Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
Nuclear Fusion
by ZachThurston - 5/2/07 8:48 PM In reply to: lots of choices, lots of problems by wbowblisFusion is the only energy dense enough reaction to make enough energy to make water electrolysis feasible. Before we can even THINK of using hydrogen as a fuel, we need to get fusion to work. Otherwise, you're wasting energy to make Hydrogen (As has already been well estabilished in this forum) I think the solution of the future will be one of multiple fuels. I think someday in the future you will pull up to the pump, and have a choice of 6 or 7 different fuels, Gasoline, Diesel, LNG, LPG, Ethanol, Hydrogen, etc. The reason we're in such a jam right now is because we only use oil as the energy source for transportation. If we can make it so many different fuels are used, good old laisse faire will kick in and the companies will have to compete for our fuel dollars, making the best solution at the lowest possible cost. We also need more efficent engine designs, as the by far most widely used engine design, the 4 stroke piston engine, only attains 10-20% efficency. I've read on howstuffworks.com about the Quasiturbine engine, which, if it lives up to its boasting, it could be ba great way to decrease our dependcy on oil (www.quasiturbine.com) Overall, the best way we can make this work is to have more than one monopolized fuel so we can weather out the storm if one goes under.
Fusion is always the energy source of the future
by kimbo1308 - 5/6/07 9:57 AM In reply to: Nuclear Fusion by ZachThurstonBillions of dollars have already been poured into fusion R&D by DoE with no practical result such as a large 100 MW demonstration. At this point it doesn't look the technical problems with fusion can be overcome.
I would put my bets on a diverse portfolio of new alternative generation technologies. Solar generated electricity e.g. is only 2-3 times that of today's grid electricity so it is within stiking range. With reductions in cost (larger cheaper manufacturing plants) and improvement in performance in efficiency.. DARPA has projects aiming at 50% cell conversion efficiency.
Pzev
I agree with Fusion
by dre.caruana - 5/6/07 1:56 PM In reply to: Fusion is always the energy source of the future by kimbo1308Fusion is, perhaps, probably, the best way to 'create' energy. I mean the Sun is the most powerful thing we know about no? And it 'works' by fusion. The amounts of energy produced by fusion are immense, but as there is no success yet about harnessing this energy, we can only hope and pray. I would think that the combined effort of many people would do it. Mankind can do ANYTHING if we want to. There are enough atoms and molecules to produce energy for all of us...
cost of compressing hydrogen
by Billtheguy - 5/2/07 10:15 PM In reply to: lots of choices, lots of problems by wbowblisHydrogen is about the least dense element in the universe. To be made useable in a car it must be compressed and this is a huge cost in running the compressor. So costly, that it must be taken into account when advocating hydrogen as a fuel.
Anything we burn is bad
by rgirwin - 5/3/07 1:20 AM In reply to: lots of choices, lots of problems by wbowblisYou are right in that we will have to move away from the internal combustion engine. It does not matter whether we burn oil, coal or bio-whatever. Although in different quantities for the same quantity of energy produced, they all produce CO2 and some, even more noxious sub-products,as are the cancer-promoting micro particles of diesel engines.
Switching to a extensive public transportation system does not solve the problem, as also such a system must be powered from some source.
My idea is that we will be forced to completely switch to battery electric cars. This will take the problem from having millions of privately-owned small engines producing CO2 to centralizing the electricity needed in few sites, that could be equipped with all the technology (that will be) available to limit emissions and sequester carbon at the source.
Those generating plants will have to be multinational (at least in Europe) ant take profit of all alternative sources available, such as wind farms, solar cell farms, and a few many others.
When the day comes we will finally have fusion reactors, it would be simpler to gradually equip those central electricity producing plants to the new technology, without a too much big impact on our lives.
ELECTRIC IS THE ONLY WAY
by FredMars - 5/3/07 2:39 PM In reply to: Anything we burn is bad by rgirwinBio-fuels are too costly and still produce negative environmental impact. Hydrogen while environmentally decent is not a good source of energy and storing it is a major problem. Ragrdless how you generate it, electricity is the best "fuel" to power a vehicle.
It amazes me that when automakers produced these hybrid vehicles, they really missed the boat! Diesel locomotives are actually electric drive. The diesel engine spins generators that power huge electric motors. They could probably save half of their fuel costs by installing batteries and solar cells to provide charging. Even in a long tunnel where the sun don't shine, the amount of time the diesel engine(s) would have to run to provide charging would be much less that it does to provide constatnt power generation.
the hybrid Prius and similar vehicles use an eleectric motor, but only in the city where speeds are less that say forty miles per hour.
