Alternative Fuels

[chevypower]

I am buying Pepsi cheaper than I can buy fuel.... If i could figure out how to run my car on Pepsi, i could save a fortune. Up the street, 44oz fountain Pepsi (that's 1.3L for 59c!) or 45.3c per litre. The choice of a new generation of cars?

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Just a couple of points I would like to add

The first car to crack 100 mph was an electric car.

I will stand corrected, but there is no way that an electric car was the first to crack a 100mph???

[Daymoe]

I reckon CNG, LNG and LPG are good ways to go, but thats my opinion.

[snakeoil]

Just as a slight aside Shell is the biggest oil co on the planet and for finished lubricants is only 13% (allegedly) of the total anticipated market for this year which is around 39 milliom metric tonnes.The next biggest company is based in a different country has different protocols objectives different cultures etc
They do have mutual arrangements but none own the dirt or water where the base oil actually comes from in a general sense.
If one of them ever got the upper hand with a new technology believe me they would not run around sharing it with there opposition

Yes the first car to crack 100 mph was an electric car and the reason why there are long term problems with this strategy and it is as a simple as this...

where does lithium come from???

For me long term it is hydrogen and wind powered desalination plants

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by snakeoil

where does lithium come from???

For me long term it is hydrogen and wind powered desalination plants

And Hydrogen is most commonly made using electricity, also.
If Nuclear power is used for electric or hydrogen production, then we might get somewhere. Wind, solar etc. on their own, will never generate enough energy to power all the worlds transport, let alone household and industry.

[Daymoe]

Also, hydrogen when burned emits water vapor as a by-product, which is actually worse than CO2.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Also, hydrogen when burned emits water vapor as a by-product, which is actually worse than CO2.

Interesting comment - it is hard to imagine that water-vapour is more dangerous to the atmosphere than CO2.

you might live longer breathing only CO2 than you would breathing H2O - by a couple of breaths, but I dont imagine that is what you mean

and I am not actively doubting you, but am rather curious as to why you say this - pls explain.

[fossy]

Any links appreciated

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Interesting comment - it is hard to imagine that water-vapour is more dangerous to the atmosphere than CO2.

you might live longer breathing only CO2 than you would breathing H2O - by a couple of breaths, but I dont imagine that is what you mean

and I am not actively doubting you, but am rather curious as to why you say this - pls explain.

The reason is because water has a high greenhouse gas warming potential, and an absolute ton of it its released into the atmosphere from many different sources, including industry. It is very effective at trapping heat, but it hasn't started panicking the public (yet).

[mrniceguy]

This all smells like bulls$#@ to me. Has anyone here actually run there car on hydrogen created in a cell like this??

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Interesting comment - it is hard to imagine that water-vapour is more dangerous to the atmosphere than CO2.

you might live longer breathing only CO2 than you would breathing H2O - by a couple of breaths, but I dont imagine that is what you mean

and I am not actively doubting you, but am rather curious as to why you say this - pls explain.

King Nothing has explained

[snakeoil]

Just askin fellas

If we switch from fossill fuel now to hydrogen are we going to be worse off long term??? And if so what would then be the safest fuel to use

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Just askin fellas

If we switch from fossill fuel now to hydrogen are we going to be worse off long term??? And if so what would then be the safest fuel to use

It'll make the "Global Warming" problem worse if we switched to hydrogen powered cars. To tell you the truth, i say for now a good short term option would be LPG as it emits less nasties which contribute to the "Global Warming" problem. Ford is already ahead on this one with its EGas Falcon :

Electric cars would be a good solution for the long run, but the problem is we generate electricity from Coal, which also emits a butt-load of CO2, if we switched to Nuclear it wouldn't be such a problem, but we have to find somewhere to store the waste which creates problems on its own. Also, don't buy Toyota's horse poo "Prius". The area they get the nickel to make the batteries in is declared an environmental dead zone and cannot sustain any life, NASA uses the area to test its moon robots in now. Not so damn environmentaly friendly now is it, next time a prius driver gives you crap, punch him in the head with this fact. :

