What's your favorite alternative fuel?

If you read the fine print at the site, you find that vehicles with this "generator" still run on regular fossil fuels. Since this electrolysis cell runs at 12 volts 13 amps 156 watts, it doesn't produce much H2, certainly not enough to run a large engine.

The manufacturer claims that the small amount of H2 and O2 produced somehow improves fuel economy. I find that claim highly dubious.

You obviously have no clue as to how much your proposal would cost.

The "experiment" you refer to cost a half million dollars for just one home, with half of that money coming from a local government grant.

Water Electrolysis is 60% efficient, fuel cells 50%, and it takes energy to compress the H2 for storage. Overall efficiency 25% or less. Much better to use that expensive-but-clean solar energy in an 85% efficient battery electric car.

There is nothing that willgive the instant torque/horsepower of an electric motor. Nothing. That said, the issue is getting the electricity without having to stop and recharge. Fuel cells are not a good choice. Innovations in capacitor technology is rapidly advancing to a place where solid state "Hyper-capacitors" will hold more charge and can be recharged in minutes, compared to lithium ion batteries that take many hours to charge, take up valuable space and add considerable weight to a vehicle.
The largest obstacle in the path of all electric drive is money/politics. Every lobbyist for power companies and oil companies don't wnat the public to get the idea that electric can be had for free. That is why J. P. Morgan stopped Tesla. If Tesla would have had his way, there would be no power utilities or wires to transport electric. MIT just did a demo of "wireless" electric power using Tesla's technology. But that is only the beginning. The real freedom comes from aether energy.

Although I'm not absolutely sure, I would think that you would have to change your engine to a motor to make your miata run on solar power. Even so, solar panels are not cheap.

Got quoted $900.00 to fix a head gasket problem so I brought the car back home. Still need to check into solarpanel & motor vs engine replacement cost. Gas looks like around $3.00 a gallon recently so the solar conversion would have to be several thousand dollars higher than gasoline engine replacement to make it not worth the change over. A few years worth of gas savings seems like it'd make up for the initial solar conversion so long as car performance wouldn't be compromised. Car would have to be able to keep up with traffic. This would also seem to be a lot cleaner running solution in addition to being practically free once the panels were up & running.

You may want to contact Tesla Motors in California, and see if they will sell you one of their electric motors, or at the very least, point you to a dealer/manufacturer. The electric motor they have in their Roadster is only 70 lbs. but it produces 250HP. You won't find that power in any hybrid gas/electric. Solar panels for your MIata should not be that expensive. They have solar electric systems for homes now that are 85% efficient on cloudy days, and cost about $5000-$7500, so I'm sure you can find a 12V system much less for a vehicle. The piece that is expensive and inefficient is still the battery bank. Tesla Motors uses Li=Ion cells that weigh over 1000 lbs. But their motor can get you from 0-60 in about 4 seconds and take you around 200 miles between charges.
There are places on the web you can surf to that offer solar panels that are not going to require you take out a new mortgage to save money on fuel. You'll just have to do a bit of homework to find them.

I hate to dash ones hopes, but I also hate people being misinformed.

The cost to change your car over to electric will be excessive. But I'm not going to sugar coat it, nor am I going to put on some rose colored glasses. Just the truth, as best I know it.

On average, an electric car requires about 34 Kilo Watt Hours, to drive 100 miles. If you drive at most, 50 miles a day, you would need 510 Kilo Watt Hours a month. In order to get that you would need a 40 solar panel system that is $29,750 and you wire it yourself, and this assumes you live in a high sun energy area like San Diego. In a location that gets less sun, you'll need a larger kit.

Since 40 solar panels will not fit on any production car, you'll have to put them on your house, and get a battery for the car. I know that a NiMH battery pack used in Hybrid cars are $2000 to $4000, but that's whole sale (which you won't get) and they are not offered publicly anyway. I wager the Lithium Ion packs used by Tesla Motors are vastly more expensive. But without one, you would likely get only 100 miles a charge at best.

