What's your favorite alternative fuel?

How about a small hybrid turbo diesel? A miniature locomotive! This makes much more sense than hybrid gasoline cars.

Add biodiesel fuel and you have a carbon neutral car. Perfect.

Locomotives are NOT powered by diesel. They are powered by electric motors. The diesel engines drive generators to make the electricity. Now why they don't also install batteries (capacitors) that can store that electric I cannot say. I'm sure it can reduce the amount of diesel required to power those 600 horsepower electric motors.

I got to step in here and make some rumors go away. Elctricity is NOT actually generated in the sense that we are mking it out of something else. Electromagnetism is a universla energy that is there all the time. We have just managed to use some albeit primitive methods to extract that energy from the quanta (aether). Einsteinians will cringe at the though that there is an aether source of energy, but it's the only thing that makes sense as compared to the four-space, string-theory, and gravity being a "warp" created by mass in space-time.

Gravity is an effect of the energy/aether equalizing the electromagnetic polarities that would normally have like charges repelling one another as they do with common bar magnets. I also do not subscribe to Einstein's theory that C= the maximum speed of light in a vacuum.

"Spent" nuclear fuel is only used up based on the method(s) used to extract it's energy. Just as IC gas/diesel engines waste more fuel than they actually use, the spent nuclear fuel has so much radioactive energy they want to bury it for 100,000 years in a facility at Yucca Mtn.

You don't need a jackhammer to open a coconut, why use such brute force to power your auto? The obvious answer is becaue that is what we have, and the logic behind it can be summed up in a single quote , credited to J. P. Morgan when Nikola Tesla wanted funding to produce power from "radiant energy from the cosmos" to produce free electric. Morgan said, "I'm in the business of selling energy, not antennae." And hence we have been a captive audience since.

Now to all those who will now tell me what Newton's Law, Maxwell, Plank, and Einstein postulated, I say to you, real innovation begins where we stop looking at what everyone else has done before and we do what they did not believe was possible.

You want to know what really happened to the 100 MPG carburetor or the electric car, just follow the money trail. You may actually find a cancer cure along the way that has been suppressed for over 75 years. But that is a topic for another blog.

Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR

take the diesel out of a locomotive and how fast does it go? It cannot move.

locomotive:
turbo diesel engine running at constant rpm drives electric generator which drives an electric motor which produces more torque more efficiently over a wider speed range than a conventional transmission can.

hybrid turbo diesel auto:
small turbo diesel engine running at constant rpm drives electric generator which CHARGES A BATTERY and/or drives electric motor. generator and/or battery drive electric motors which produce much more torque more efficiently over a wider speed range than the small turbo diesel could attached to a transmission. Under low power requirements the battery allows engine to shutdown.

Notice a theme? no direct drive. diesels especially like to run at near constant rpm.

In fact, the one unique feature of the typical gasoline engine is it's relatively flat torque curve over a wide rpm range. I'm talking chevy not F1. But at the expense of efficiency.

carbon neutral hydrogen is less efficient than batteries for transportation power.

You said "Where I see the best possibilities for alt energy for vehicles is in hydrogen fueled or bio-diesel. Both use far less energy to 'manufacture/extract' the energy then any other commonly available source."

That is absolutely false for carbon neutral hydrogen once packaged as a transportation fuel. If you're talking sealed fuel cell, that's more like a battery.

note: hydrogen stripped from hydrocarbons is not carbon neutral at all. Might as well burn the hydrocarbon.

IF they can get ethanol from cellulose, you will not have much impact on the food supply.

biodiesel is the best.

Where do you get the hydrogen? There are several methods, but all are expensive and inefficient. The cheapest method is to react a fossil fuel (natural gas, coal, petroleum) with steam at high temperature to get CO2 and H2. Not very good if you are trying to reduce fossil fuel consumption or CO2 production.

