Car Tech forum: What's your favorite alternative fuel?

92 thousand dollars for a base model. It's a bit much don't you think?

I'd like to go back to that nice red ethel gasoline and toss in some nice octane boost. Although, I'd take that electric car that zips along at 200mph

thermodynamics says efficient use of hydrogen (considering the entire system, not just separation) will never be attained. R&D cannot thwart thermo.

Government is far more likely to do something TO us than FOR us. Let's face it, government has conspired with private industry for over a century, at least since the days of John D. Rockefeller, to prevent alternatives to internal combustion engines, alopathic medicine, you name it. If Tesla motors and the West Philadelphia High School diesal-electric hybrid teach us anything, it's that the world auto industry has deliberately witheld fuel-efficient technologies. Why? Because of interlocking boards of directors with energy companies. The first practical hybrid vehicle was demonstrated in 1973, BEFORE the first Middle East oil embargo, and it could be recharged from an extension cord. Nicola Tesla himselft was reported to have demonstrated a practical electric car in 1931(!). In the 1970s, TIME reported the "Moodymobile," a specially modified Ford Mustang that got 85 mpg. Ever heard of "Brown's gas" or the "motionless electromagnetic generator," which was awarded a patent in 2002 (www.cheniere.org)? What about evacuated tube transport technology, which uses a maglev operating in a vacuum tube to transport a vehicle at speeds of up to 4,000 mph(!) for pennies a mile (www.et3.com)? We see progress in "baby steps" because that's what they want us to see.

I have 9 acres of land and lots of plant material that I could either distill or maybe turn into biodiesel. Anyone know a good home formula to do this?

Thanks,
RWL

One thing I see as I look through these postings is that a lot of the suggestions for alternate energy actually address pollution problems instead of actual alternate (from oil) fuels. Electricity is very ineffiecient, overall, and in most cases would actually increase energy usage. Go to utube and look at electrolysis videos and in particular the meyers methods. Also look at alternative machines. Think.

If "electricity is very inefficient", then hydrogen via electrolysis would be even more inefficient, as electrolysis uses electricity.

Electrolysis of water is 60% efficient, H2 fuel cells are 50% efficient, and when you add the energy to compress this bulky gas for storage (or worse, liquify it) the overall H2 efficiency is less than 25%. Oh, and using it in a IC engine as Stan Meyer did, drops the efficiency even more. (Meyers "water car" was actually powered by a hidden fossil fuel tank...)

On the other hand, the power grid is 95% efficient, chargers and batteries are 85% efficient, making Electricity 3x more efficient than H2.

I drive a 02 VW Jetta TDI (Diesel). It is very cool car PLUS I'm getting 45 to 50 MPH on the highway & 42 MPH in the city. I don't try to save gas by driving easy. I drive normal. Check out Diesel cars mileage & ask yourself why do all the world drive diesel cars but the USA? We have been fooled into thinking 30 MPH is all we can get. But my car weighs over 4000 pounds. Did not have to cut the weight to save gas. And I'm using alot less barrels of oil than a gas car. The Jetta has a 14.5 gallon fuel tank & I can take a trip & not need fuel for 600 miles.

Honda will be leasing, not selling, the "FCX". Not suprising, there isn't much market for a quarter million dollar car with limited refill options and a 300 mile range. No, this is a publicity stunt.

There are many problems with H2 fuel, including storage and high costs, but the biggest problem for H2 proponents is to get the rest of us to ignore all the clean, cheaper and more efficient alternatives available.

"The modern gasoline engine is amervel, ...powerful,...clean, efficient..." That's a joke right?

"We have had some of our best minds developing these marvelous machines for over a century" Which minds are you refering to? I cannot think of one that would agree that the belching coughing internal combustion engine is a marvel. To me it was a stop-gap measure that would have been used only until an elctric alternative was produced utilizing the science of Tesla and others who have demonstrated the "free energy" available.

Please read my post "It Started WIth Fire" and if you are not convinced, please read about Henry T. Moray, Nikola Tesla, and their discoveries regarding radiant energy.

I like hydrogen for several reasons. One, it can be more mechanical and less electronic. I like that for the simple fact that electronics seem to keep getting cheaper and cheaper in quality. Use the quality of parts 20 years ago combined with the technology today of electric cars and EMF/EMP shielding and I will consider it. And also the engineering of 20+ years ago where parts can actually be replaced easily by anyone and don't intergrate the components so when one goes bad you can just pull the one part and not the entire system. Oh and also intergrate a computer diagnostic system so you can actually do the work yourself and not pay out the wazoo everytime something electrical dies. Second hydrogen can be produced at home from rain water if you wanted. Just clean it up with solar or wind power and filters then separate the hydrogen with electrolysis. http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ has some great ideas, to bad they have hit alot of barriers with laws and junk recently. Their first prototype on a '94 corvette only needed 4 small tanks and it got 650 miles per fill.

I have been reading up on alternative fuel choices and while there does not appear to be any single choice that is going to replace fossil fuels, I am voting for cellulosic ethanol. http://e85.whipnet.net/ethanol.faq/cellulosic.ethanol.html
Corn-based Ethanol appears to be too expensive to be worthwhile but, sugar-cane based ethanol might be cheaper and it provides more power for the money.

I have used propane for forklifts and such.
Why not for autos as well? I don't believe any one
fuel should have a monopoly as far as use goes. If
one type is used exclusively, then it will likely
become scarce or worse. In other words, there is
NO "unlimited" fuel of any kind.

Miniaturized to a very very small degree. Not enough to cause an explosion but enough to power a small vehicle. SUV's and Hummer's can run on gas because people who buy them are welcome to pay for them. I am sure if someone really wanted to, they could actually make this work

PRO:
* Existing infrastructure easily converted to use it. I mean piplelines, filling stations, even refineries. It can even be mixed with the fossil fuel variety. Minimal new investment required.

* Existing Diesel vehicles can use it. DUH!

* variety of sources available (from corn to algae).

* Aggregate of above advantages: This can have the biggest impact much sooner than anything else.

CON:
They get better every year, but every diesel makes some soot and NOx. Sorry.