What's your favorite alternative fuel?

Excellent summary of what we can foresee now. I fully agree with the long term possibilities that will be at our disposal:
Electricity for cars, trucks, buses and trains
Hydrogen for airplanes and boats?
How about atomic energy for big cruise and transportation boats?
I tought that Hydrogen had all the features necessary to be "the" energy for the future but its dangers and bulky storage make it very difficult to use in cars.
The only issue is that we will have to step up the speed at which we are progressing right now and I am not sure that the car manufacturers are very enthusiastic about this. How about a world financed research?

Absoulutely!!!

I too believe electric propulsion is the best power for our cars in the future. Exciting initial offerings from Tesla Motors and other electric car makers coming soon will "jumpstart" a massive shift in current thinking to at least acknowledge electric cars. Electric autos, with a huge advantage of near maximum torque across all motor speeds, no tailpipe emissions, and a much simpler alternative to the complicated systems req'd to power and manage IC cars will begin to get more people's attention. Further advances in battery technology that address range, and recharging will continue the push, and (somewhat) quiet the naysayers. But is there any good news concerning the battery recycling issues?

But what a great post you wrote! I've read a number of Internet articles concerning the subject, and others that dig into alternative fuel energy content, but you introduced in just a few sentences a number of new items to me to further look into:

1. Battery advances (Li-Sulfur, Li-Air, Al-Air) - hadn't heard of these at all before reading your post!

2. Butanol and the quick comparison to Ethanol - while I've been very skeptical of the ethanol plant frenzy, I hadn't heard of butanol and its (a.) energy superiority to ethanol; (b.) mileage superiority to ethanol; (c.) lack of engine modifications req'd. as compared to ethanol. So, I'm curious - What about pipeline transmission of butanol - compared to ethanol which has to be trucked? What is the ratio of req'd energy to produce butanol vs. energy realized in finished butanol? (superior than ethanol's I would guess) - or at least a valid argument on this if speculative? Is butanol a gasoline additive like ethanol, or a stand-alone fuel? And finally, why the hell are we fixated on ethanol vs. butanol? (I know, no real answer to that one...)

3. Algae as an oil-producer for bio-diesel... Very cool! - and again had not read or seen anything on this before.

Anyway, I just wanted to commend you on your post. It isn't often I see so many insightful and novel subjects in a concisely written post.

Well it is nice to see someone may be picking up on how the future may lay out. And when everythind is said and done, the answer will be cellulose. I have a process that separate the O2/N2 molecules from a stream of air such that I currently have a 40% O2 stream. Now If I run this through succesive interations, it becomes higher. The thing is that I can use cast magnets instead of the electromagnetic fiels I use for my model. I cam across this thread, because I need to determine how best to suspend the cellulose in a liquid form. I want to just use water. Hopefully in the next few weeks I will be able to fire my combustion chamber on this Cellulose/Water mixture. Now for you grean folks, Cellulose is one of the most plentiful compounds on the planet, and properly oxidizing it produces CO2 and water. Plus this material is part of the closed carbon cycle. So whatever I oxidize will be part of the next growing cycle. By only using cellulose, we can harvest a percentage to be returned back to the earth, in the same way coal and oil deposits took it out of the atmospheric cycle to begin with, thus returning back to normal C02 levels. The proper oxidation of cellulose is the goal here, and that is why life in general on the planet revolve around it. The problem is that you have all bin suckered into believing that the fuel was the important part. By controling the Oxygen side of the formula, you can do amazing things. When have you ever heard of someone manipulating the Oxygen content to any combustion process. And ask yourself, if this nut has gotten to 40% what does this doe to efficentcy numbers. My crude model changes any combustion process to one over 200% efficent to current standards, and if I could get to 100% it would be over 400%. By controling the oxygen we can make the wourld less flamable in general, but like usual, we alyays have to do the opposite, like make it more explosive with hydrogen. So on the 27 I have a meeting with one of the venture capital groups in Palo Alto. Maybe soon, I can find the additional team to help me move this forward.

How do you think electricity is developed? Fosil Fuels = CO2
Hydrogen truly does seems to be the answer. Simply because an infrastructure for distribution is not place doesn't mean a really viable answer should be ignored. Look how fast cell towers went up - around the world.

electricity + hydrocarbon (most likely fossil fuel) = hydrogen + carbon fuel source burned to produce electricity.

or a less efficient process:

electricity + water = hydrogen + oxygen

and where does all that electricity come from today?
Yep, fossil fuel.

So, a hydrogen power car is worse than a battery power car in terms of CO2.

