weather. Siberia might not be such a bad place to visit one day.
Even if we do reduce the greenhouse gas emissions - of cars and factories and everything else that human ingenuity contribute - to zero, the planet will continue to warm based on the natural cycles of the planet. All we can do is maybe slow it down a little.
The real problem is not global warming, but the end of Oil. As a fuel is one thing, as world transportation (not just personal) depend on fuel. No more japanese oranges at Christmas. Oil also provides us with many other things such as plastics, and pesticides. Huge factory farms are going to be in trouble without the pesticides required to maintain crops.
Alternative fuels are available. For Hydrogen to work, there will have to be a lot more electrical output, most likely in the form of nuclear power plants, and a lot of them. To make the Hydrogen that will be consumed requires electricity. Biofuels take up to much land required for food.
Global Warming/"Fossil" Fuel
by FredMars - 5/4/07 12:37 AM In reply to: Global warming by normanoidI don't know if our geenhouse gases have imapacted global warming as much as solar activity has, and I am not sure the jury is in on the amount of oil reserves we still have. Some geologists think that oil is the plate lubricant that the earth produces. Perhaps earthquake severity is heightened by the oil we are sucking out of the ground. Again, it's open to debate.
What is NOT debateable is the fact that oil per barrel is rising with demand, ad with India and China needing nore oil for their own industrialization projects, deman is obviously rising along with the price per barrel. It is also no secret that the terrorist are financed by rich oil nations.
Personally, I feel that the best alternative is electric. The biggest problem is how we produce it. Nuclear recators produce so much energy that it has to be "wasted" before it can be used. he power grid produces energy and underutilzes it during off peak hours, but it is not stored, its gone.
Photovoltaics have improved to the point of better than 85% efficiency, and that can power a home even when the sky is overcast. By using batter/hypercapacitor storage, that energy is not wasted, it is there to be used all night while the sun isn't available.
It is known that a voltage is produced perpendicular to a magnetic field, but the problem has been to create that magnetic field without the magnetic decay that requires either replavement of permanent magnets or using some of the electric produced to recharge the magnets (coils as in electromagnets) can be utilized.
Nuclear fusion will NOT be allowed in my life time. It is possible to produce a fusion reaction without a CERN-sized accelerator. Philo T. Farnsworth did it and ITT holds a patent on his design. But they will not license the technology and claim that it really never worked. So why keep a patent up on a device that does not work?
18th & 19th centrury physicists believed there was a source of energy called the ether or Aether (Aether preferenced to differentiate between it and the chemical ether used in medicine) and that it yeilded it's energy when prodded properly.
Look around you people! Nature does not burn fuel to create heat or light. Contrary to textbook science, the sun is NOT a fusion reactor, but an electrodynamo! The hydrogen fusion that is taking place is a result of the plasma enery that is bombarding the sun with its electric energy.
Walking, riding a bike or horse is NOT alternative fuel. Alternative transportaion yes, but not alternative fuel. The way I see it, we have come to believe that combustion in some form or another is required to generate energy. How about hydroelectric a la Niagra Falls. Hoover Dam, etc.?
Electric motors provide more torque (instantly) and more horsepower per watt than does a IC engine whether it is fired by diesel, ethanol, gas, hydrogen, or burning leaves. And electric motors have no exhaust gases to pollute or produce greenhouse gases.
I have sat here reading all the rants about why this won't work or why that isn't feasible. How about looking at what does work and what we can do now to make a transition to a fuelless economy? It will take years to amke the tranition, so the US oil industry will have plenty of time to diversify their portfolios and profit in a new energy paradigm.
Oh, and one more thing, that is NOT energy related, but relevant to this particular thread. Rush Lim(p)baugh knows nothing about energy other than the conservative lobby says to stay the course. Yeah, right. Where have we heard that before? In the meantime, US automakers are going down the tubes.
Technology is available today to get us off of oil. Willingness to buck the system" may not have reached critical mass yet, and until it does there will be just the same old, same old and everyone will just complain all the way to the gas station.
Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR
Excellent Analogy but...
by FredMars - 5/30/07 5:21 PM In reply to: just a few points by phoneguyinpghThere is no doubt that internal combustion engines are not fuel efficient and that all the alternatives you mentioned would not add more miles per gallon. Some have suggested that alternative fuels may actually be less efficient than unleaded gasoline.
What I see as the real problem is how we see energy as a tool, and the paradigm of having to create it. First and foremost, this flies in the face of the physics paradigm that states, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only its form changed." The second aspect that is commonly ignored is the experiemnts and inventions that have been reviewed for a couple hundred years now, that show without a doubt, there is excess energy produced when we "generate" electric power, most of which is dissipated as heat. A measured anamolous energy spike is created when you have spark, just likethe ignition spark that fires your fuel in the cylinders of your vehicle's engine. Since it is of short duration it does not burn much fuel. So either the spark has to be made longer or the fuel needs to combust quicker.
