Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What's your favorite alternative fuel?

Apr 24, 2007 10:45AM PDT

What's your favorite alternative fuel, and why do you think it's the best? Does it offer a possible long-term replacement to gasoline? I've covered some current alternative fuels in my column, Your clean, green car choices.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
hydrogen generator
Jun 25, 2008 9:50AM PDT

I have a hydrogen generator on my 1999 toyota camary and I am getting 63 MPG out of a 6 cylinder engine. This kind of generators does work very well. I made the one that they show you how to build on <a href="http://justin1958.acsecure.hop.clickbank.net/" target="_top">make a hybrid</a>

- Collapse -
Feasability of Hydrogen Powered auto's
Jul 16, 2007 10:56AM PDT

My understanding is that Hydrogen could be very cheaply made by using nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants never get shut down and they make the same power during peak load and low load times (at night). So nuclear power plants could very effectively produce hydrogen and allot of it literaly overnight...

- Collapse -
This is interesting.
Jul 22, 2007 5:28AM PDT

That seems not only illogical, but impossible. I thought the nuclear reaction was throttled by carbon rod controls. In fact I had thought that Chernoble (sp?) was happened during a low power diagnostic situation. I will need to read further on this.

- Collapse -
Confusing... for a minute.
Dec 24, 2007 6:56PM PST

This is sorta true, and sorta not. Nuclear power plants can be shut down very easy. You put the control rods in, and the reaction shuts down. You pull them out, and the reaction starts all by itself.

That said, very few, if any, do this. Why? Three reasons.

First, power plants in the US are not designed to do this efficiently. This is because our government at the request of environmentalists, have hindered and stifled Nuclear plant development. There are many designs for plants that can go from 100% to 50% power in under an hour. There also designs for plants that recycle fuel so that they can run on the same fuel rods for 20 to 25 years instead of 10. We have built none of these... all because of our wonderful government, and moronic eco-geeks.

Second, in Europe, there are laws in the European Union that prevent nuclear plants from operating on a variable basis. I can only guess this is due to Chernobyl where the explosion and melt down occurred after a low power test.

Third, economics. Nuclear power is by far the cheapest, most lucrative and reliable power production available. So when the night comes, and you don't need so much power, which plant will you have running? The expensive gas plant? Or the cheap nuclear plant? Save money on natural gas, shut it down, and let the cheap nuclear plant run all night.

Here is the key. There is not nearly enough power generation during the day or night, to make enough hydrogen for Hydrogen-electric cars. Not even close. If you saw my post above. An electric car needs about 35 kWh. In order to make that much hydrogen, you would need at least 45 kWh of power. Keep in mind the average American home uses 29 kWh a day in 2001. If you and you lovely wife had two hydrogen cars, your power usage would be nearly 119 kWh, more the triple the average now.

One report I read indicated the US would need more than 1000 more nuclear power plants nation wide, to meet the demand for power if we moved to hydrogen created from electricity. It was some professor of a university, but I can't vouch for it. Honestly, I think that estimate is low.

- Collapse -
(NT) Mostly right
Dec 29, 2007 12:24PM PST
- Collapse -
you cannot hydrocrack coal
May 3, 2007 6:54AM PDT

Yeah, I replied to you elsewhere, but more people may see this so here it is again...

coal is almost entirely carbon. No hydrogen present. You cannot hydrocrack coal.

You can hydrocrack a hydrocarbon such as oil and natural gas. You can use coal to make electricity to power they hydrocracking process. however the other product of that process besides hydrogen is a carbon rich substance which is perfect for burning and producing more electricity.

If I'm wrong, please reply with a linked source. Thank you.

- Collapse -
It won?t work?? Go back to High school chemistry!
Jun 24, 2007 6:54AM PDT

Carbon has a higher affinity for oxygen than hydrogen. You heat carbon and water to a high temp start the carbon burning and then enter the steam (H2O). shut off the air and let the carbon steal the oxygen from the hydrogen. The process is exothermic (produces it?s own heat) and continues until all the carbon or all the steam is gone. Don?t say it can't be done because NASA has been doing it that way to get liquid H2 for the space system for years. The same process is used to smelt raw iron from iron ore. Carbon is higher on the valence scale than iron and steals the oxygen from the iron oxide (rust) producing pig iron and slag along with CO and CO2. My dad worked in the steel mills in PA for 25 years.