Its really too complicated to say what the safest fuel would be to use, too many factors in the whole equation really.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

It'll make the "Global Warming" problem worse if we switched to hydrogen powered cars. To tell you the truth, i say for now a good short term option would be LPG as it emits less nasties which contribute to the "Global Warming" problem. Ford is already ahead on this one with its EGas Falcon :

Electric cars would be a good solution for the long run, but the problem is we generate electricity from Coal, which also emits a butt-load of CO2, if we switched to Nuclear it wouldn't be such a problem, but we have to find somewhere to store the waste which creates problems on its own. Also, don't buy Toyota's horse poo "Prius". The area they get the nickel to make the batteries in is declared an environmental dead zone and cannot sustain any life, NASA uses the area to test its moon robots in now. Not so damn environmentaly friendly now is it, next time a prius driver gives you crap, punch him in the head with this fact. :

Its really too complicated to say what the safest fuel would be to use, too many factors in the whole equation really.

Alternatively, one idea could be to use hydrogen powered cars, and use something to capture the water vapour. Not sure how exactly, I can't imagine a cooling circuit would work effectively but anyway.

Then at a refueling station, you can empty the water tank while filling the hydrogen tank. This would help to create a closed loop system as the water could be pumped to a large electrolysis station to make it into hydrogen again. But again, you will need electricity to run this process. So we are back to the fossil fuel vs renewable vs nuclear.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Alternatively, one idea could be to use hydrogen powered cars, and use something to capture the water vapour. Not sure how exactly, I can't imagine a cooling circuit would work effectively but anyway.

Then at a refueling station, you can empty the water tank while filling the hydrogen tank. This would help to create a closed loop system as the water could be pumped to a large electrolysis station to make it into hydrogen again. But again, you will need electricity to run this process. So we are back to the fossil fuel vs renewable vs nuclear.

Also, Electrolysis isn't exactly very efficient either, back to the drawing board on electricity generation as you said

[snakeoil]

Just curious again

dude where could I find documented evidence that supports the claim that hydrogen powered cars emit more greenhouse gases as you state.

I am assuming that the heat of the water vapour will have much the same effect as the heat generated by petroleum driven cars???

Thanks dude

[snakeoil]

Also why would you need to empty a water tank...........there isnt one its all evaporated

[Mayhem_07]

Originally Posted by mrniceguy

This all smells like bulls$#@ to me. Has anyone here actually run there car on hydrogen created in a cell like this??

Go back to the sites and check the youtube videos from 98/99. It's not rubbish. I know of one person running a combination system in his 4x4 and says he's getting about 200k's extra out of his tank and 2 blokes running 100%, the 2 running 100% had their cars impounded. I haven't been able to speak to them directly yet, expecting to within a couple of weeks.

If anyone read far enough through the sites you'd see results from 12V 3amps producing 40+ litres per hour.

There was something about a 250cc motorcycle engine requiring approx. 1 litre per minute (60 L/h) to idle. Rought calculations put this at approx. 9000 L/h for a 4L I6 at 5000rpm for one hour.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Just curious again

dude where could I find documented evidence that supports the claim that hydrogen powered cars emit more greenhouse gases as you state.

I am assuming that the heat of the water vapour will have much the same effect as the heat generated by petroleum driven cars???

Thanks dude

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidenc...r_vapour.shtml

CO2 is what we're worried about at the moment when you burn fuel in your car, one of the byproducts is CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), when hydrogen burns its byproduct, instead of CO2 is water vapour, which holds more heat than CO2.

[mrniceguy]

Originally Posted by Mayhem_07

Go back to the sites and check the youtube videos from 98/99. It's not rubbish. I know of one person running a combination system in his 4x4 and says he's getting about 200k's extra out of his tank and 2 blokes running 100%, the 2 running 100% had their cars impounded. I haven't been able to speak to them directly yet, expecting to within a couple of weeks.

If anyone read far enough through the sites you'd see results from 12V 3amps producing 40+ litres per hour.