Electrolysis requires electricity. Water electolysis is only 60% efficient, fuel cells are only 50% efficient, plus it takes energy to compress or liquify H2 for storage, overall efficiency is 24% or less. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries, 3x better than H2. Why waste most of your electric energy with H2, especially when some electric plants are still powered by fossil fuels? Don't waste renewable energy, choose the efficient option.

While Ethanol has much less energy per gallon than gasoline, Butanol is almost equal to gasoline, and Butanol can run in existing cars without modification. Butanol can be made from the same feedstocks, including switchgrass cellulose, and is a great option for most older non-electric vehicles.

using compressed air to store energy is extremely inefficient.

you certainly can produce biodiesel in a desert, or possibly on the ocean. arable land not required. Just add water and nutrients.

if they can get ethanol from cellulose then it will have minimal impact on rain forests or food production.

I keep hearing how Brazil is razing their rain forest. Are they doing it to produce sugar cane for ethanol? Or just for the lumber?

you're on the right track. In the case of hydrogen production for transportation use, there are a LOT of steps.

Read this why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense.
Problems with producing H2 are just the beginning.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

The amount of energy produced by a nuclear reactor is exponentially superior than any other "known" form of fuel generated energy. The major problem with it is twofold.
First and formost is the expense of building a reactor that meets the AEC requirements, many of which are truly irrelevant. Meltdowns aside, although that is always a possibility due to the complex methods used in cooling, prucing fuel for a reactor is also enrgy expensive. Of course the payback over time gives great return on investment.

The second issue is what to do with the "depleted" radioactive fuel. Our governement genuises have decided to bury it in a facility at Yucca Mountain. Now perhaps I know nothing about reactor design, but it does seem rather strange that fuel that is still emitting radiation, should be able to produce more energy if a reactor was designed for that fuel.

I cannot remember the man's name, but I listened to a radio program in which this physicist explained how a reactor design he invented was so simple and elegant, that the "powers-that-be" decided it cannot possibly work. He further explained that his design did not required all of the cooling and safety measures of current reactors because his reactor only operated under ideal conditions. WHen fuel was inserted, it began the reaction and produced enery to drive the turbines. Whenthe fuel was removed, it simply shuts down. If the fuel does not provide adequate energy for the reaction to occur, it shuts down. If it begins to overheat, it shuts down. He further claims that all of the spent fuel that currently is in dangeroous stockpiles, can be used in his reactor for fuel, and when it's depleted, it will not be a hazard to living organisms.

When you step back and look at the whole energy issue, it becomes apparent that it's not about the technology, it is simply about money, or more precisely the lust for money. Tesla showed that AC current is superior to DC, and Edison had a "hissy-fit" about that. Tesla's Wardencliffe Tower and the tower he built in Colorado both produced electric power without any fuels. His devices captured elctrons from the air.

This is not about conspiracy theories and rumor, this is known fact. Check out the Wimhurst powered generator in Switzerland for a real example of how energy is produced without fuels.

I have experiments with magnets to produce electricity and it does work. The problem with this is that the magnets lose their strength over time, and have to be recharged or replaced. Also, the amount of electricty produced in this manner cannot on it's own be both useful and recharge the magnets (through coils)so it has not yielded a practical application. But their are metods that can be used that truly provide over unity gain. This has been a mystery to science since Newton's Laws of Conservation of Energy say that it is not possible to produce more than what is put into it, and given the energy loss due to heat.

But there is the Wimhurst Machine http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/PowerWheel.htm and it seems to make common physics stand on its head. Tesla et. al., postulated that what is common calloed empty space is not empty at all, rather it is teeming with electrons and photons (and other waves and radiant energy) and all that is necessary is tuning in to that resonant frequency and the energy begins to flow.

Our present energy paradigm is analogous to using a cannon to swat a fly. In other words, we use more than enough force to handle a task, most of that force or energy being wasted.

Quantum physics is making up particles to explain the "missing" mass of the universe. They call it dark matter, anti-matter, strings, and a plethora of equations and formulae that had even the most gifted scratching their heads. Perhaps it's not at all as complicated as they make it out to be. Before explorers had the courage to test the theory, the Earth was flat and if you travelled to the edge you would fall off. Some people today still think in those same terms.

