What's your favorite alternative fuel?

What your are talking about is only replacement sources.
Biodiesel, hydrogen and all the choices still require energy to process and leave waste in the environment. Everything you mentioned is not a reduction in polution, it just changes the type of pollution. How do you think these reactions are powered? They all require energy to process them and create waste along the way.

Remember how unleaded gas was supposed to save us? The real effect was the lead was replaced with benzine carcinogens. But they just were not measured and engine performance dropped, so that you had to burn more gas to do equal work and again increase pollution levels, but you couldn't see it. It wasn't smog, it was more dangerous.

I think we are all fooled when we look at only one aspect and not the total equation.

Or did you just want cheap gas for the Bronco?

biodiesel is a form of solar energy using plants. You get much more energy out of it than you invest to produce it. thus it is carbon neutral and doesn't leave waste in the environment.

if they can make ethanol from cellulose, that is a big win. today cellulose is basically a waste byproduct filling our landfills. It is also easy to grow.

However, you are completely correct about the unintended consequences of the first clean air act.

Everything you said plus they lowered the compression on gasoline engines, making them less efficient and less powerful, requiring the use of larger engines, making them even less efficient.

Before clean air act, a 350 V8 was a moderate performance engine and I6 was economy. After clean air act, a 350 V8 was standard equipment; big block V8 was performance; and 305V8 economy until fuel injection came along. I once had a chart listing the HP of the toyota 1200cc engine in USA from '70 - '79. Granted they conveniently changed the way they calculated HP at the same time as the clean air act, but every other year as the decade progressed the HP dropped. The last one was a real dog.

These energy visions guys claim in their FAQs ttp://www.energy-visions.com/faq.htm that they produce their own energy from the produced carbon neutral diesel fuel and use only 10% of the energy created for their own production. This would be a highly positive energy balance.

Also they claim to be able to convert waste material, including agro waste. Converting rice straw, chaff and wood chips to diesel and using only 10% of the produced fuel (biodiesel 33%, ethanol 85% to 120%, depending on the point of view), this could be a solution:

Plants convert CO2 with photosynthesis into biomass, which is then converted back to CO2 again in the engine. The car would be a part of the natural CO2 cycle.

I think you need to look into how hydrogen can be created. All you need is solar, wind or heck even water power to make electricity to run the equiptment to separate and store the hydrogen. There are no byproducts other than when the parts were made in the factory.

Water electrolysis is only 60% efficient, H2 fuel cells only 50% efficient, plus energy is needed to compress (or worse, liquify) H2 for storage. Overall, 25% efficient or less. Compare that with 85% efficiency for batteries and charger. Why waste limited renewables (solar, wind, hydro, etc.) making H2 when there is a 3x more efficient option? Let's save renewables to reduce fossil fuel use for power generation!

When you are talking about hydrogen production you can't apply any set rules to it since new methods are always being developed rendering previous stats useless. Look here: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ The ability to convert ANY vehicle to hydrogen combined with an at home generator is far superior. There is no way you could feasibly convert all vehicles to electric without stripping the entire cars engine compartment and rebuilding it with electric components. That system only requires 400watts to operate which can be achieved with the 5 included solar panels. And you can switch between fossil fuel and the hydrogen just in case.

If we were to all buy a new car when the conversion to entirely non-fossil fuel cars is complete we would be dumping millions of tons of old cars and producing millions more tons of new cars. I think the current car production is rediculous anyways, no one needs a new car every year. Converting to hydrogen with at home solar generators will put the abosulte least amount of junk back into the planet. People can still keep their cars and not have to buy some new peice of junk.

Not to mention batteries have always sucked. There just hasn't been a cheaper storage form developed yet. They wear out which means they need to be recycled. Mass production of batteries also isn't a good thing since batteries inherently aren't environmentaly safe.

Look at it this way, using pre-existing fossil fuel engines converted to hydrogen will be the least inpact on parts replacement, manufacturing, mechanics...etc etc. Any other new form of hydrogen or electric vehicles means all pre-existing parts and knowledge of cars is outdated and needs replaced. That just plain sucks. Why do that when the above mention process is actually better as far as simplicity and design and will cost the economy far less.

I checked out the "switch2hydrogen" website and was not impressed. They are basically touting a very expensive way of producing small quantities of H2 by solar powered electrolysis. The website is "under construction" but apparently hasn't been updated since 2005. There were a few "car conversion kits" listed for $7,000 to $10,000, small storage tanks for $1,700 to $2,200 each, and several components with price "TBD". These were listed as "not available", the only items actually for sale was a solar panel, a plastic fuel line, and a T shirt. They had a convenient excuse for not selling anything else, with a bogus claim that the CPSC had banned the sale of materials they needed to make these items. There is a big plea for donations - hey, it's easier to just ask the dupes to send you money than to actually do hard work and produce something.

