Buy Microsoft Office Home & Student
Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
extremely inefficient
by impala - 5/3/07 4:09 PM In reply to: AIR POWER by vvboysetsfirevvusing compressed air as an energy storage medium is extremely inefficient. So is compressed Hydrogen, by the way.
And what do you think will power the onboard compressor? My Mercury has an onboard compressor for the air springs. It's powered by electricity generated from gasoline.
The fuel adaptive hybrid - turbine with photovoltaics
by Tymlaird - 5/2/07 10:08 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
This has been an engineering question that should be addressed straightaway. It should be possible to build a hybrid using a turbine engine much like dodge developed for a prototype series of passenger vehicles in the late 60's. The engine that was banned from use in the indy 500 as being "too powerful and efficient" Sites for owners can be found by googling "turbine cars". This is an engine that can run on any fuel that will burn, with varying degrees of efficiency, but really any fuel, hydrogen, propane, biodiesel, grain alcohol, even gasoline. As a really small turbine running a generator they should be highly efficient, and any fuel at a reasonable price or availability could be used. A person on a farm or even with a large yard could produce enough alcohol from bio waste. The flagrantly wealthy could run their cars on Chivas.
And they have essentially one moving part. I also figured that this could run a small air compressor that could supply both air brakes and air bearings for the turbine, reducing wear to the moving part and wheels to practically nil. If a photovoltaic array for the roof/exterior could be incorporated that could seperate out the oxygen and hydrogen from rainwater that would drain into a collection tank, you might never need fuel of any sort, it could produce it's own. If you leave it outside.
Now that we have a proposed new power system let's find someone who could devise aftermarket modifications for full size vans, or semi trailers topped with photovoltaics to produce enough energy to supply their own power. Or Busses. Or trains. Suppose every boxcar could be a self powered hybrid/photovoltaic vehicle, and the engine could become simply the control device.
After all, it's all well and good to ask for personal transport that's green, but making it possible for business to need it to improve their bottom line will be the thing that will make it happen. Just imagine what energy independence for the moving of not just people but all goods would do for our quality of life.
Electric engines probably the best answer!
by twuhing - 5/2/07 10:09 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
I agree with Wayne about electricity being the best bet in the war against pollution.
If a few million more dollars can be spent on the new flexible solar panels, it might be possible in the not-so-far future to power cars totally from daylight, keeping their deep cell batteries topped up for all but the most long-range, night-driving. This possible application to hybrid cars might also be a great help in lowering the need for gasoline.
I get my ideas from a startling development which I have been watching for years:
Take a look at http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=33 .
Flexible, unbreakable, efficient, solar power! Wonder when the auto-makers will try it on the roofing of cars?
Cheers, Tom
Nuclear short-term, geothermal long(er) term
by Richard.S.Smith - 5/2/07 10:13 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
If one believes the urgency of the current “global warming” scare, then our only practical short-term option is nuclear power. There was a time when the earth was covered in a blanket of CO2 and oxygen was the toxic pollutant. Of course there has also been evidence of catastrophic climate events the likes of which we would prefer not to see. Better safe than sorry. Besides, one can argue that removing North America’s dependence on oil also has security and self-sufficiency implications which is incentive enough on its own.
Up here in Canada we developed the CANDU reactor (in the 1950’s) which uses heavy water as the moderator. This means that melt downs are not possible, (in the traditional sense) as the moderator (water) and fissile material cannot fuse. Using heavy water also allows the CANDU to run on unenriched fuel, which eliminates the need for enrichment facilities which can lead to the development of weapons. They also produce cleaner waste, as the spent fuel needs only to be kept for 200 years or so before it is as radioactive as the uranium fuel going in (why not put it back in the mines from whence it came?) 200 years is really is not so long, and the fuel pellets are in ceramic form, and not very prone to dispersal into the environment.
Nuclear technology differs from fossil fuels in that wastes are retained and managed, rather than dispersed into the environment. You would be surprised how much of the world’s energy comes from the burning of coal, whose obnoxious waste is simply pumped into the air. Radiation is also incredibly easy to detect.
Windmill farms, biodiesel, ethanol, solar power, and hydro, all suffer from the problem that there simply in not enough space to support these technologies long term. Even if there were for North America, developing countries will certainly make this impractical.
Electricity and hydrogen are simply energy forms, rather than fuel per say. The need to be made from something else.
That said, nuclear energy is still a non-renewable resource.
Unless someone comes up with a controllable fusion technology, I think our most likely source of power after nuclear is geothermal. We are living on a thin crust on the surface of this earth, surrounding a ball of molten rock, not unlike the skin of a balloon. And this molten rock is not that far away. The geothermal gradient is approximately 30 degrees C per kilometer. It is simply a matter of technology.
heavy water reactor enables weapons production
by impala - 5/3/07 4:14 PM In reply to: Nuclear short-term, geothermal long(er) term by Richard.S.SmithI thought heavy water reactors enable the processes that lead to weapons production in the form of plutonium. These processes would be too risky in a light water reactor?