It makes more sense to me at least that the missing matter is in the space we call vacuum. Space is not a vacuum, it is a vast supply of the elements that make stars and planets, hence the energy to create mass/matter. You know, that E=MC2 thingy.

Now please pay attention because this is so important: C in Einstein-speed is the speed of light. Which in a vacuum , is a constatnt 186,000/mps (miles per second) and nothing can go faster. Yet physicists cliam that neutrinos are faster than light! How can this be? Can Einstein be wrong? Well, maybe but only partially.

There is also another myth about energy. Stars are NOT, NOT nuclear fusion reactors! Stars emit electricity! They are really dynamos, and the fusion reaction is due to the amount of plasma energy condensed into that huge mass of matter. There have been a few brave scientists who have come out with this postulation so don't think that I am talking Star Trek science fiction here. Stop listening to the propaganda and do the research yourself.

Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR

Today we only have nuclear power and conservation, as viable solutions. Science fiction sometimes comes true, but not often and not quickly. The rest is just promises. Sure we all hope that one day it all comes true, but we will all be in deep trouble when the theories don't test out and the energy we use is even more expensive.

Where is cheap ethanol? Where is oil from shale? Where is hydrogen? How come every house doesn't have solar panels and windmills?

They are not economically viable.

What happens when the greenies tells us that solar panels are reflecting all the heat away from the earth and creating the next Ice Age or windmills are speeding up the rotation of the earth? lol

No, they are not economically viable to the power and oil industries. That is why energy produced by alternative sources is available only at a premium price. Not because is costs more to produce it, but because by making it more costly to USE it, they can justify why you would not want to put one up.

Now which "greenies" are you slandering? the one's that want to breathe clean air, and pay less to get there in a safe vehicle that doesn't slowly kill them with tixic fumes? Solar panels absorb sun, they don't reflect it. And there are windmills that are designed that are quite noiseless and spin horizontal. They are installing them in buildings now in San Francisco, where many of those "Greenies" reside.

It would be refreshing to read someone that really has an innovative approach to handling the energy issue, instead of all the reasons why each alternative isn't viable. It seems to me that if it won't make someone rich it isn't viable. Or if it threatens the status quo, it isn't viable.

What is NOT viable, is continuing down a path that will lead us to ruin, if not by global warming, maybe by collapsing economy under the burden of high priced gas, or maybe by the terrorts who profit from the trillions generated by oil revenues.

Please don't insult my intelligence, it will not do anything to solve the world's energy issues, and won't get more than a polite acknowledement in reply.

I was stationed in Germany from 2001 until 2004. In that time the German government proclaimed that hey were going to do away with coal fired power plants and cut back on nuke plants. They are putting up electric generating wind mills everywhere and a huge number of homes have photovoltaic panels and solar hot water panels on the roofs. However, they were already paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas back then

Yes it is possible to reprocess spent fission fuel and reuse it after the depleted fuel is removed, HOWEVER?.. our current laws prohibit the reprocessing of the fuel (thanks to the bleeding heart liberals of the 60s and 70s) because it removes the Plutonium form it and there is the possibility of it getting into nasty little bombs, even though it too can be ?burned? in a reactor (with modifications) to produce energy and be broken down into less hazardous isotopes. The Russians did it for some deep space probes.

Fission itself is dirty. Radioactive fuel in fission reactors, still results in radioactive waste. Eugene Mallove and Paul Brown both had plans (patents?) on reactors that were safe because they could not "meltdown" and very efficient because they used a cold fusion process not a hot fission reaction. Brown's reactor design could use all of the "spent" reactor fuels and generate electric for the nation for many years to come. And that would also solve the problem of storing all that waste (Yucca Mountain) fuel. Mallove was shot and killed while getting into his car, and Brown was run down by a motorist while walking on a (Seattle) sidewalk.

