Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
favorite fuel
by jamesdiego - 5/10/07 12:15 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Diesel turbo in small chasis hard top with A/C; or Electric/electric hybrid probably will hit the Los Angeles Calif. area in 2009 would be great for 1 of my family cars. While corporations in USA fumble we have two BMWs and two Jeeps one of each is loaded with all electronics and BIG engines. Fuel bill over 285.00 US$ per month which is what my neighbor pays for her Cadillac SUV's gas.
Would like the electric/electric hybrid to come out in 2008 enabling me to replace my BMW
Electric cars
by Clarkegoof_14 - 5/11/07 5:12 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
I prefer electric cars because, like Wayne says, there are a great many ways to produce electricity. You can even make electricity at home, and after a large upfront cost, it's free for life (that is, if you take care of it properly). You can have wind, solar, and microhydro systems (whether individually or together) produce ALL of your electricity needs. The first thing I'm going to consider in my first house (I'm only thirteen, cut me some slack) is how "green" it is and how I can make it even more "green." I'll even have an off-grid system and an electric car. That's it. That's my favorite alternative fuel.
Anyone using cooking oil?
by Hondopalman - 5/14/07 6:57 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Have not had time to look at all the comments, but has anyone said anything about cooking oil?
The diesel engine works quite well on any type of cooking oil. Virgin or old oil if it is well filtered and heated to about 180F before entering the injectors.
My eldest son has been running around nearly free for the last 18 months in an old toyota pickup he bought and converted to oil. I say nearly free as he starts the car from his diesel tank in the morning and shuts off with diesel at the end of the day. He has used mainly old free (finished with) oil from some restaurants that had to throw the oil away. He has also experimented with virgin oil. Hardly any difference except the price, nearly the same as diesel.
An interesting observation was that a toyota mechanic commented after about one year that the engine sounded better and the injectors were cleaner. Another visual and sensory observation, very little contamination from the exhaust and a smell of fish and chips.
alternative fuel
by chowie - 5/19/07 7:08 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
algae (for the vast desert)
The (most any Fuel) and Electric Combination
by mercuryIII - 5/29/07 12:18 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Battery and most any clean fuel in combination is my favorite power source. Diesel is great for power and/or MPG, but will always be dirty and is mostly used for power(trucks). Adding battery to diesels will improve its image a lot.
The Prius and the two Hondas are the first PRACTICAL solutions we have. The plug in Prius versions and the Volt are a logical next step. Think about it, you never have to plug it in but you can if you want, and the same amount of fuel costs much less per mile as it is used to extend the battery range and recharge on the fly.
To that effort, Nickel Metal Hydride batteries are now still the best for this purpose. They have been perfected better than any other battery. They can be charged to about 75% in 15 minutes. The rest of the time has to be slower for heat monitoring reasons. Many RAV4's have recharged over 5,000 times with little decrease in range. My Prius has 120,000 miles and is still going strong.
Remember, also, to NEVER BUY CHEVRON GAS. CHEVRON OWNS NIMH TECHNOLOGY and is preventing further development. Auto manufacturers must, in their agreement with Chevron, not develop all-electric cars using NIMH technology. The battery must be used for partial power only.
Electric
by RBUTCHER - 6/21/07 9:57 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
I think we should just demand that the automobile manufacturers give us the best fuel economy they possibly can. When we buy a car we should be asking what miliage a car gets and buying whatever gives the best miliage. We should demand that politicians tax gas guslers heavily and give incentives to manufacture good economy cars. They can do it and they have when forced to. There is too big a petroleum lobby which puts roadblocks in the way of developing efficient use of energy. The petroleum industry is what stops us from having fuel efficient vehicles. We would have cars getting over 100 MPG easily if it wasn't for them. We just need to tell them where to go and force politicians into passing laws against inefficient use of energy. We can then also tell the middle east where to go and bring the troops home. We are there only to protect the petroleum industry. Let the Arabian countries keep their oil. We should have gone electric years ago. If not electric, just tell the automotive industry that we want to be off oil in 5 years or we'll tax you for not doing it. I'm sure the companies that do will be very successful and those that don't can sink. Who cares.