Utilizing an electric motor to drive the vehicle full time, would mean the gas engine would run only to provide charging power to the batteries when required. This would greatly increase the vehicle's fuel economy. A small portable power generator runs between 4.5 and 8 hours on a small amount of fuel. It would not take that much fuel to provide charging to the batteries of "my electric car" because I would utilize all of the available technologies to reduce the need for the fuel to provide charging. Using solar PV (photovoltaic) cells, regerative braking, and possibly an inductive generator mounted on the axle(s).
If a Toyoata Pius gets you the equivalent of 36 miles per gallon, then my design will at least double that. The new $92K Tesla Roadster uses a 70lb. electric drive motor that accelrates 0-60 in about 4 seconds and can cruise about 200 miles between charges. It would seem that even a small solar array would extend that range significantly.
As for fusion technology, it has been here, but suppressed for a long time. Evidently there is a patent for such a device that was invented by Philo T. Farnsworth over fifty years ago. ITT is the patent holder, and althugh they claim that the cold fusion device does not woek, they keep spending money to keep a lid on the technology. There have been othetr inventions that promise to make the "spent" nuclear fuel useable, but that is also a technology that can't get AEC approval, even though it has been demonstrated to be safe.
Moray, Tesla, McFarland-Cook, all created devices that seemed to be powered by the "Aether" and yet we still do not have one device on the market that their technology proved to be fact. J. P. Morgan told Tesla, that he we "inthe business of selling energy, not antennae," when Tesla told him about getting electricity from the cosmos, and here we are today.
An all electric car will mean that all of the industry supporting internal combustion engines will end, albeit new industries will support the new paradigm. But what about the "big oil" industry? DO you really think they are just going to allow their market to end?
Fred M
Corvallis, OR
why is buring plants bad?
by impala - 5/3/07 3:16 PM In reply to: Anything we burn is bad by rgirwinyou said "bio-whatever. Although in different quantities for the same quantity of energy produced, they all produce CO2"
biodiesel does not have to produce a NET CO2 gain because all the CO2 it produces was taken from the air by the organism that biodiesel is made from. It is CO2 neutral.
If you're thinking of the energy invested to process the organism into biodiesel, that could be solar or nuclear sourced. And, I think you could power all biodiesel production with biodiesel and still have a significant net energy gain, all CO2 neutral.
Body First, Car Second
by geodesy - 4/26/07 8:01 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Caffiene. Lot & lots of caffiene. Without that I can't even get to a vehicle in the AM. Seriously, nothing on the market right now is economically viable - unless you factor in non-milage aspects such as use of the diamond lanes. What we need are the high fuel milage regular gas engined cars the Car industry is capable of making if the goverment makes them - by taxing gas (which unfortunately negatively impacts the lower and middle classes - the rich don't care if they pay $50 a gallon). We need to take the oil industries windfall profits away and use them for real reseacrh into high milage vehilce of all types.
You still have emissions problem...
by robains - 5/3/07 3:26 PM In reply to: Body First, Car Second by geodesyeven if you come up with a way to make gasoline engines more efficient. Basic physics will keep the gasoline engine very inefficient thanks to how it operates and friction. You need a lot of friction provide enough of a seal to generate a combustable mix for which you can convert mechanical output. It was a great original concept, but it's time has come and it's damage has been done and continues.
Using current day technology, moving to Electric only and solar on all homes & buildings effective eleminates 80% of our energy loads currently placed on oil and coal. This is a realistic solution that can be used today. The unrealistic part is getting the selfish human race to think beyond tomorrow -- some of the critical countries that don't want to participate include the US, China, Russia -- in other words the countries that could actually make a significant difference.
But many other ways of living can be established that doesn't reduce our standard of living (the work commute can be eliminated in most cases if people were educated enough to read & write), but does make us a much more energy aware and less of a planet destroyer. Ultimately the planet will get the last laugh as we cook the human race over the next 50-100 years.
Butanol from Cellulose
by szob - 4/26/07 8:03 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Great thread! In my opinion one of the most overlooked fuels is Butanol. It can be fermented as productively as Ethanol but has a higher energy content, closer to the energy contained in gasoline. This means that you would not see a 1/3 drop in mpg like you would with Ethanol. Also, Butanol is not miscible with water so it can be transported via pipeline as gas currently is. An issue with Ethanol is that since it mixes with water it can't be transported by pipeline and must be moved in tankers, making it more costly and contributing to emissions.