Finely you need a motor. Although some have made out as if Tesle Motors automobiles had some super amazing motor, it really isn't. It is simply a 4-pole 3-phase AC induction motor. You can look this up online, or at any industrial supply chain. The key is, the motor must be able to handle differing road conditions. Bounce, hits, debris, weather, water, ice, and of course dust dust dust. Most motors are made cheaply and are designed to be stationary and handle an indoor environment. A 125 HP 3 phase 4 pole motor will run you about $9,000.00 according to www.emotorstore.com, but it is RPM limited to 1800, which means you'll need to figure out how to gear it.

Finely you have a battery pack putting out DC current, and a motor that requires 3 phase AC current. You need a controller. The controller takes the DC current, and makes it 3-phase AC and controls the speed of the motor compared to your foot pedal, it also controls the recharge of your batteries when you plug it in. Currently the best controller that you can buy, that has all those features, is made by AC Propulsion, and costs about $2,500.

AC Propulsion has a whole kit for $25,000
There are a number of other places selling EV kits as well.
Be careful though, a number of them sold individual parts, but required extra parts not listed. Like one listed a $2,500 motor, that required a $1,250 cooling system. They priced out each separately to conceal total cost. Some used regular acid batteries, but those will wear out in just days from charge/discharge cycles.

As a whole, a conversion will cost you at least $30,000 or more. Because even after you get the power supply, the motor, the controller... you still have to covert all the accessories over as well. Power steering, power brakes, A/C, and anything else will have to be converted to electric. Plus you'll need a 12-volt DC limiter to connect everything inside the car. The power pack will put out 300 volts, which will turn your 12-volt radio to sludge, plus power windows, locks and anything else.

Lastly, but just as important, all this cost is for the parts. Who is going to put all that in your car... after they remove everything else, and what are you going to drive during that time?

I didn't mean to dash anyones hopes, but it's better to get a clear view of a project before you start something you can't finish. Sounds to me like you should buy a gasket. Save this for a day when you have extra time, and lots of extra money, and an extra car to use during that time.

You want to power the car directly from the sun? You don't need all that solar to recharge, and using several recharging methods you can extend range quite a bit.

Since power brakes and steering use belt drive pumps, another method such as compressed air may be used. But I agree with you that it would be vastly more e`xpensive to convert a IC powered vehicle to electric. But like the Tesla Roadster which is geared to a "select" market. is still a proof of concept.

Several technologies need to converge as well as further R & D before viable electric vehicles become affordable and practical.
Tesla Motors control software may be unique not in its principle, but in its application. Applying wireless power transmission instead of wired to the grid, can answer the recharging issue once and for all.

If you are just using solar panels to supplement recharging the batteries, then you don't. But it will not extend range by much at all. In fact I doubt anyone would notice.

According to the Tesla Motors website, their engine would consume roughly 8,855 Watthours to go 50 miles. The average car could hold, at most, two large sized solar panels. The two panels combined should produce 341 Watts an hours. Let's recap: In one hour at 50 MPH, you are going to use 8,855 Watts, and you are going to generate 341 Watts. Hmmm... where does the other 8,514 Watthours coming from? Btw, two panels will add 80 lbs to the car, increasing power usage.

Let me put it another way. In one hour, your car with two solar panels will generate enough power to move the car about 2 miles. If your EV has a max range of 100 miles, and you drive at 50 MPH, the solar panels will extend the total range by 4 miles, leaving you dead in the water at 104 miles. Exactly how do you define "extend range quite a bit"?

Oh BTW, these high efficiency panels are $1,000 per. In other words, you are going to spend $2,000 to increase your EVs range from 100 miles to 104 miles a charge, and still pay for the other 20 some kiloWatt hours you'll need to buy from the power company, in order to recharge your battery. Only in America would someone do this.

Ok let's skip the car, and let's put solar panels on the house, and recharge the car for free when we get home, ok? So how many panels do we need? Assuming you drive about 50 miles a day (I do) you would need, 8,855 Watthour from the battery every day. But charging a battery is at BEST 85% efficient (and I think that's too high an estimate). So we need at least 10,183 Watt Hours to charge that battery up. A 3,000 Watt Hour system, consisting of 20 solar panels would be able to do this (assuming you live in a high sun energy area like San Diego). It would only cost $23,000. Of course you could skip the solar panels, buy the power from the grid for less than $465 yearly (assuming you pay 12.5 cents per kWh, most pay less), but hey.