Electric Drive is LOWEST COST now
by randomotion - 6/21/07 11:25 AM In reply to: Electric by RBUTCHERI agree with your post: We must reward efficiency and strongly discourage inefficient systems in transportation and stationary power. America used to be innovative, and we can be again. I hope all that agree with me, will write your congress team, urging that coal and oil be used for higher order needs: Fertilizers, Medicines, Synthetic Materials, Lubricants. It is not fare that we steal these essentials from future generations because we are greedy or lazy.
I built my own electric pickup truck and it costs approximately 2 to 3 cents per mile when I use off-peak grid electricity to recharge the batteries. I am sure, that with local electric generation (from either solar photovoltaic panels or from a fuel cell that uses ethanol derived from sugar cane) that the total cost will be even lower. Compare THAT with your gas-o-hog!
Gasoline is more expensive than you know. Almost all Americans are not aware that our gasoline is highly subsidized by the Federal Government. It has taken the Oil Industry 40 years to get control of our government and this has to change. I saw a study last year showing the actual TOTAL COST of a gallon of gasoline to be near $30! If you now add in the death and destruction of major weather changes and the oil war in Iraq, you can imagine that the TOTAL COST is growing higher each day. Retail price that you pay at the pump is NOT the true total cost to you; its likely closer to $50 per gallon.
For those 200 wealthy families that run our Oil Industry, I urge you to move your investments to renewable sources and efficient systems, including Ethanol from sugar cane (business model from Brazil works), distributed electric generation (the grid is very vulnerable) using fuel cells that work on ethanol and photovoltaic panels, and more efficient mass transit using trains (Japan, China, Europe, Russia, South America, and Africa use trains and we can get back in this business with a strategic focus). Your moral ground might just be this: "I intend on using hydrocarbons for the good of mankind, and not for death and destruction."
Americans do think, and are not as lazy as the large corporations think we are! We can and will make a difference to extend the future of humanity. Don’t just sit there, write your congress team!
An American :o)
CC: Local paper and my congresswoman
Response to
by Andy77e - 7/1/07 4:46 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Randomotion in post 20, and gr8leather in post 22.
Price of gasoline:
The document as listed at www.icta.org, does not have a good concise points. Much in there is, basically, crap. For example, in their calculations, they add things that would be true, with or without gasoline.
For example, they add the cost of car accidents, but car accidents would occur no matter what fuel is used. They add the cost of road congestion, but wouldn't an Electric car contribute to road congestion too?
They also claim that in some places the fuel tax is lower than the sales tax. How this adds to the cost to the consumer is beyond me. But where I live, I happen to know the state fuel tax is 30 cents a gallon. I also happen to know the sales tax is 5.75%. At $2.00 per gallon, the sales tax would be 11 cents. So it sure doesn't work here, the sales tax would have to triple.
Further, they claim it cost $200 million for exploration and development, yet as far as I know, there is little if any exploration going on in the US because the companies figured out that if we won't let them get the oil in ANWR, and in the Gulf, why bother exploring?
Finely they add the cost of importing oil. My beef here is the whole reason we have to import it is because we won't let them get the oil right here in the US. You can't blame that cost on oil, when it's our dumb policy that forces us to import oil.
Then they go on to talk about health effects, which is a joke when half the country sucks on cigarettes. Plus noise pollution, also a joke when it's teenager with their 1000 watt stereos that cause most of it. Then junked cars which would happen regardless of fuel choice.
Bottom line, the whole report is a complete and total waste. You found a bunch of idiots who hate all transportation and came up with a bunch of figures supporting their private crusade. It proves nothing, supports little, and ultimately is crap.
Lets get back to the basic facts. Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen has to be produced from a fuel. That fuel is electricity. The point is, it would be vastly cheaper to simply make an electric car run on batteries, and use less fuel, than to make hydrogen from the electricity, and convert it back to electricity from hydrogen using a fuel cell.
Why pay $20 worth of electricity to make hydrogen and drive your car on that, when you can spend less than half on electricity to charge a battery and run your car on that?
The http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com/ site does seem to have a plausible idea. At first I was looking for the snake oil, but when reviewing the information, it did come up with some interesting stuff.
The fuel is not water though. That bugs the **** out of me. The fuel is the carbon rods, that he claims should cost about as much as one months worth of Gasoline, and should last about a year. If that's true, this is a great thing. But I have a feeling there are some undisclosed limitation.