There was something about a 250cc motorcycle engine requiring approx. 1 litre per minute (60 L/h) to idle. Rought calculations put this at approx. 9000 L/h for a 4L I6 at 5000rpm for one hour.

Got any pics? Vids?

[OZQUAD44]

This may be looking at things a little to simplistic, but here goes.

Water vapour holding heat.... mmmmmm let me see, steam. once in contact with the atmosphere cools and either makes fog, rain clouds, rain, or ups local humidity. How is this dangerous to the atmosphere?

No vehicle design would be able to turn water into hydrogen on the move and then have enough energy left over to propel the vehicle, Its been tried and failed. same with storing the water vapour on board and returning it to a fuel station.

Hydrogen could be made at fuel stations using solar and wind technology, but I doubt they could produce enough for demand. But if they could this would be a workable solution.

Perhaps a hydrogen powered car that contains a water tank and a solar powered electrolisis system could be driven to work in the morning, then if it's a sunny day it might make enough hydrogen to get home. but I doubt it.

Apparently hydrogen is a by product of fossil fuels, now theres an easy way to make hydrogen........

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by OZQUAD44

This may be looking at things a little to simplistic, but here goes.

Water vapour holding heat.... mmmmmm let me see, steam. once in contact with the atmosphere cools and either makes fog, rain clouds, rain, or ups local humidity. How is this dangerous to the atmosphere?

No vehicle design would be able to turn water into hydrogen on the move and then have enough energy left over to propel the vehicle, Its been tried and failed. same with storing the water vapour on board and returning it to a fuel station.

Hydrogen could be made at fuel stations using solar and wind technology, but I doubt they could produce enough for demand. But if they could this would be a workable solution.

Perhaps a hydrogen powered car that contains a water tank and a solar powered electrolisis system could be driven to work in the morning, then if it's a sunny day it might make enough hydrogen to get home. but I doubt it.

Apparently hydrogen is a by product of fossil fuels, now theres an easy way to make hydrogen........

Hydrogen is made by Electrolysis, which they apply electricity to water. Its a pretty inefficient process though. The majority of Australia's power is generated by coal, so getting the Hydrogen through Electrolysis would put a buttload more CO2 into the atmosphere to get some Hydrogen, it would be better just to continue driving our normal car. UNLESS we had Nuclear power, then we've only got to worry about storing a cubic meter of radio active waste somewhere. Then there is a Fusion Nuclear Power Plant, it uses Hydrogen as a fuel and produces very little radio active waste compared to a Fission one using Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 (Recycled fuel rods) but i think they need to put more development into it.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by OZQUAD44

This may be looking at things a little to simplistic, but here goes.

Water vapour holding heat.... mmmmmm let me see, steam. once in contact with the atmosphere cools and either makes fog, rain clouds, rain, or ups local humidity. How is this dangerous to the atmosphere?

No vehicle design would be able to turn water into hydrogen on the move and then have enough energy left over to propel the vehicle, Its been tried and failed. same with storing the water vapour on board and returning it to a fuel station.

Hydrogen could be made at fuel stations using solar and wind technology, but I doubt they could produce enough for demand. But if they could this would be a workable solution.

Perhaps a hydrogen powered car that contains a water tank and a solar powered electrolisis system could be driven to work in the morning, then if it's a sunny day it might make enough hydrogen to get home. but I doubt it.

Apparently hydrogen is a by product of fossil fuels, now theres an easy way to make hydrogen........

It's dangerous because it still has the capacity to hold more heat than the surrounding air whilst it is up there. If you up humidity, you up the heat holding capacity of the air, thus increasing the temperature for the same heat input from the sun.

I agree that it probably isn't practicle (although I'm not 100% ruling it out) to generate hydrogen from water on-board. Although I'm not sure why you say that storing water on board isn't practical?

Thinking about it, the main problem I can see is with storing water on board. All the extra weight of the water. Hydrogen has a molecular weight of ~1g/mol. Water is about 18g/mol because of the oxygen molecule. So for every unit of fuel you burn, you add an extra 17 units of weight to cart around.