Of course I said it would require 40 solar panels before. The difference is before I was using the Toyota Rav4 EV as my basis, which has higher power requirements because it holds 5 people and has cargo space, whereas the Tesla is a two seater, and no cargo space, and has 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Using an air compressor would be more inefficient. It would be better to use an electric power steering pump and electric brake assist, than to use a horribly inefficient air pump. Also power steering and power brakes run horridly on compressed air, so performance would be lost as well.

The Tesla Roadster would be a proof of what concept? EVs have been available for years. No one ever thought an EV wouldn't work. The question was, would it be fun to drive, have good range, and be affordable. Of course if you are charging $100 thousand you can make a good range fun to drive EV.

The more I look at the Tesla Roadster, the more unamazing it seems. It is basically a modified off the shelf chassis, with an off the shelf suspension setup, it uses a slightly modified 4-pole 3-phase AC Induction motor (that have been in use for years), a Lithium Ion battery (that also have been around for years, maybe not in that size), and a standard 3-phase inverter, but with computer controlled speed and direction, and a standard battery charger to recharge it. The only thing unique would seem to be the 2-speed motor gearing.

Where do you get your data regarding solar PV? What are all of the people that have installed these devcies doing? Are they investing tens of thousands to reap a return on investment in 93 years?

Tesla Motors also says that they can recharge using 240VAC in about 3-4 hoyrs and they have a range of about 200 miles, twice that of which you claim. Perhaps you are referring to another EV?

As for the innovation of the Tesla Roadster, it is an "off-the-shelf" package that has innovative software. My complaint about other EV's has been the fact that they are under powered, grossly inconvenient, and prove nothing except that big automakers don't put time and money into alternatives that do not require fuels of some type.

Tesla Motors is discussing the use of a new storage medium that does not require chemical batteries and is much lghter than their current LiIon cells. Based on what the designers tout, it can recharge in minutes as opposed to hours, and hold 1.5-2.0 times the power.

But as you write, let me see it and I'll believe it.

I have seen a wind powered 12VDC and 24VDC system that generates more electric than the house used, therby selling power back to the grid. Back in 1976 when the gas "shortages" got prices to start climbing, and so did home heating fuels, some starting installing solar and wind generation. AMny companies like Jognson-Matthey Metals Refining, install cogen and other energy efficiency devices as well as developed fuel cells that could provide chemically produced energy for years. It is kept expensive through government contracts and classifying the technology for national security reasons.. Where did I come up with that? I worked there. JM provided the platinum and technology used in catalytic converters for emission control standards.

I know snake oil when I see it and the Petrochemical and power industries are just that. Pay no attention to that man being the curtain, we are the great an powerful energy gods and there is no other energy source greater than us.

Thank you for leading me to the light!

The Tesla Roadster uses a Lithium Ion batter, a big one. This battery is custom made and is not yet publicly available. Plus it is horrendously expensive. I would wager the average cost is over $10,000 just for the battery pack. Therefor, in my calculations, I assumed the average Joe American would likely use a regular battery, or at best a NiMH pack, which would have a 100 mile max.

The Lithium pack can with-stand faster recharge times, better than any other pack. Charging at 240VAC would not be recommended for a non-lithium pack. However it might be done, but normal average homes do not have 240VAC lines. (at least not in my area). Further, if one was installed, you would need a more expensive recharger designed to use 240VAC, most are not.

I would suggest the reason for the why big automakers have made such crappy EVs is because they put in place a cost limit. In order to make a mass production consumer product, the cost must be limited to an affordable amount. GM could make something like the Tesla Roadster easy when they cost $100,000 per car. The problem is, GM doesn't make 20 cars a year at $100K each. They make a 100,000 cars a year at $20,000 each. You can't make a good EV at $20,000, that's why the Tesla is $100,000.