One of the methods used to make th efuel burn faster is to preheat the fuel. Major explosion hazard there, unless it can be done via tuned port vortex and heat at the juncture of enetering the cylinder. I witnessed such a design (experimental) during a brief stint as a contractor with Ford (In SE PA!)and I was astounded. A 351 C.I.D V-8 with one liter of fuel was started on a test bench at about 4:00PM. When I arrived the next morning and hit the factory floor at about 7:00 AM, the engine was still running the test and the fuel container had dropped about one third. When I prodded the engineer at the workstation, he displayed a screen that showed the engine was using the fuel at a rate of about 249.xx miles per gallon.
I further inquired how long before I saw that on a Ford F150, to which I was told, "Not in your lifetime."
It's an engineering issue, not a Physics issue. There are many safety issues when dealing with fuel that is heated to vaporization. Just like a diesel, it could explode/combust just onthe compression stroke, prior to actual ignition spark. But I am sure that with today's simulation technologies, it could be worked out. And of course the almost nil emissions is as much of a plus as the high efficiency.
But I am a strong advocate for fuelless vehicles and energy production. If everyone of tose people that say walking is a better idea would put up a wind generator or solar array, we would rely less on fuels to provide energy.
Throughout history, we have always used brute force to solve a problem when a more subtle approach can gain the same rewards without suffering the side effects. It's true in natural medicines versus pharmaceuticals. It's not that science can't solve the problem, its the politics of science that prevents a new idea from changing the established dogma. The world is flat and that is all you have to know. Science took centuries to sway that opinion, and it will probably take as long to get the current paradigm to fade away. Electromagnetics or more appropriately Electrogravitics is the way of energy independence. There are more elctrons, protons, and photons that constantly bombard our planet from the sun alone, that just one hour of that power could light the Earth for thousands of years. So why are we still burning fuels?
Regarding nuclear, I say NO! Besides the hazards of fission reactors, and the disposal of all that waste, the complex design of these reactors invites danger. Paul M. Brown had a design that would even produce energy from the wast fuels that are to be buried. He patented technology that could even remove thorium from heavy water. He was killed in a hit-and-run before he was able to prsent his designs to Congress and the AEC.
We can make a change if we have the courage to do so. DEMAND that new technology be made available. DEMAND that research and development dollars are spent on testing these "old" ideas, and either put them to bed or start waking up to a new energy paradigm.
Ethanol not the alternative it's made out to be
by djFLWB - 4/26/07 6:55 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Ethanol releases its own carcinogens also contributes to smog. There isn't enough corn currently growing to meet demands. So why are they pushing it? Lobbyists of course!
Solar and wind for electric generation are our best bets until further development of other sources. Hydrogen isn't something I want in the hands of 50% of the population. Most people I don't trust with matches.
Ethanol, forget about it
by Rick Cavaretti - 4/26/07 7:35 AM In reply to: Ethanol not the alternative it's made out to be by djFLWB1) Forgetting for a second the energy content per unit volume of ethanol is lower than gas.
2) And that you need to burn oil anyway to produce energy to manufacture the ethanol.
3) In the end, you use more ethanol to do the same work--drive the same distance
4) Loop back to #1, repeat
And where will we find enough land to grow all of the corn? Top soil is already eroding at an alarming rate. How about fertilizer and insecticides? It takes oil to produce those. Don't even talk about the increased toxic run off into OUR water supply by using more chemicals.
Lastly, do you really want to take food off of the table and place it in your car's tank?
There's an election coming up next year. Would you want to get a few million people from the corn growing belt on your side with promises of subsidies, tax breaks, etc? This idea to use corn to 'liberate' us (think flag waving nationalism) from the middle East is about politics, nothing more
not so fast
by impala - 5/3/07 3:02 PM In reply to: Ethanol, forget about it by Rick CavarettiI will agree "corn based ethanol, forget about it" but there are other potential sources of ethanol. Switchgrass comes to mind.
And there are other biofuels besides ethanol, such as biodiesel.
Finally the myth about food prices. Our government today pays farmers NOT to grow food because if they all did, they would make too much and all go broke. Crazy, yes, but true. Sure there will be short-term spikes and dips and such, but it will even out in the long run.
why it is a pleasing distraction
by twocb - 5/3/07 9:30 AM In reply to: Ethanol not the alternative it's made out to be by djFLWBIf GM made a diesel ecospeedster in europe that got 110 mpg back in 2000 and a hybrid that got 80 mpg in the mid 90's and destroyed the EV1 that could be turned into a production model right now.
The answer is:
Just like crime solving. Who has motives?