The proposed storage tanks use metal hydrides, and apparently are $8,800 of the $10,000 conversion kit cost - and that only gets 100 mile driving range on H2. (the cheaper version gets only 75 miles)

I never proposed that all existing cars be converted to electrics, much better to use Butanol and Biodiesel for older cars - no special conversions needed at all! Battery electrics are for the future - far more efficient than "H2 IC engines", cheaper and more efficient than H2 fuel cells.

Yes, batteries wear out, but so do IC engines and transmissions, and even electrolysis units. It's good that all of them can potentially be recycled. Compared to batteries, IC engines are far less "environmentally safe" - they consume oxygen and emit various toxic pollutants all the time they are operating, and contain ptentially hazardous motor oil and large quantities of toxic antifreeze for coolant. Properly maintained, batteries emit no pollutants, and properly recycled present little environmental risk.

The truth is there are dozens of ways from simple, experimental to top-secret ways of propulsion. But the ones that can be used right now all have their downsides. United Nuclear who runs switch2hydrogen is not some "money bleeding out the pours" company they have had their problems. But the idea itself is solid. Personally I hate IC engines, I think they are very outdated. But on the other hand so are batteries. Huge leaps have been made in both IC and batteries since they were invented but neither one is very advanced. Yes IC engines and transmissions need maintenance, but if you buy a well built car you can get alot longer use out of it than a battery. I mean in IC cars the one major drawback has always been the friggin battery!! If someone is stranded on the side of the road chances are very good it is becuase their battery died.

The fact is there are virtually no good quality electronic parts made anymore. And you want a car built completly out of electronics? It will break, wear out or otherwise be faulty costing 10 times the replacement part cost of a mechanical part. Ever have to buy a replacement computer for an older car? You could buy another car for the same price, but that would put at least 1 ton of junk back into the earth compared to wasting the money on a new computer and giving the store the old one to be remanufacted. The simple fact is mechanical parts suck but are cheaper to make, replace and recycle than electrical parts. Until that changes and until electronics are made out of quality parts like they were almost two decades ago electric cars will not be worth the cost to own and maintain.

Which is why I say for now, people should focus on keeping their old cars, convert them to whichever non-polutant fuel they prefer and wait. You will put less junked parts back into the earth and cut down on the production of newer lower quality, more expensive cars. This frenzy for "new, new, new" is a condition developed by businesses and maintained by the "sheep" that support it.

There are many methods to produce H2, but all of them are expensive. The cheapest is to react fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, petroleum) with steam at high temperature to produce H2 and CO2.

Water electrolysis is 60% efficient, H2 PEM fuel cells only 50% efficient, and energy is needed to compress (or worse, liquify) H2 for storage. Overall efficiency, 25% or less. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries. Why waste electricity?

H2 equipment and H2 fuels cost much more than the petroleum fuel equivalents. Electricity cost much less than petroleum fuels. H2 fuel will ALWAYS cost much more than "electric fuel".

First off if the plants were running on clean power that would cut a huge percent in pollution. That is not the current issue, but should be included.

Hydride tanks are the way to go...

There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.
Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat.

Taken from: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

The last self serve filling station with FREE compressed air around here closed a long time ago. Now it's $1 for a few minutes using a weeny compressor. You take $1 of filling station compressed air and I'll take $1 of gasoline or diesel, and see how far we go.

using compressed air to store energy is terribly inefficient.

My point is that compressed air sources already exist at virtually all gas stations. Check out the air car website, then judge for yourself whether or not the concept is sound. Certainly, Tata Motors of India doesn't think so.

I can get free compressed air at several gas stations near where I'm at in Missouri. There are others that charge a quarter for enough air to do all four car tires. Automotive parts stores sell air compressors (try JCWhitney or similar) so it's possible to get compressed air if you've got a handy electric outlet to plug it in.

The French "air car" can go 250 mile OR 50 mph, but not both at once. To achieve that "250 mile" range means tottering along at 18 mph.

The air compressors at gas stations and repair shops only go to 150 psi (10 bar). The Air Car uses expensive 4,500 psi (300 bar) carbon fiber tanks, so special compressors are needed - no "cheap fillups" at the tire inflation station! Compression wastes some energy by producing heat, and the higher the pressure, the more energy is lost to waste heat.

Ultra capacitors are reliable, but store little energy. For the same Kwh capacity, ultracapacitors are heavier than lead acid and more expensive than LiIon.