My information regarding PVs, as I stated in another post, is the CEC (California Energy Commission), Solar Home (a national retailer of Solar Panel Home kits), Renewable Resource Data Center (which is government run through the Department of Energy), Sharp Corporation's documentation on their solar panels (although EvergreenSolar is also good) and various other sources.

So why do rich people buy solar panel kits. Answer: to get tax breaks, tax credits, and REC money.

Subsidies: In some are, government takes tax payer money and subsidizes renewable energy sources. A rich man in Tennessee purchased a $60,000 solar panel kit for his massive home. $48,000 was covered by a government subsidy (read tax payers).

Tax Breaks: Rich people pay a lot of taxes. Just having purchased a solar panel gives a tax break, even if it does not produce much (or any) power.

RECs: The government has created the REC program which requires power some power companies to purchase Renewable Energy Credits. In the case above, the Rich guy in Tennessee, receives $3,000 every year from the power company for RECs.

Free power: On top of getting $3,000 from the power company (a cost passed on to the power companies customers), and the tax break, and the subsidy (which tax payers pay for), the rich man also gets power from the system, which covers about 1/4 of his yearly power needs.

I'm against all but the free power. Subsidies are horrible. Why should the working class pay taxes that are then handed out to a rich guy just so he can buy a solar panel and not pay for power? I'm also against RECs, why should everyone else pay a higher cost for energy just so a rich guy can get $3,000 a year for RECs? And I'm against tax breaks. If I have to pay tax, everyone should. If I don't then no one else should. Everyone should pay the same tax no matter what. If we truly believe in "equality" then everyone should pay equal tax. Why should he get a break for doing something that only benefits him?

Anyway, hope that answers your questions. Talk to you soon.

No matter who offers an alternative you have a reason why it won't work. So since you are righter than me, what is your solution to changing the energy paradigm?

Actually I haven't been right all the time. That's what I like about this forum. I have learned so much from chatting with people.

However people do seem to have a utopia view of alternate energy sources that doesn't match up to reality, and I point out the realistic view. Photovoltiac cells are a perfect example. People have no clue how much power they actually use verses how much power a solar panel actually creates.

The monitor I'm using right now uses 250 watts (not including the computer, stereo, lights and on and on). The largest Sharp panel is 208 watts, and is 5 foot by 3 foot (actually larger) and costs $1,000.

So I do tend to point out reality, and some people prefer their never never land world. Thus I seem to be rather bothersome, and I apologize. But truth is important.

My answer: Let the free market reign.

First: Get government out of the way. Release energy companies to find the best ways to make power. Stop the government from preventing R&D and development of nuclear power. We have billions of spent fuel rods that could be easily and cheaply be reprocessed into viable fuel rods and used to make power. We wouldn't even have to spend money on R&D because other countries have already done the research.

Second: Let the oil companies do their work. The largest known untapped supply of oil, in the whole world, is in our backyard. The fastest, most reliable, and cheapest way we can quickly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to get the oil we have. There's billions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWR. Further, we have prevented exploration for oil in most of our lands. The solution to foreign oil could literally be "under our feet", but we'll never know unless the oil companies are allowed to look, and they won't invest in looking if we don't allow them to drill for what they have already found.

Third: Remove economy damaging regulations like subsidies, tax credits and breaks, and mandated expenses. Let the free market determine what fuels should be used. Stop letting dumb politicians in Washington, get paid off by Ted Turner, so he can get millions in farm subsidies in order to grow corn for Ethanol, forcing you to pay more for gas because of the mandated 10% Ethanol formulation.


Let the free market reign. As energy demands grow, so well the research into alternate fuels. There is no need to force economy destroying regulations down peoples throats. IF fossil fuels ever start to run out, other energy source will automatically become more viable. This will happen naturally without any government intervention.

Learn from other countries. Israel uses more solar than any nation on earth, yet they use almost no PVs. Learn what others have found out.

Further, many of these sources will be researched with or without any government subsidies. For example, without government taxing the hell out of the working people, and handing it to rich people to buy solar panels, research into photovoltiacs will continue. If that yields cheaper cost-effective solar panels, *then* without any help from government, they will become marketable and popular.