The big powers don't want anything that is efficient on the road. It gives people too much power. Wind farms work. Solar panels work. Ocean energy works. Nuclear energy works. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells work. All these are essentially limitless power cycles, Sure they each have a cost. Ethanol and Biodeisel could be produced in great amounts, but it would require an enormous amount of acreage(maybe ocean acreage) devoted to it. Which requires huge investments....Not happening anytime soon. Fuel price manipulation delays this transition. By controlling the fuel supply through manipulation of markets, manipulation and control of law and legislation and mindsets of sheeple through the press, the powers control the world. Or at least limits industry diversification to handle unforeseen crisis. Thereby endangering the concept of a free world. Who owns the current fuel industry? Who wants to endanger a free world? Only large groups of people, with a clear understanding can change the current direction of the world.
Good Luck.
Electric is by far the future. PRIORITY is the driver...
by emil serban - 4/26/07 6:57 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
It's all about priorities and will.
Health as main priority:
- zero emissions vehicles such as hydrogen fuel cells and electric are best imagine downtown L.A. or Manhattan packed with cars and no smog: priceless
- hybrid comes next and all other follow
National Securiry as main priority:
- anything that eliminates the need for foreign oil import: to achieve this, all alternatives mentioned should pitch in. Those that have a high potential of producing a higher impact but are not profitable should be subsidized. It's cheaper than fighting wars.
CO2 and planet's overall health:
- electric vehicles with electricity from nuclear or non-fossil fuel plants. Subsidize research to replace current radioactive nuclear technology with .... well a small, controlled reaction that currently happens on the sun... for starters
- take an overall approach: cars are not the only CO2 source. Everybody has to pitch in.
National wellfare:
- bio... anything
People need to make up their mind what they want first. Those who don't want to do none of the above will take advantage of the confusion and will propose to do all of the above which amounts to nothing. Break one stick at the time and not the whole bunch.
Good Day
lots of choices, lots of problems
by wbowblis - 5/2/07 10:25 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Oil is a hard act to follow... it's been relatively cheap and plentiful, it packs a lot of energy and it's a liquid at ordinary temperatures and pressures. Unfortunately, it's getting expensive and scarcer and it's dirty.
Hydrogen sounds ideal but has serious problems. You can't liquify it at any sustainable temperature so it has to be shipped and dispensed as a high-pressure gas. It's more dangerous than gasoline in that it is colorless and odorless and burns with an almost invisible flame, but mostly, a vehicle would have to have a tank of it at high pressure which, in itself, is dangerous. It may be possible to absorb it onto something to store it, but that does no look to be able to store enough for a car. It also needs to be generated, which requires more energy than will be recovered by using it as fuel. With a fuel cell, efficiency may be high enough for it to be viable for some cars, but I don't see it as a widespread solution. It's upside is that it is almost non-polluting. Burning anything in air can generate oxides of nitrogen. A fuel cell may be truly non-polluting.
Battery power can be as clean as hydrogen overall and produces no emission from the vehicle itself, but can be very dirty if the power is generated that way, such as from coal. Battery technology continues to advance and for many uses, an electric car can be a viable choice. Batteries will need to be recyclable or much of the advantage is lost. I suspect we may be able to more than double the energy density of batteries, but that will still produce a car with a range of 400 miles or less (right now, a lot less). I'd buy one if the batteries could be guaranteed to last long enough to be economical and if the range hit aroung 200 miles in a car that cost similar to a gas-powered one. Charging isn't as much of a problem as you might think. Most would be charged overnight, when demand is lower. They will probably never be practical for long trips.
Biodiesel is probably the best choice for large trucks. It may be the best choice for cars that need to have more range than batteries can provide. It should be carbon-neutral on a global scale, but locally, it's still burning a carbon-based fuel. 100 square miles of Iowa may have better air from growing crops to make fuel for New York City, but NYC's air will still have a surplus of CO2. I think the biggest challenge here is to grow the crops without doing more environmental harm than burning fossil fuels does, but it can be done and it's currently workable technology.
Ethanol might help but I don't see it as a long-term solution. Production from crops is very inefficient and it needs to be distilled, which is a very energy intensive process. It also packs less energy than petroleum based fuels, but it burns a lot cleaner and should also be carbon-neutral.
Nuclear energy should probably be ranked with matter-antimatter generators. Sounds nice but is almost certainly not a viable mobile energy source as the radiation shielding needed would be prohibitively big and heavy and reactors are just too potentially dangerous to be in any place as risky as a vehicle.
Hybrids, using biodiesel or hydrogen are possibilites with all the disadvantages of the fuels involved. LNG and LPG are fossil fuels and will never be major players in the mobile market.
Short term, I think we'll see someone produce a successful, economical electric car with sufficient range that it sells enough to spur the major automakers to follow suit, and I think we'll see biodiesel replace petroleum diesel in many places. It's possible someone will produce bio-gasoline, but not until oil gets a lot more expensive.
Long term, we have to get away from burning oil and coal and we probably need to get away from needing motor vehicles so much. This will take a major realignment in our society making public transportation and walking as practical as it once was. The motor vehicle changed our world in the 20th century. We may have to change again in the 21st. Remember, even if the environment wasn't an issue, so much of the stuff we've come to expect is made from these materials. Most plastic is made from oil.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