It's not laws that prevent technology from freeing us from oil slavery. It's the industry taskmasters that will suppress anything that will hurt their profits and power.

Cold fusion is a myth. Go stand in the corner with the Perpetual Motion people

Excuse me, if I recall cold fusion is still being developed. Further, the "free energy" fruit bat theories are bogus. Eugene Mallove and Paul Brown, never had a repeatable or validated system. One of the keys in science is peer review and repeatable results. If you have only one, or neither, then it's nothing more a crazy magician with his 100-mile per gallon carb.

Of course men in black showed up and stole the carburetor and now he can't remember how he built it. Supposedly 20 years of research and experiments and poof, "oh I forget" and "evil oil companies stole the one I had". Fruit bats.

Don't you have something better to do with your time, like working, or watching American Idol, or something? Don't you have some children you should be playing with or a wife you should be loving, rather than trying to explain to us that you knew someone who knew someone who met someone who was able to break the laws of physics that govern the universe? ugh... some put the fruit away, maybe the bats will fly elsewhere.

AMEN

And I'll bet you worship George Bush, and would like to arrest all those trouble making, liberal Democrats. Physical laws? What laws are you speaking of defying? Are you the science police? Enforcing the laws that say the Earth is flat and nothing can move faster than light?

Prehaps Albert Einsteing was even more genius instead of less. Perhaps he only told part of the story for fear that if he revealed the true nature of the universe, we would soon build weapoms that will destroy the whole planet.

Eugene Mallove and Paul Browns work is repeatable, so is Pons-Fleischmann. Free energy is real and always was. There is the Church of the Mighty Dollar that has always stood vigil on such technology. Conspiracy theory? No, it's history. Science as we "know" it as well as medicine is political. And until the public wakes up they will continue to make billions while you are taking Tyleniol and Aleve, and asking your doctor about all thuse prescription drugs that are bombarding TV.

And if I haven't address all of your negative arguments it's because I don't think you are making the most of your time and mine by attacking me and what my family life should be.

Perhaps you need to get a life and go discover that the painted scenes are not reality. Ther is good science out there that proves that conventional physics does not consider. Aetheric energy has been ignored not because of science but money. It' historic fact and of record. It's not the "weather balloon and crash dummies" version either.

You don't have to tell me I am, I know it. If not, you prove it. Send me this free energy device. I'll test it out myself, and if it works, I'll post an apology here and invest in your company to make them. If not, this is more hot air.

Further, you claim I shouldn't waste time attacking your family or whatever, which I only said it would likely be a better use of your time, when you turn right around and claim I'm a Bush supporter (not really, but I hate liberals. I'm not really *for* anyone), that I believe the Earth is flat (or something dumb, I didn't really follow that whole point), and that I'm this or that. Hey how about you follow your own rules eh? How about you lead by example?

You want to prove something? You want to claim "it's history" and such? Great, I'm for it. Put up your schematics. Post the build instructions. Display how I can build one here, I'll do it. If it works, great! You proved me wrong (not an uncommon thing) and free energy works, and you can change the whole world.

This is the same as the cold fusion crap. There were all these theorists out there claiming this and that. In the end, the research checked out all the claims but found results were mixed and unreliable. You can't build a billion dollar power plant based on shaky unverifiable, unrepeatable, theoretical results, and just sorta hope it works. You must have rock solid, peer reviewed, credible evidence. Otherwise you are just tapping a hat with your wand and telling us you really can pull a rabbit out of it.

People learn from their mistakes. I've made them. I've been swindled by smooth talking con-artists. I know what a scam looks like now, and I know how one works. If someone has a good product, it will sell itself. If you have to start off on some soap box about Bush or "the church of the almighty dollar" or some unverifiable claim about how this guy or that guy made it and got killed, or some such crap, then the product is crap. A deal too good to be true, is.

From now on, I want proof. Hard evidence. Not some dumb website with some cheesy guy holding two wires making a spark, that I could do with a 9-volt battery and a step up transformer and inverter.