Every single proven technology that has been discussed here, has potential. As it stands now, none of them are viable. Conventional energy sources are cheaper and more cost effective. When an EV like the Tesla becomes $20,000 then I'll buy one. When solar panels make twice as much power, for half the cost, I'll buy one. When H2 is cheap, and more cost effective than gasoline, I'll buy one.

As long as the government isn't artificially making it cost effective. That is wrong. For the government to take money from everyone else, just so those with money can get free energy, is wrong. To take money out of my check in taxes, so that Ethanol seems cost effective with the little money I have left over, is wrong.

Government is not the only barrier. The whole conetxt that energy is a commodity and thus "free-market" service is where the issue lies. Why develop cheaper alternatives when they are making more money than they know what to do with? If these profits were being used to develop technologies that made for more efficient and cleaner fuels, I wold probably just pay and not look at alternative. But I have a problem with a gallon og gas costing more than $3.00 when I can remember the same gas costing 24.9 cents. Yeah, I know about inflation, having spend fifty some years dealing with it.

As for Israel's use of solar heating to sping turbines, it makes more sense for them as it gets quite warm there for long periods of time. Perhaps power utilities here could have takin advantage of that technology in the deep desert southwest, except that there are so many non-exsistent military bases there, there isn't enough acreage contiguous to be feasible. But cities like San Francisco are designing new buildings to exploit several alternative energy sources.

With nuclear fission we will always have danger of runaway reactors and meltdowns. TMI surely wasn't Chernobyl but it could have been. Fusing the atom rather than splitting it will yield greater energy production. But as you stated before, the "generator" needs energy to get started and most "experiments" have not yielded unity gain. But there are devices that provide over-unity. Perhaps many oft hem are only providing a small percentage of gain, but some can be amplified, and some can be used to feedback to provide "fuel" to maintain the process.

Here is a thought: what if we replace the "Catalytic converter" on the exhaust manifold with a fuel recovery catalyst that will feed back into the intake (fuel injectors) the unburned hydrcarbons? Think we may be able to squeeze a few miles per gallon out of that?

Perhaps there will be a day when I can prove to you that there is another form of energy that we have yet to tap into. Many may have inadvertently tapped into it using some of the "fruit bat" ideas that inventors somehow resort to when conventional ot the known science cannot provide results.

With all the advances that we have made in technology, we still have no cure for cancer, diabetes, MS, MD, and a plethora of other crippling and fatal diseases. We still don't have a textbook explanation of what gravity is, only reams of data on what effects it has on other physical laws. And those physical laws are not in accordance with gravity per se, only that it uses a constant G force to explain the effects.

No, I do not claim to know more than those who spent a lifetime studying quantum mechanics and physics. What I do claim is to ask why something cannot be when scince still cannot deefine it. Such has been the realm of Egyptology and archaeology, which still try to sell us the belief that the pyramids were tombs. And that large granite blocks were carved with copper tools.

My grandfather who was a physician, fought with the AMA and was called a Commie, because he felt that doctors should be curing illnesses, not chemical companies. But "free enterprise" won.

First: A major sign of greed, is being consumed with what other people do with *their* money. What Exxon does with it's money is not my problem, and nor is it yours. Someone rightly said that the largest, most common mental illness, found in Americans is an inability to "mind your own business".

Second: A company should spend it's money on improving itself. It would be immoral not to. Remember the investors in Exxon have a lot of money tied up in the company. Some of them are retired people who depend on that money for their retirement.

If you have any investments, how would you like to know the company you invested in, is now putting their money into things that would kill it's own market base? You'd be outraged, and rightly so.

Why did so many people get angry at Enron? They invested in many projects that didn't pay off. The result was a huge crash that wiped out many peoples retirements. Amazing how people can get angry at them, and then turn and get angry at another company for *not* doing the same thing.

Third: One reason a company may invest in alternative energy sources, is if they believe that fossil fuels may run out. If so, then a company would *want* some other fuel source to switch to when the time comes. Or another reason would be that, as many know, Oil will be in demand for year to come, no matter what. So developing an alternate energy would just supplement their income.