Electric is produced via magnetism. The use of fuels is to spin turbines or generators that create a magnetic field, which also produces an electric fiels at right angle to magnetic flux.

The idea that fuel must be used to get electric is a myth at best and a shameful lie at worst. Hydroelectric does not burn a fuel, it uses the pwoer of falling water to spin the turbines.

There are several problems with electric cars-
1. It takes a plethora of nasty chemicals to make a battery (not really environmentally friendly), and when they crash, all those nasty chemicals turn the accident into a nasty Haz-Mat incident. Cars crash everyday.

2. Electricity is not just pulled out of a light socket by fairy dust! We predominantly burn fossil fuels to create it. Then you have to push it down a wire (where you lose a little), into your house (where you lose a little more), convert it to DC (even more lost), then into your car (more still). Then, if you don't run your car regularly, the battery will discharge over time. Doesn't sound like the most efficient way to use fossil fuels if you ask me. Solar systems on our houses would help (I am a big proponent), but as for electric cars, see #1.

Bio fuels may work, but I can't see us growing our way out of energy dependence. One way or another we have to use water to grow bio fuels. Water is getting harder and harder to come by. What's the answer, I dunno. But fancy golf carts aren't gonna do it!

1. There are many different types of batteries with many different chemistries. Some types have potentially hazardous chemicals (lead acid, nickle cadmium) but other types are not considered to be highly dangerous. LiIon batteries have some potentially flammable components, but are not considered highly toxic, and have no corrosive components. LiIon batteries are less flammable and less toxic and less hazardous than gasoline. How often do we call the "hazmat" squad for a gasoline spill at a car crash? Not often.

Zinc-air batteries are not toxic, flammable, or particularly hazardous.

2. Yes I do know where electricity comes from. It has many power sources, some are quite clean. As more renewable sources come online, the percentage of fossil fueled electricity continues to decline. The fossil fueled electric plants are 45% to 60% efficient, and the "grid" averages 95% efficient. Charger and batteries are 85% efficient, electric motors over 95%. Compare that with 15% to 22% for spark IC engines, 25% to 30% for diesel and 30% to 35% for hybrids. Even when powered by "fossil fuel" electricity, electrics are still more efficient and produce less CO2.

Electric cars can be fast and powerful. How about 0-60 mph in 4 sec. or less? Top speed way above the legal limit? That ain't no "fancy golf cart".

There is a DOD powerpoint presentation that shows their progress toward developing one fuel instead of the 7 different grades now purchased, stocked, transported, distributed etc. to support our military vehicles. Their studies show that there is one US shale oil field that alone will be able to replace all non US petroleum needs for a long time.
Major oil companies are working on extraction and processing this source which makes a fuel with no sulfer and no CO2 fuel. By products of the extraction and production process are electricity and Hydrogen. Watch for more news about it in the future.
Personal opinion, after the first Hydrogen tank explosion that wipes out a neighborhood, that fuel for vehicles will be a dead duck. Propane has the same problems and has found a good market, but nobody puts a propane tank in a vehicle on the highway for a good reason.

I think everyone has missed the obvious because its too simple.
Energy can be stored in the rotation of a mass...a wheel. The amount of energy stored is proportional to the mass and the square of the velocity (which depends on the diameter). Its Kinetic Energy only going around in circles. Flywheels are as simple as it gets: One moving part! To negate the adverse gyroscopic effect, two counter-rotating flywheels could be used. Just "plug it in" and it winds up. With motor/ generator coupling, regenerative breaking is the obvious choice. And you're right: the distribution system is already in place. Every lamp-post becomes a refeuling station. On the downside: it will fly apart if it becomes unbalanced so proper containment in the event of a collision is a highly recommended.
That's my choice for the way to go in personal transport.

What we have now are gas engine hybrids supplemented by electric motors. Why not reverse that and have an electric car supplemented by an engine. The battery would be charged overnight from hydro and that would be sufficient for normal daily use. On long drives the engine would be used only to charge the battery so it could be run at it's peak efficiency.

In my opinion we will have to go to a mixed solution of electricity combined with an alternative fuel like hydrogen or biofuels.
Why? I think that for our total energy needs we will ultimately be forced in a non-petroleum period to go to clean ELECTRICITY based energy. For that we are in the right direction if we develop solar energy (voltaic and termal)combined with energy from alternative, clean and renewable sources like wind, hydro,geothermal or whatever possible.Part of this energy will be used to produce the "cleaner" fuels needed for transportation.

Existing nuclear power plants (already written off for many years now) should help us to free money to develop those "new" energy sources. The governement must regulate,starting as soon as possible, this issue to stimulate the change otherwise we will miss the momentum to do so....
SO: NO cheaper power for the consumer but money to invest in the future...