I thought all Russian reactors used heavy water, including Chernobyl.
But, technically heavy water is better than normal water inside a nuke reactor for many reasons.
not water, graphite
by Zpunk - 6/25/07 8:53 PM In reply to: heavy water reactor enables weapons production by impalaChernobyl used graphite to slow down the neutrons, the water was just to cool the core and run the generators. when the water leaked out the graphite caught fire and then things got real bad.......We haven't used graphite in a reactor since the early 40s. Fast breeder reactors use molten sodium to cool the core today.
Regarding heavy water
by omosin - 4/2/08 2:50 AM In reply to: heavy water reactor enables weapons production by impalaRegarding heavy water I should say perhaps that according to the theory of absolute speeds the break of Á-D-bonds can occur faster, than Á-H-bonds, mobility of an deuterium ion is less, than mobility of protium ion, the constant of ionization heavy water is a little bit less than ionization constant of heavy water. So it would be much easy to obtain energy from heavy water than from ordinary water 
E85 85% ethanol
by daniloreyes - 5/2/07 10:25 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
85% ethanol is the best choice today. In the future there might be better choices and alternatives but not today. E85 is the best choice today.
Increasing the use of renewable fuel such as E85 is essential as the nation strives to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
Thanks
Geothermal Electricity can meet all our energy needs
by Scotty Drye - 5/2/07 10:31 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Electricity produced buy proven geothermal technology can produce 2000 times the electricity used by the US in 2005. (The exact quote is reproduced below, after the address of the report. The report was conducted by 18 professionals who did a 2 year study for MIT.
I cannot understand why this report has not been mentioned on the front page of every major news paper and Journal in the US!
Please read it for yourself, and spread the word. This can be our future, if special interest groups cannot succeed in burying it from the public and scientific community.
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
Quote from page 18: "Using reasonable assumptions regarding how
Heat would be mined from stimulated EGS reservoirs; we also estimated the extractable portion to
Exceed 200,000 EJ or about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United
States in 2005."
Farts..
by The_Truth! - 5/2/07 11:00 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
beer, tacos and pizza.
It's not ethanol from corn
by Channing - 5/2/07 11:04 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
It takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the energy that is produced, so we may have reduced pollution in our vehicles, but we increase pollution from the farming and processing. It's a zero-sum proposition at best.
Now, it we had tons of sugar cane, like Brazil....
Channing
Ventura CA USA
H2 Combustion
by rafdoc - 5/2/07 11:05 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Hydrogen combustion is the way to go. Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future no matter what, and considering it's the most abundant element in the universe, it's safe to say we won't run out. Also, every energy source requires more energy to be produced, refined and/or distributed, so that's not a serious disadvantage to hydrogen.
Finally, one would ask what advantage hydrogen combustion holds over fuel cells. Well, for starters, a discarded hydrogen combustion car doesn't hold batteries and fuel cells, which makes it less polluting. Also, customer adaptation will be simpler to cars that feel like gasoline powered vehicles. Either way, a combination of fuel cell and combustion cars on the road is feasable, considering the same distribution network is needed to power them.
you are wrong
by impala - 5/3/07 4:18 PM In reply to: H2 Combustion by rafdocyou said
"Also, every energy source requires more energy to be produced, refined and/or distributed, so that's not a serious disadvantage to hydrogen"
What you stated is one of hydrogen's main disadvantages. It's processes are much less efficient than batteries, etc. It is basic thermo that using hydrogen to fuel transportation is very inefficient.
Biodiesel is a form of solar energy that works with existing vehicles and existing infrastructure. much better than hydrogen.
H2 confusion
by albizzia - 5/7/07 9:35 PM In reply to: H2 Combustion by rafdocWouldn't a "discarded hydrogen combustion car" have a lead acid starter battery like most cars do? And wouldn't the discarded engine contain several quarts of used oil that could be extremely polluting? Electric car batteries and fuel cells would be recycled, not discarded, as they contain valuable metals.
Another problem wih H2 combustion cars is range. Compressed to 10,000 psi, H2 has only 1/5 the energy of gasoline, per gallon. H2 liquified at an ultra-cold −423.17 °F (−252.87 °C) has only 1/4 the energy of gasoline.
Quantum tried replacing the gas tank on a Prius with a compressed H2 tank, but even with the high efficiency hybrid drive modified with a turbocharger, they could only get 80 mile per tank of H2.
BMWs "Hydrogen 7" has a 30 gallon liquid H2 tank taking up most of the trunk space, but it can only get 120 miles per tank of H2.
Looks like you'd either have to settle for short driving range, or have a car that is half fuel tank.
Formatting error?
by albizzia - 5/7/07 9:41 PM In reply to: H2 confusion by albizzia(−252.87 °C, −423.17 °F)
−423.17 °F (−252.87 °C)
Woah, what a formatting error! Don't know how that happened.
Supposed to be "minus 423.17 degrees F, minus 252.87 degrees C"
Liquid H2 is really REALLY chilly!
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