However I do find it hard to believe that at 70 PSI, hydrogen in gas form would be able to supply non-stop fuel. I also am confused about where the electrical energy comes from. I was under the impression it was a chemical reaction using the carbon rods that separated the oxygen and hydrogen, but it does say electrolysis, so where's the electricity coming from to do this? If I have to plug it in, that indicates a huge range limitation. If I do not, then does this mean the car alternator is providing power? In which case, a normal alternator has no chance of surviving. So, very interesting, shows some promise, but lot of question still left unanswered.
Carbon Rod Fuel
by gr8leather - 7/2/07 3:46 PM In reply to: Response to by Andy77eYes, you're probably right - save yourself some headache evaluations and contact Mr. Hunt. I would love to tell you what I have personally observed, however, with a disclosure agreement, I can't. It does work - it does use the carbon rods - and the possibilities are endless.
If you didn't get the information for contact, the first time, try it again at: http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com
H2 at low pressure
by albizzia - 12/20/07 5:41 PM In reply to: Response to by Andy77eI checked out that "CSC Inventors club" website, the last post was June 1st. There was a list of "facts" that starts out good, until it gets to the line "Therefore, the volume of this mixture will be about
.293 X 34 = 9.96 Kg"... Excuse me, but volume is never measured in Kg! Kilograms are a measurement of mass.
Because of such an elemental blunder of confusing volume with mass, the results are in error. H2 has more energy per Kg than gasoline, but by volume it is another matter, as H2 has a very very low density. 1 Liter of H2 at atmospheric pressure is the energy equivalent of a few drops of gasoline. 15 liters at 70 psi wouldn't be enough to drive around the block. Compressed to 10,000 psi, (yes, 5 tons per square inch!) a liter of high pressure H2 has about 1/5 the energy of a liter of gasoline. There is a reason why most H2 vehicles use very large very high pressure H2 tanks.
Indeed, the problem is getting enough of this bulky gas and enough air to run an internal combustion engine succesfully. It has been done, but the performance and the fuel economy is rather poor.
There are a lot of would-be inventors trying to run their vehicles from on-board electrolyzers. They see the vigorous bubbling and large volume of gas, but don't realise how little fuel that low density H2 really represents.
Hands down.... Compressed Air
by MrStuckless - 7/4/07 3:24 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
If you have never heard of a vehicle moved by compressed air, check out these links... they will convince you.
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4http://theaircar.com/http:/
/www.engineair.com.au/airmotor.htmhttp:/
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
How about fusion?
by FredMars - 7/15/07 2:09 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Here is some real research in cold fusion:
SRI International and Electric Power Research Institute
"Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals," M.C.H. McKubre, et al., EPRI TR-104195, Research Project 3170-01, Final Report, August 1994, 128 pages, plus 342 pages on microfiche.
This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation... Although nuclear reaction products commensurate with the excess heat have not yet been observed, small but definite evidence of nuclear reactions have been detected at levels some 40 orders of magnitude greater than predicted by conventional nuclear theory.
SRI International and Electric Power Research Institute
"Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems," M.C.H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, R.C. Rocha-Filho, S.I. Smedley, F.L. Tanzella, T.O. Passell, and J. Santucci, Journal of Electroanaytical Chemistry, 368, 1994, pp.55-66.
...the generation of "excess power" was observed in a series of deuterium-based experiments, but not in a hydrogen-based experiment. The results of these experiments enable several (tentative) conclusions to be reached concerning the conditions necessary for the reproducible observation of this anomalous thermal effect.
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Research Department, Chemistry Division andUniversity of Texas, Department of Chemistry
"Anomalous Effects Involving Excess Power, Radiation, and Helium Production During D2O Electrolysis Using Palladium Cathodes," by Melvin H. Miles, Benjamin F. Bush, and Joseph J. Lagowski, Fusion Technology, Vol. 25, July 1994, pp. 478-486.
Previous experiments showed that eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess power production in two identical cells contained measurable amounts of 4He while six control samples gave no evidence for helium... This places the 4He production rate at 1011 to 1012 atom/s per watt of excess power, which is the correct magnitude for typical fusion reactions that yield helium as a product... Simultaneous evidence for excess power, helium production, and anomalous radiation was present in these experiments. Completely new experiments with more precise helium measurements are reported that again show simultaneous evidence for excess power, helium production, and anomalous radiation.