- Collapse -
Yes it uses coal, and water
May 5, 2007 12:27AM PDT

High school chemistry class. Heat a carbon source without air and add steam and you get free H2 and CO2. Oil and Natural Gas can also be used.
My preference is Methane. Anaerobic digestion (bacteria) of sewage waste and garbage together, and you get Methane, the main ingredient in natural gas.
CNG cars have been on the market for years

- Collapse -
Too expensive.
Jun 24, 2007 6:00AM PDT

Way too expensive. The cost of a controlled environment suitable for bacteria to covert sewage to methane it too high.

Although apparently a recent Israel found a way to covert cow waste to oil and natural gas. It's so similar to regular crude, they are selling it through the same pipe distribution system as regular oil. The technology is so good, a Texas company is doing the same for dairy cows in Texas, and plans to sell natural gas.

- Collapse -
too expensive???
Jun 24, 2007 6:17AM PDT

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (Oakland CA) has been doing it for decades. They used to burn the gass off as a waste product of the seuage processor, but started feeding it into the PG&E natural gas system in the mid 70s. Once you get the process started it is self sufficient. Anaerobic bacteria are present everywhere. If the system gets too cold you heat it with the gas it is producing. This is not a new concept, just a disgusting one that no one likes to talk about.

- Collapse -
Well good then
Jul 1, 2007 1:02PM PDT

If it really is that inexpensive, let's do it. I'm all for something that works. Here's my question: If it is that inexpensive, and is that efficient, then why isn't the whole planet using it? Why isn't every city in the world using it? Especially if it's old technology that's been out since the 70s, well what's the issue? This would seem to be essentially free energy world wide, yet it seems only a few exist.

That's why I started looking around and was reading through an article on it which explained that the reason everyone and their brother, wasn't using the technology is because it was prohibitively expensive.

So if it isn't, you need to call up... actually no, you need to find the author of that article and politely ask him why he's spreading false information about a good technology, then you need to call up the administrator of your town or cities sewage treatment plant, and ask him if their doing this, and why if their not.

The only thing I'm completely against is a government funded or subsidized fuel. I always get nervous when I read that California is doing X, because those fruit bats in CA are likely to artificially make a market for a fuel source that wouldn't otherwise be viable. Like Solar panels, that cost millions and make little power, but because CA subsidizes them, they are affordable, but that's taking tax money from your back pocket to make the price in front of you look reasonable. I'm against that.

Similarly, I do not want people saying "oh this sewage processing gas is cheap!" when it is because it is being subsidized.

I wish I had saved that article I read so you could contact the author. I think I found it online, but I can't remember where.

- Collapse -
Not Expensive at all
Jul 2, 2007 8:52AM PDT

Producing fuel, inexpensively, is possible. Check out the inventors club site at: http://cscinvenotorsclub.blogspot.com

I've personally seen the results, and it is fantastic. Furthermore, Ford has two engines on the road, right now (Not purchasable by us, of course-YET_) that only need the 70 psi to operate.

- Collapse -
Calm Down
Jul 4, 2007 4:00AM PDT

If you read my post it clearly stated that the gas was a by product of an existing process. getting rid of solid waste in a sewage treatment plant. Most plants now just settle the junk out and burry it in a land fill. This process goes on naturally in Florida at land fills and they capture it and pipe it into homes there, mixed with regular natural gas.
I don?t know where this article you talk about came from, and it is sometimes faulty to base a claim on one source. Here are some sources both from the fruit and nut variety and some from established educational sources and government papers.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/DIY/1973-03-01/Modest-Experiment-in-Methane-Gas-Production.aspx

http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/agengin/g01881.htm

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05002.html

http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/methane.htm

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/gas/primer/

http://www.unu.edu/env/plec/cbd/Montreal/abstracts/Antwi-Bediako.pdf

A foot note to this, Methane gas from animal husbandry, until recently, was the main source of green house gases (Methane is a greenhouse gas)

- Collapse -
I'm always calm
Jul 4, 2007 2:48PM PDT

I never get uptight. There's nothing in this world that is ever worth getting up tight or happy or sad or anything, about. On average, I'm relatively emotionless. Even when I *seem* upset, I'm really not because everyone will do whatever they want regardless of how much I yell and scream, so why bother? Apathy is my universal world view.

Back to the issue at hand. It seems as though the sources you quoted, at least the way I read it, indicate I was right. The high cost was in the tight environmental controls needed. First, as the name suggests, anaerobes can not function with oxygen. So all oxygen must be removed. Plus this particular type, must have a temperature of around 95F. Also, these have very pH-sensitive (pH 6.8-7.4 optimum).