Another aspect that is lost with biofuels in general is that if you are going to use food grains to generate them you will place pressure on the food supply causing food prices across the board to increase. As was stated in the original post, given a choice between food and fuel I will take food every time. For this reason the fuel needs to be fermented not from sugar but from cellulose derived sugar. The good thing about cellulose is it is abundant, farmers pay to have plant waste removed. This waste can be processed with enzymes (not currently very cheap) and turned into sugar for fermentation. Never impacting the usable food supply. Additionally cellulose can be harvested from grasses and fast growing trees in addition to farm waste.
The upside with biofuels is that they use carbon from the atmosphere and any emissions created when they are burned are reused, achieving a net carbon balance, hopefully. The problem with Hydrogen or Electricity is that they have to be generated somehow and right now the most efficient way is through fossil fuels. All you end up doing is moving the emissions from the tail pipe to the smokestack. It's better but not exactly carbon neutral unless all Hydrogen or Electricity is generated by wind, solar or wave farms. The good thing about Electricity is that we already have an infrastructure for distributing it where a Hydrogen infrastructure at the scale needed would be a huge investment not to mention the issues with packaging in cars that needs to be sorted out.
The upside of Biobutanol is that the barriers of transition and the impact on society are lower compared to other fuels mentioned. The fermentation plants would need to be built but the rest of the infrastructure and the cars themselves can remain unchanged. In the end however there will not be one magical fuel for the future it will probably be a mixture of fossil fuels, wind, solar and biofuels.
Steam power is THEE answer
by racet - 4/26/07 8:30 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
My Dad used to always talk about steam powered cars. I grew up listening to him go on and on about it. They are just as fast if not faster, they do not pollute, they are quiet, they have fewer moving parts, etc etc. I have also heard of how there have been inventors who have made carburators for cars that can cause there MPG to be upwards close to 60-70-80 mpg, I have heard alot of stories of the big Gasoline companies buying off many fuel saving inventions. The main problem is not coming up with alternitive fuel sources that don't pollute, nor cause us to be dependent on foriegn oil, or wrecking the environment more than we have allready, no, the main problem is that those who are the power/money hungry dudes in high places are getting wilthy rich, and don't give a D... about anything else. I am convinced that we have pollution free, cheaper, ways of making our silly little ( and big), transportation machines run down the roads. or tracks. It's probably gonna take some kinda catostropic world altering event to make us change our ways. LIke the Bible says, "The LOVE of money is at the root of all sorts of evil" Check it out mankind.
Steamers are obsolete
by albizzia - 4/26/07 9:53 PM In reply to: Steam power is THEE answer by racetOne problem with steamer cars is that you have to haul around a lot of water - the water weighs more than the fuel! It isn't practical to have a radiator/condensor on a car big enough to condense all that steam.
Another problem is they are not particularly efficient - that is why the commercial railroads switched from steam engines to diesel.
While steam may be clean, the fuel burned to produce that steam may not be.
As for those legendary "high milage" carburetors, most are urban legends and don't really exist. The few that actually were made either (a) don't work, or (b) severely restrict performance, making them unacceptable to customers.
Steam - Thermodynamics Says Sorry
by baumgrenze - 4/27/07 8:37 PM In reply to: Steamers are obsolete by albizziaA simplified version of what I remember from thermodynamics, which I last studied ~50 years ago, says that we should look at the Carnot cycle.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=carnot+cycle&btnG=Google+Search
The determiner of the the efficiency of a heat engine is the difference between the inlet temperature and the heat rejection temperature. For a steam engine operating at reasonable temperatures and boiler pressures, this difference is rather small. That is where the rub is.
I, too, was a fan of the Stanley Steamer in the 1950's. That was when McCulloch Corporation hired Abner Doble as a consultant for their project to build a steam powered sports car. They gave up.
White gasoline is the answer.
by TreknologyNet - 5/2/07 8:24 PM In reply to: Steamers are obsolete by albizziaThe 200MPG carburettor is a reality. Strip the ridiculous additives out of the fuel and it works fine. The additives clog up the catalyst.
In fairness, "white" gasoline is more likely to explode when you light a cigarette three blocks away, but it's all the additives to reduce "ping", modify octane levels and so forth which means that a car is using far more fuel than it really needs.
alternative fuel
by olixav - 4/26/07 9:50 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Well if you ask me, for now the best choice would be ethanol. Because with a few modification to most car onthe road today, we can be running clean ca. I think it could be a good solution for now. I day for now 'cause, the clean cars on the market right now are quite expensive! Anyways, that's my opinion!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