Forth: Energy companies *are* investing in alternate energy sources whether you believe it or not. BP for example has invested in Bio-diesel made from Jatropha, a tree that makes inedible oil seeds. BP also has extensive investment in PV cells. Chevron for example, has investments in Biofuels, Solar and Geothermal energy sources.

As far as a gallon of gas costing more than $3 when it use to cost $0.25, well I understand your frustration, but the blame lies squarely on us, so point your finger at the mirror. The blame rightly goes to the public. Higher cost of labor, taxes, making more efficient and more clean oil rigs, taxes, more expensive chemicals required, taxes, expensive mandated 10% Ethanol blend, and my favorite, taxes. Plus, because we have prevented oil exploration and drilling, we have forced ourselves to import the oil, which means higher cost.

Over and over and over, the reason we pay this much for gas is because the public has forced us to. I'll say it till the day I die, we caused this, we did this, we raised the price on ourselves. Stop blaming everyone else for the situation you are in. Bush Sr, raised gas taxes, Clinton raised gas taxes, and Bush Jr. raised gas taxes. Currently 1 full dollar out of the price is just tax. So go add up how many gallon of gas you'll buy this year, and that same number is how much in taxes you paid just in the sale, not in the taxes on the company which is passed on in cost.

The danger of a runaway nuclear reaction and meltdown is virtually eliminated in new reactor designs. TMI was a learning experience, but nearly a non-event. No radiation was leaked, and the core only semi-melted and was completely recovered.

New un-powered convection reactors are really neat, and can prevent a melt down even if a catastrophic event de-powers the entire reactor. This is because water cools the core, while circulating by convection alone, without the need of a pump. Further, the core itself is shut down by carbon rods that will automatically fall into shut down position if power is lost, plus a time delay will open the flood gates and submerge the entire core in water, preventing any nuclear reaction from continuing.

Basically, caution is understandable and expected. However technology has advanced world wide and there is no need to hinder ourselves. As far as cold fusion, again, I look forward to a real marketable solution, but until it happens it is like putting your whole life on hold, to win the lottery, which may never occur.

If you can do it, feel free. I'm sure the automakers will buy your patent if you can make it happen. But you have your work cut out for you. 1990 or newer engines are highly efficient. Capturing the few unburnt HCx (fuel) will at best net 1 mile per gallon. Further, the HCx is vaporized in the exhaust gas which has little if any oxygen in it. Routing that back into the engine will kill mileage, not improve it. This means you would have to separate vaporized HCx from the exhaust, good luck on that.

A better solution is to simply move to Diesel. The cause of unburnt fuel is a lack of Oxygen in the combustion chamber. This is because gas engines try and get a straight ratio of air/fuel where all air is consumed by the fuel. This doesn't always happen, thus fuel is left unburnt. Diesel, on the other hand, allows unlimited air, and just changes how much fuel in added. The abundance of air, never allows for a lack of needed oxygen, and all fuel is always consumed.

But as always, there are government regulations that make Diesels hard to make, thus we've always been using regular gas which is much less efficient.

I can't believe you said that. I suppose we have an alien ship too, right? Look, if you can show me a working free energy device that doesn't quit when you away from a high power line, I'll buy it. Or if I become a fruit bat myself and start piling rocks in a pillar in my back yard to focus cosmic energies in a vortex. Someone please shoot me.

I checked out the "nothing special about 3 phase 4 pole AC Induction Motors" link to www.emotorstore.com and found the lightest 125 HP one weighed over 1200 pounds. That is a little more than the Tesla at 70 lbs.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report called The Cars of the Future, which examines how well alternative fuel vehicles will sell over the next 25 years. According to their projections, alternative fuel light-duty vehicles could hold a nearly 50 percent market share by 2035.

Technical Consulting Services

A tank designed for compressed natural gas might not hold H2. H2 molecules are much smaller than methane (CH4), and unlike methane can dissolve into steel, turning it brittle.