What makes it worse, the process requires two kinds of bacteria. The OTHER kind of bacteria has a byproduct of changing the pH balance.

So the key is in the expensive special environmental containment that maintains these optimal conditions. Now once you get past the initial investment, then it's great! The system works nearly forever with almost no maintenance cost.

The last thing I see is that this will supply only enough gas to cover the energy needs of the farm, which is why farmers have signed up for this by the dozens. But this, least by the energy estimates on Missouri site, will provide free energy for the farm. That doesn't cover the needs of society.

Land fill gas, has a large number of groups against it. I am not clear on the details because different groups have different views and data. The claim is that land fill gas contains halogenated contamination that includes: fluorine, chlorine, bromine. These can form dioxins which are of course toxic. Again, I'm fuzzy on the details, so I don't know how legit this claim is.

http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/ This is one of those groups.

Information also suggests the cost of purifying land fill gas is a bit high. The reason is because some of the impurities commonly found in land fill gas, is highly corrosive and will destroy gas lines. Thus the cost of gas production from a land fill is vastly higher than of normal sources. So what has happened in floriduh is, the government pays the company in subsidies to collect the gas.

I am always amused by this logic. If you live in floriduh and use natural gas, your government is taxing you, and giving that money to the gas company to collect gas, that they then turn around and charge you for. I want a job where I'm paid to make something that I am then able to sell at whatever price I want to the very person who paid me to make it. Only in America.

BTW, 90 to 95% of the greenhouse effect is cause by water in it's three forms. Of the remaining 5 to 10%, the vast majority of it is CO2. Of the remaining 1 to 3% is trace gases, of which only a fraction of that is methane. The likely world temperature difference of methane is at most 0.01 Celsius. In other words... not worth considering.

- Collapse -
diesl and gas
Jun 24, 2007 6:19AM PDT

Yea, and how do you thing they made it??????

- Collapse -
So let me see if I understand
Jul 16, 2007 11:39AM PDT

You place coal in a vacuum which is created by expending some energy, then you expend more energy vaporizing the water, and well That seems a lot like going completely around the block to get to the house next door.

Using voltage from a secondary coil can electrolyze plain tap water (Although I would recommend that it has a "fuel" filter or stages of filters. Beside keeping filter makers employed, in will insure that contaminants won't foul your cylinders.

And although all of those service stations will close (unless they sell water)the price (or lack of)may actually make transportation affordable. You will still have to make payments on that huge water sucking SUV that will maybe use its four-wheel drive in 5-10 years, which by that time, with all the money you saved on fuel, you can buy that water-fueled Harley that you always wanted.

- Collapse -
VACUM????
Jul 21, 2007 12:06AM PDT

Who said anything about a vacuum? It is in a chamber, fire proof, and can be, closed air tight. The fire is started burning the coal. The heat from the fire is used to boil the water and create steam. The steam is fed into the air supply and the regular air supply is closed off leaving only the steam to feed the fire. The carbon robs the oxygen from the hydrogen leaving CO2 and H2 in the exhaust. The fire continues to burn creating heat to continue burning the coal (exothermic reaction) until all the carbon is consumed.

- Collapse -
Sealed Chamber vacuum
Jul 21, 2007 11:08AM PDT

I guess I misunderstood the process. I was thinking that the coal was ignited (burned) and that it created a vacuum be virtue of usiing the oxygen in the chamber to burn the coal.

But based on energy conservation laws, you still are using more energy than what you can extract in the form of H2.

The other night I listened to an nanotech engineer who claims that nanotechnology is producing very inexpensive and highly efficient solar cells that will cut the "93 year" return on investment to prducing more energy is 24/7 than a gluttonous and wasteful consumer could use in a day. This technology is beginning to be manufactured for commercial applications and should hit the consumer market in less than a year. Using the Microsoft release date projections that may be by 2010.

- Collapse -
Great.
Jul 22, 2007 5:31AM PDT

Sooner the better.

- Collapse -
Energy conservation
Jul 28, 2007 7:37AM PDT

Yes, you?re right. There is a loss. Whenever you use energy or convert it to another form there is a loss. You are converting one type of chemical energy into another type. That is the whole point. You can not burn coal in a piston engine. Dr Diesel showed that with his original Diesel engine. It was supposed to burn coal dust (something Germany has a lot of) but the byproducts were abrasive and the engine ground itself apart. So you use the coal to make H2 and burn it in a piston engine, or a jet plane in liquid form. This was demonstrated in a science channel show. The problem is that the volume of liquid H2 required to fly the same distance with JP8 was enormous. But the payback was that it weighed less.