Just some figures to make you dream:

140.000 Terrawatt (TW)(Terra is 10 with 12 zero's behind it!)from the sun gets through the earth's atmosphere every year: this means that every HOUR the sun delivers 16 TW to the world or, the energy that the whole world is consuming in one YEAR (you get it?)
IF we use only 0,16% of the earth's surface to fill it up with solar cell farms (with the cheapest cells giving only 10% efficiency) we can reach this energy level...
Nevertheless, a 500 MW plant would cover 32 square kilometer (or 12.355 square miles for the non-decimal guys)
And, very important,you know it all: the sun doesn't shine at night ...so other sources(wind,etc) will stay necessary!

2. You are connected to internet reading this. An estimation I read some time ago of the number of servers used on the net was about 30 million. At 800 W per server this gives an energy need of 24 GW.
If you add the peripherial equipment (cooling,..) it can go up to 57 GW.... and that is without yours, mine and all the single computers connected... and this is still growing!

Congratulations, you have just described the protocol the software on the Toyota Prius Hybrid uses. Starts driving on elect, gas engine starts when more speed or power is needed. Works best for in-town start and stop and go driving. 2. The Honda Civic Hybrid protocol in the software is different, Gas engine starts up drives car, uses electric for faster acceleration and to regenerate electricity when slowing down saving energy in the batteries. This gives best milage at a sweet spot of 73mph in cruise of 44 mpg. Look for vehicles that will allow user to switch mode of operation or be more flexible and let the computer change mode based on driver and driving conditions.

I applaud your thought into your answer, and not taking the 'knee-jerk' superficial options. The nasty truth, as you so efficiently explained, is since we don't use very much Nuclear, Solar, Wind or even Hydro systems to generate that "Clean Electricity" to use, we rely on nasty old Coal, Oil and natural gas to generate the "Clean Electricity" we are putting into these electric cars. Until we replace all those coal and petroleum power plants with Nuclear, Solar, Wind and Hydro-electric power plants, electricity will be as dirty as gasoline, you just won't see if coming out of the tail-pipe, which I guess if you don't see it, no foul, right?! The most efficient power generation at this time, is nuclear, but then your are left with all that nuclear waste to dispose of!

I recently read about a new sports car that is an electric hybrid - it uses a gasoline engine to recharge the batteries. It has a top speed of 200 mph and gets approximately 200 mpg. It can go from 0 - 60 in 3 seconds! The manufacturer of the car is offering his technology to any automaker that will accept it. Also, a company called EEStor in Ceder Park, Texas has developed an "Ultracapacitor" that carries enough charge to give a automobile a 500 mile range and it can be fully recharged in 5 minute!(http://ohgizmo.com/2006/09/26/eestor-ultracapacitor-5-minutes-to-charge-500-miles-per-charge/)

As for petroleum, according to what I have heard from various reports, the U.S. has some, if not the largest oil reservoirs in the world. The Gulf of Mexico, is considered to be the largest, if what I have read is true, but there also is a enormous deposit under the Rocky mountains, as well as vast amounts trapped inside the oli shales, as well as in Alaska. In fact, we enough petroleum to last us for the next 200 years, unfortunately, EPA and various organization such as Sierra Club, Green Peace and other such groups, lobby hard to keep us dependant upon foreign source of petroleum. The simple fact is this, even if a new, super-duper electric auto came out today, it would be 10 to 15 years in getting everyone switched over, as most folks can't just run out and buy a $20+K auto. So petroleum is going to be around for at least another decade, and I suspect. We have to be very careful not to respond to "Knee-Jerk" decisions and half-baked hype about this alternative fuel or global warming (which is a total farce). We must carefully think the problem through before we act and try to adopt or we will only exacerbated our energy problems. Case in point is the rising natural gas prices and food prices because of the big push to produce ethanol due to the increase demand for natural gas and corn to produce the ethanol! To top it all off, ethanol get 30% poorer gas mileage which means you will have to purchase 30% more to get to meet your transportation needs! Ha Ha Ha! Are we learning yet?!

Truth is electric is the most efficient power for transportation, and that is why it drives locomotives. It problem is in the generation of the electric. For Hybrid vehicle to be most energy efficient, the internal combustion engine needs to be reduced to that of the power generator, but only when there is not sufficient energy in storage or alternative generation sources.

Small vertical wind turbines can be placed along busy highways, where there is always sufficient turbulence to provide energy. In addition to providing the necessary energy for lights and signs, they can also provide plug in rechargers at rest areas. And since we are are a capitalist nation, the state can charge a fee as a toll for highway/electric use.