But even if the tank was compatable, H2 has less than half the energy of CH4 at the same volume and pressure. Here is an interesting question for you. Supposing we had two compressed gas tanks the same size, at the same pressure, one filled with hydrogen, the other with methane. Which tank has more hydrogen atoms in it?

The methane tank. Methane (CH4) has twice as many hydrogen atoms as hydrogen (H2), therefore the methane tank holds twice as many hydrogen atoms!

You asked which tank would contain more hydrogen. You said it was the tank with methane because the methane molecule is CH4. What about the space consumed by all of those carbon atoms? I don't know this, but my guess is that a CH4 molecule is larger than two H2 molecules at a given pressure. Therefore, a tank the H2 would contain more hydrogen.

Check out "Avogadro's Law" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro%27s_law
It states that "Equal volumes of gases, at the same temperature and pressure, contain the same number of particles, or molecules."

Therefore, 2 tanks of the same size holding gas at the same pressure and temperature hold the same number of gas molecules (plus or minus a tiny fraction due to measurment error). Result, the methane (CH4) tank holds twice as many H atoms as the hydrogen (H2) tank.

Yes, methane molecules are bigger than hydrogen molecules, but bouncing around as a gas, the space between the molecules is considerably greater than the size of the molecules themselves, so the size of the molecules have little effect. Liquids and solids are a different matter.

Carbon contains more potenial energy than H2

Why is everyone so worried about the holding power of tanks? Now there is a better way, and leaking hydrogen is NOT a problem. Make the Hydrogen as you need it. The CSCinventors club are doing that right now. Shortly to mount the "Hydrogen on Demand" module into a Chevy pickup.

Are you interested? Check it out!

http://cscinventorsclub.blogspot.com

This is real - it does work - thankfully, I've seen it.

CNG tanks are not good for holding straight H2. Hydrogen will actually bleed straight through a CNG tank. Through the very metal, it's just that small of an atom.

E85, last I checked, must be refined using oil. That's not including that it must be mixed with 15% gasoline. The actual refinement process of converting corn to ethanol requires oil compounds.

Also Natural gas is becoming more difficult to procure. I would not recommend that as a long term solution to anything.

Ethanol is fermented corn. LAst I checked, oil was not part of the process. Burning is what I am at issue with. Not about effects of global warming, but just plain sick (polluted) air. At one time, The LA area was constantly entrenched beneath a brown cloud of smog. Burning fuels add more carcinogens and irritnts to the pulmonary system, that it would contribute to global warming.

That is why I seek using electric as a viable alternative. And I will explot more than one sourve if that it what it will take to be completely "fuel" free. That will do until we can figure out how to use the abunndance of energy that permeatets the universe and gives life to stars.

One problem I have is that I do not have the time to investigate every issue I'd like.

In this case, I had read an article that indicated oil was used to produce Ethanol, and that is in fact true... sort of.

There are two types of ethanol fermentation process. One is called wet, and the other is shockingly called dry. As I understand it now, "wet" is the old system and uses more oil. The now favored "dry" system uses no oil until the fermentation is completed. Oil is used to denature the ethanol, and a few other reasons. It's possible a synthetic oil or some chemical compound could possibly replace the use of oil, but thus far, oil is the best solution.

As far as not burning fuels, I understand where you are coming from. I would wager though, if you moved all cars to electric, you'd still have smog problems. It is simply the nature of dense populations. So many people shoved into a tiny area, it is just going to be that way.

Further if everyone moved to electric cars, you'd have to build more power plants and burn a ton more fuel, which defeats your purpose.

As for the fruit bat stuff, hey, if you can make a provable working system I'm for it. If you are just going to complain about (whoever) and say they are preventing this or that, well, I got better things to do.

As for electric cars, bring em on. If they can get 250 miles, take 10 minutes to charge, and cost under $15,000, seat 2 adults and 4 children (I'll likely end up with many kids) and a dog, tell me where to buy one. But until then, they'll just be a rich mans sports car.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do some yoga with this rechargeable battery that's dead, and see if I can charge it up by channeling cosmic powers into it. Talk to you soon.