- Collapse -
H2 will be a reality
Jun 29, 2007 12:22AM PDT

H2 has its problems, however there are people working on it diligently, behind the scenes - why? - because it will be the fuel of the future.

A local inventors club has a "Hydrogen-on-Demand" generator, and they are in the process of installing it in a pickup. If you have any interest, please go to their website:

http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

I have personally seen it, and it is working - producing a large amount of energy, very quickly. No Need for the leaking storage devices.

- Collapse -
Hydrogen
Jun 11, 2008 6:42PM PDT

I just made Hydrogen gas in my kitchen tonight with tap water and 12 volts of electricity. I used two small peices of metal gapped by plastic.One was positively charged and the other negative . The gas instantly came off it and the bubbles popped loudly and flashed when lit. People will be able to make thier own fuel. Anyone can do this and the production is volumous with a larger setup. There are hundreds of amateur inventors on YouTube doing this and there is no way to reverse this. It can be used for heat and cooking and heating water as well as conversion to electricity. The world is on the brink of every man and woman being able to be self sufficient in thier energy needs.People all over the world are sharing information over the internet.Take a look.

- Collapse -
Recharging not usually a problem
May 3, 2007 12:32AM PDT

Something like 70-80% of the travel in the US today consists of daily commuting of less than 100 miles. EV technology today is quite capable of providing that range. Today, if plug-ins were commercially available you could just park your electric car in the garage at night and charge it - you won't usually need to refuel anywhere else. Use a second vehicle if you are traveling over 200 miles. If these were commercially available, electric utilities would undoubtedly offer low night-time (off peak) rates for vehicle re-charging.

Electric utilities are proactive in promoting energy efficiency - that means they are helping customers to use less of their product. Have you ever seen oil and gas companies do that? Energy efficiency legislation is almost always targeted at electrical use and not gas, and electric utilities are often involved in helping to get the legislation in place. Oil and gas companies use their lobbying power to destroy legislation that would reduce consumption of their product while electric utilities often embrace it.

Why not rid ourselves of reliance on foreign fuels today. We will always need electricity for other things in our daily lives. We don't need petroleum to provide them. Electricity can be produced from fossil fuels while they still exist, but the trend is moving toward renewables, nuclear and CO2 nuetral fuel sources to produce the electricity as well.

Hydrogen is not a viable or safe option.

- Collapse -
Go Electric
May 9, 2007 2:44AM PDT

Electric is the answer - batteries aside - there may soon be a more favourable way of storing power via flywheel technology. Until then electric cars in prototype form have been able to recover power when braking using regressive braking technology - since the late 1980s.

Batteries are also improving.

If there was a policital will to force this through then it would happen. I cant make any cheap comments about your US president on this subject as Blair aint no better!

Greenpeace & FOE etc arnt saying much as they think we should all live next door to where we work and walk everywhere. A noble if impractical concept.

But then again like so many things the answer might not be some new invention it might just be a "new" discovery of an ages old technology.

- Collapse -
You people just do not get it.
Jun 24, 2007 6:15AM PDT

Government is the cause of this problem, not a solution.

Look at our energy problem here in the US. We don't want to import oil, but oil companies are not allowed to get the oil we *KNOW* is here in the US, like ANWR, further they are not *ALLOWED* to explore any other places in the US. They are not allowed to build any more refineries. And then we complain because we import so much oil. Americans can be so stupid!

That's just oil!
Look at our electrical energy problem! We are not allowed to build nuclear power plants, we are trying to phase out coal power plants, we complain about how dams mess up the environment, so we're not expanding hydro power, we shut down our trash burning power plant here in Ohio supposedly because of environmental concerns.

So here you have locked down all forms of energy generation, yet complain.

- Collapse -
You're Absolutely Right - It's the Government
Jun 28, 2007 5:04AM PDT

I agree, completely - The Government wants to and do control too much. They don't listen when you try to explain to them what is being invented - all they can say is what they want to say.

We don't need the huge "Hydrogen Infrastructure" and we certainly don't need the "Bombs" under our seats. Produce it when your engine needs it. No leaking, No Bombs, No need for a fueling station.

Visit this website - a club that has a Hydrogen generator that is being installed on a 1991 pickup, NOW. Hopefully operating within a month.

http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

This is no joke - I have seen the system operating

- Collapse -
New/Ancient Technology
Jul 29, 2007 2:01AM PDT

It seems that most of the debate over energy stems from the misleading idea that something needs to be burned/consumed to produce energy in a useful manner. But there are methods that have been demonstrated that show this to be false.