H2 PEM fuel cells are only 50% efficient, water electrolysis only 60%. Compare that to 85% efficient for batteries and chargers.

Electric cars have better efficiency than both air cars and H2 cars. Electric cars are much cheaper than H2 fuel cell cars.
Electric cars have better performance than air cars.

I drive well under 6,000 miles a year, my biggest car expense is insurance. Alternative fuels aren't going to help me there.

Butanol made from non-food cellulose would be my preferred alternative fuel, closely followed by diesel fuel produced by thermal depolymerization of, among other things, municipal and agricultural waste. Algal alcohols would be another choice, and of course any of these in a plugin hybrid would be welcome.

Most of my daily driving is under 20 miles, but I do from time to time need the virtually unlimited range of an IC engine.

Hydrogen will have to be produced by somebody with deep pockets to invest in infrastructure, that leaves Uncle Sugar or Big Oil; you don't really expect to find 100 million homebrew electrolysis stations in use anytime this century, do you? If there is enough demand expect a hydrogen dispenser to be installed at the local Exxon, Shell, or BP.

Methane clathrates are a sort of water/methane "ice" crystal, stable only at low temperatures and high pressures. Methane gas is released when the "ice" is melted.

There is considerable potential, as these clathrate beds are very large in deep cold water regions. The big problem is figuring out how to tap this source safely and economically, and many companies are working on it.

solar is great and all but not appropriate to directly power autos. You have to charge a battery or a flywheel or something.

biodiesel is like liquid solar power.

Alternators don't "produce" power, they convert mechanical power into electrical power, they need something to turn their drive shaft.

One approach is to use an IC engine. That is a hybrid.

Using an electric motor to drive the alternator can be done, but both the motor and alternator wastes some energy as heat, so you get less power and energy out than you put in. Result, reduced range. This was an old-fashioned way to convert DC to AC, the "rotary inverter" replaced nowdays by far more efficient electronic inverters.

Connecting the alternator to the wheels would cause drag and slow the car down. That's how regenerative braking works! But trying to constantly recharge by this method would be like driving with the brakes on - it wouldn't work and would decrease your driving range! Electric cars already can use their motors as an alternator for regenerative braking.

By using an induction type generator, the only drag is against the air. No brushes, and no heavy drag. It is common belief that you can't produce more lectric enery than what you input, regardless of the source of the input. Magnetic generators can spin for long periods of time, but the problem their is that the magnets lose their power and would have to be replaced frequently or recharged via coils, and that elctricity needed would take from the elctric required to move the vehicle.

Yes, electric is the most abundant form of energy in the universe. Electrons are everywhere, even in the spaces between particles of matter. There are too many names to mention here, but they all discovered this at least 200 years ago. Henry T. Moray and Nikola Tesla both used dielectrics to tap into this energy and produced more useful electric than what was input.

Elctricity is the solution, not generated by fuels, but extracted from the space that contains such an abundance of it.

Think outside the box!

A breif tutorial on batteries:

A battery DOES NOT provide energy to power a circuit. Rather the chemical reaction inside the battery causes negative charges to accumulate at the negative pole and postive charges at the positive pole. This is a "dipole" and effect the Zero Point Energy that is always there. Even while the battery is sitting onthe shelf, these massive +/- charges are massing around that dipole. Once you complete a curcuit, the ZPE will attempt to balance itself by providing elctrons to flow in a linear motion IN THE SPACE AROUND the conductor. But we only utilize the elecrons that flow on the conductor, hence waste most of the real energy, not because it cannot be used, but because our technology has been limited by beliefs that it does not exsist.

hey, albizzia
an you explain this in simple english?
I cannot relate HHO system

to what you are explaining here

you are talking about an electric motor?!!??


Alternators need power too!
by albizzia - 5/8/07 4:09 PM
In reply to: alternative fuel by DJHRVV
Alternators don't "produce" power, they convert mechanical power into electrical power, they need something to turn their drive shaft.

One approach is to use an IC engine. That is a hybrid.

Using an electric motor to drive the alternator can be done, but both the motor and alternator wastes some energy as heat, so you get less power and energy out than you put in. Result, reduced range. This was an old-fashioned way to convert DC to AC, the "rotary inverter" replaced nowdays by far more efficient electronic inverters.

Connecting the alternator to the wheels would cause drag and slow the car down. That's how regenerative braking works! But trying to constantly recharge by this method would be like driving with the brakes on - it wouldn't work and would decrease your driving range! Electric cars already can use their motors as an alternator for regenerative braking.