Naval Ocean Systems Center andU.S. Department of Energy (Washington)
"On the behavior of Pd deposited in the presence of evolving deuterium," S. Szpak (Navy), J.J. Smith (DoE), J. Electroanalytical Chemistry, 302 (March 11, 1991), pp. 255-260.
...Three sets of preliminary experimental results are presented here, i.e., the production of excess enthalpy, the production of tritium, and the presence of some form of radiation.
Real science, not fruit bat science.
Go back to fireless locomotive engines!
by bigduke - 7/17/07 8:15 PM In reply to: How about fusion? by FredMarsFor way longer than a century specialized industrial switchers were used for moving cars around the mills by steam engines that were loaded with superheated water at high prssure. The steam was then throttled through a conventional cylinder and piston engine to move significant loads around the yard. When the water cooled by evaporation the pressure gage warned the driver to returne to the boiler to
reload with more super hot water at high pressure. No fuel or fire on the engine, just hot water.
This scheme works by using the really large amount of heat energy stored in the hot water.
I have at least five books that show many versions of this motive power. Because most places that used this scheme are flat, there is only rolling resistance to over come in moving after the original inertia of the train is overcome.
What if...
by FredMars - 7/18/07 7:41 AM In reply to: Go back to fireless locomotive engines! by bigdukeSomewhere unless geothermal is the source, water has to be heated enough to vaporize and that requires energy. If cold fusion is taken to the next level it may provide the cheap nearly limitless supply of energy for heating/cooling, cooking/washing, lighting/power, and if wireless transmission is used, no wires to fall in lightning strikes or vehicle strikes.
Using water in a vortex may provide power but like most suggestions made here on this forum, they require initial energy to get to the process and that has been the cost prohubutive challenge.
Despite some "fundamentalist" beliefs in a world that has to use fuel to provide energy, there is new technology that revisits old physics. This pre-Einsteinian context finds a "sea of energy" that only requires a subtle nudge to start a process that provides more energy than we can use in many lifetimes. It is the energy that provides the "missing link" to the gravity mystery and the over-unity gains reported aby many prominent researchers and yet ridiculed and shunned by peers of power.
As Newton postulated, energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changed in form. It is our task to figure out how to utilize it with as little effort as necessary. The problem is one of belief not science. We have grown accustomed to using brute force to do work. Even our machines are designed to move massive amounts but requiring equally massive amounts of energy (fuel) to accompish it.
Electrolyzing hydrgen is a good and clean method to power internal combustion engines. But why not use the electric to provide direct motive force? Think of the cost savings in railroads if a battery/storage medium was employed to reduce the generation of electric at least part-time! Someone had previously mentioned the safety issue with large current capacitors. There are failsafe and lockout devices that can be employed to minimize if not eleiminate shock hazards. An easy one would be automatic discharge when the compartment containing the capacitors is opened. The cover wold not open until the charge is depleted to unharmful level.
As the inventor in the EV movie stated, new PV technology makes it possible to implant solar cells within the body of a vehicle. Utilizing enough surface area can make it a good secondary source of charge power. And with heat conversion as used in regenerative systems today, it is quite possible to produce viable electric vehicles that would rival the most fuel efficient ones today in range between "fill-ups". And they would be so quiet you would only hear the tires on the road surface, unless the motorists have the sound system cranked up to concert-hall volume.
I've been accused of being a fruit bat because I think outside the box. It has always been those that are willing to do so that have made such incredible breakthroughs in science and technology.
Electricity
by mercuryIII - 9/12/07 7:54 PM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
With the soon to be here Phoenix SUT and SUV with an expected 250 mile range and the ability to recharge to 95% in 10 minutes (480 volt charger) I am confident that electricity is the top dog for local driving. The Nano Safe batteries are intrinsically safe and have not shown any explosive tendencies.
Electricity costs 10% to drive the same miles. $3.00 to drive 20 miles verses less than $.50 (50 cents).
For longer drives, gasoline is still tops.
Diesel will never make it in California.
Bio Diesel pollutes 300% in Nitrogen Dioxide.
Electricity is the cleanest fuel around, even if created from coal.
Check it out on the web.
Tom
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