Regardless of where oil is obtained, the price of oil is going to stay high and the price for a gallon or liter of fuel is going to rise. Increasing demands in China and India will keep prices high as the market will bear, so it remains in our best economic interests to seek and employ new technology to remove our dependence on oil and oil products as the main resources for transportation and electric power.

Electric vehicles were pushed out of the mainstream twice. The first time was by Henry Ford and a blue collar priced auto than ran on gasoline. Then later with GM and the EV1 which is debated as to who really killed the electric car then. Both Ford and Toyota were readying for mass market electric.

Because the fuel to generate electric was always abundant and cheap, so was the price of electricity. Inefficiency in the grid was negligible because the volume of consumers and the demand was still profitable. But as the price for fuel rose, so did the cost get passed on to the customer.So you are right, our oil demand does not make transportation an exclusive consumer of fuels. There is research and development to make more efficient power transmission devices, but the cost of fuels is what power utilities will justify as to why they cannot afford to purchase these new devices.

Electric drive, electric cooling and heating as well as power steering and brakes all electric. Batteries, capacitors, electric generators and motors for power train and accessories. Solar and wind, regenerative braking, and small fuel engines to power generator(s) when everything else is still not enough.

I kinda gave up ever seeing any PRTs(Personal Rapid Transit systems). I have followed SkyTran for years hoping that he might get a grant of some kind to put together a proof of concept rail, but nothing has ever happened. I think that there is a lot of local politics involved in public transit, and something as "new-fangled" as PRTs is never going to get its foot in the door. To those people holding the purse strings, it will always be too "futuristic," even into the next few centuries

We have been intoxicated and awestruck by the flame. We have come to depend on the flame for heat and light, and for defense. And so we have totally ignored what nature has provided us in the way of energy, constant never waning energy that permeates the universe.

Before we had elctric, heat and light came from burning something. But with the generation of electricty, came a new paradigm in energy use, but not in its production.

Viktor Schauberger (sp?) and Nikola Tesla independently made some rather interesting observations regarding to dynamics of water. Schauberger stated that fish "swimming" up a waterfall, were not actually swimming, but rather guiding themselves into a current that seemed to flow in the opposite direction of the falling water. He firther postulated that the water was acctually creating an electromagnetic current in which the fish "swim" up the fall.

It is runored that he was able to use this discovery to create a flying disc that was literally powered by water, which was capable of generaating huge amounts of electromagnetic energy.

But I digress, so back to the issue of alternative fuels. It has been long believed that you have to create electricity from something else, but nature proves daily that is not true. Lightning can certainlt burn, but it is nor created from fuel burning. The Laws of Conservation of Energy says energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

As I wrote in previous posts Tesla also discovered the "cosmic energy" but could not get banker J. P. Morgan to finance his work, since Morgan saw how he could make much more money selling electricity. Today we are faced with a similar problem.

The argument is simply a matter of economics, but not yours or mine. It's the oil industry, the energy (electric utilities) industry, and even the medical industry.

Okay, so here is the punch line(s) as I see it:

1. We can create devices that tap into the Aether energy to produce an electron flow without expending energy to do so.

2. Our health will become great when we are able to produce foods without chemicals, where the land that it grows on is allowed to replenish itself naturally, and not through chemistry.

3. The cures to all disease will not be a drug, but is a electromagnetic frequency that can destroy bacteria and virus.

Bottom line is that the world has always had the power, it just has been kept from the people and used to control.


Fred Mars
Corvallis, OR

Use Zinc Air Fuel Cell add a few pounds of zinc powder and you are fueled and ready to go another few hundred miles.

The ZAFC is the perfect alternative power source for both automotive and emergency standby power generation.

You are right on with the alcohol being a great answer for minimizing infrastructure costs. Ethanol would be trucked (atmospheric pressure) to the service station and stored in tanks that minimize water invasion.

Then a local high pressure tank would store hydrogen reformed at the service station, from that ethanol, at a pressure likely to approximate GM's new storage tanks.

When you drive in the station, a "robot" type mechanism with machine vision will guide the nozzle to your tank opening. A computer signal will tell the service station to start pumping. Your tank will fill up quickly with a high pressure hydrogen. You will drive away smoothly and adroitly (and quietly) in your new Mother Earth car or truck!

Conversely, competitors, likely from Germany, will try to outperform this "GM type" system by trying to sell onboard reformers. It will be an interesting competition.

RANDOMOTION in Spring House, Pennsylvania