Many inventions that provided over-unity gains in energy have been rejected by the scientific community and so also by the USPTO as "trickery or smoke and mirrors" because this law or that law says it cannot be so.

The one point that seems to be missing when discussing alternative energy/fuels is that there is another source of energy that we tend to ignore, mainly because science has written it out of exsistence in favor of the Big Bang Theory. Even with all that science aside, we receive energy from the sun that hardly is used at all.

Communications satellites circle the Earth transmitting signals day and night. Why can't we do the same with energy? Power the grid from the sun and even when it is night time here, it is daytime there and so there will never be an interruption in power.

- Collapse -
Wasting Energy
Jul 29, 2007 1:49AM PDT

Did you know that electric that is generated by nuclear reactors is wasted? When the demand for power is down in the evenings and overnight, the reactors are still pumping out heat to spin turbines but the electric is not used so it is wasted.

In fact, they have to "burn" off megawatts of power before it gets to utility distribution lines because it is so "hot" it would burn the transformers on the utility's poles faster than it could be "wasted" by consumers. And we pay the power company a premium for that energy that they waste, while they tell us to be energy efficient. I can't believe the average citizen don't get this simple fact.

Here in the Pacific Nortwest where hydroelectric is pleniful, they want us to buy "green energy" that is produced by solar and wind power. But they will also charge us more for that energy if we sign up. Why? Why does it cost us more to be environmentally conservative?

There is lots of energy available for overnight recharging of EVs and with storage cells, much of that wasted energy can be saved and used in the peak demand periods as well. The grid system is old, inefficient, and needs to be replaced. But not as it currently is built, since that is NOT an efficient way to produce and distribute electricity.

Einstein had an easier trip to science fame than Tesla did, because most physicists didn't fully comprehend Einstein for many years. Tesla on the other hand promoted free energy and although he demonstrated it, was ridiculed and criticized for his wireless transmission of power. MIT just recently demonstrated the wireless transmision of electric power to light a 60 watt bulb. They also demonstrated that electronic devices in the area of transmission were not adversely effected by the power. Of course MIT used electric from a plugged in (wired) source. So based on MIT's work, you can wirelessly transmit electricty to thousands of homes in New York from Niagra Falls, without needing wires. Still that is a step behind Tesla, as he did it before there was a NIagra Falls, which he designed the generators for under contract to George Westinghouse.
Tesla belived that this was just a demonstration of electric so that once consumers saw electric in their homes as ubiquitous, that would set the stage for phase II. Phase II was to get the electric from "cosmic source" and transmit to consumers wirelessly.

It wasn't the technology that was flawed, but the economics/politics that quashed the project. Someone stated in a previous post that the film "Who Killed The Electric Car" was bogus and that it was the lack of consumer interest that killed the EV1. The EV1 was killed by the promise of a H2 economy. Back then we were "only a few years" away from moving to a hydrogen economy. While the Tesla Roadster is a very pricey electric vehicle, it was designed that way. The Lotus Elise chassis puts a high cost on the vehicle without the other technology that makes it a viable design. Put their motor and power management hardware and software into a Prius and you will drive most of the week between charges. And with the power of their 3-phase AC motor, you won't have to switch to internal combustion at highway speeds, that ICE will be the source of power generation for the batteries, or as is the case in deisel locomotives, used to provide power directly to the electric motor when batteries aren't enough.
Of course the power required to move a freight train as compared to a four-door sedan is enormous, so the Prius may never need the gas engine to provide direct power, onlt recharging when a plug or other sources are not available. Kind of like a portable generator is used for emergency power or power where the grid does not reach, out in the forest where the loggers are.

Keep this in mind; companies that sell power or fuel are in business to make profits. Regardless of how well intendtioned they may appear, the bottom line is always the "bottom line" and that is the nature of the beast.

- Collapse -
Swapable Batteries are an answer
May 3, 2007 2:07AM PDT

Why not have a battery pack located on bottom of car,where gas tank is located.Could easily be swapped out at battery stations for longer trips.That would solve the problem of range for electric cars.

- Collapse -
The industry
May 5, 2007 12:34AM PDT

A problem is an industry standard. Getting all the car manufacturers to agree on a standard battery size, voltage, and chemistry so that they are interchangeable. That way you pull into a "recharge station? and pay your fee, swap out your battery and drive off.