So I guess hydrogen cars with water vapour capture don't seem all that practical. I think the electric car is the way to go, as you can change the energy source (fossil fuel, solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever you want) and still keep the same car.

[NIK516]

guys guys get of hydrogen they are not going to use it they already know its a dead end.( notice ford did another bad call in this article )
http://environmentalblogging.org/?p=474

as for power stations there is no need when efficacy of solar panels gets better we can add solar panels to all roofs using panels that are roof tiles. (and Australian made).

http://www.environment.gov.au/settle...pv/eleven.html

and what can not be made by solar panels can be taken from the grid but will be far less then is taken now.
as for the grid we dont need to use coal we can use other forms such as solar farms and wind farms ( although wind farms arnt as good) , another one would be hydro generators under water picking up underwater currents converting it into energy.

hydro electric
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6982498.html

solar farm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/2297216.htm

another way to cut down on using your car is to stop all traffic in the cbd and only use trams, trains and taxi's.

and as for the electric car most car makers are moving towards electric cars.
http://media.volkswagen2028.com/vwcm...0005.File.html

and the technology is moving forward they are looking at virus filled battery's.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/virus-battery.html

this is all positive movements and i feel Australia as a country could become one of the great economical countries if we could bring down living costs using these technology's and focuses on more technology and helping fight poverty.

i hope these sites have helped you understand my point a little more.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by NIK516

guys guys get of hydrogen they are not going to use it they already know its a dead end.( notice ford did another bad call in this article )
http://environmentalblogging.org/?p=474

as for power stations there is no need when efficacy of solar panels gets better we can add solar panels to all roofs using panels that are roof tiles. (and Australian made).

http://www.environment.gov.au/settle...pv/eleven.html

and what can not be made by solar panels can be taken from the grid but will be far less then is taken now.
as for the grid we dont need to use coal we can use other forms such as solar farms and wind farms ( although wind farms arnt as good) , another one would be hydro generators under water picking up underwater currents converting it into energy.

hydro electric
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6982498.html

solar farm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/2297216.htm

another way to cut down on using your car is to stop all traffic in the cbd and only use trams, trains and taxi's.

and as for the electric car most car makers are moving towards electric cars.
http://media.volkswagen2028.com/vwcm...0005.File.html

and the technology is moving forward they are looking at virus filled battery's.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/virus-battery.html

this is all positive movements and i feel Australia as a country could become one of the great economical countries if we could bring down living costs using these technology's and focuses on more technology and helping fight poverty.

i hope these sites have helped you understand my point a little more.

Mate I'll tell you right now, this country can't afford to lose coal. If we did, we would lose massive $$$ in exports, we would lose cheap power, and we would lose a number of large industries that depend on coal and cheap power.

Although I didn't like everything the previous government did, they were right to want to invest in clean coal technology. Imagine the financial benefit it would bring Aus, not to mention the environmental savings.

There is no way in hell China is going to shut down all of those brand new coal fired power stations and build ALL NEW power stations. It would be better to retrofit them with clean coal technology.

I agree electric cars are the way to go, you can essentially power it with anything. The only problem would be transmission losses, etc. But renewables simply aren't in a position to provide baseload power. They can supplement, for sure, but with current technology we cannot depend on it. And just imagine the cost of building all of those wind, solar, and hydro projects EVERYWHERE. We, the taxpayer, would have to foot the bill and our standards of living would not increase.

All of this is beside the point anyway, as China, USA and India produce so much more pollutants. And only one of those 3 is even starting to look properly at alternative energy.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by NIK516

guys guys get of hydrogen they are not going to use it they already know its a dead end.( notice ford did another bad call in this article )
http://environmentalblogging.org/?p=474

as for power stations there is no need when efficacy of solar panels gets better we can add solar panels to all roofs using panels that are roof tiles. (and Australian made).

http://www.environment.gov.au/settle...pv/eleven.html

and what can not be made by solar panels can be taken from the grid but will be far less then is taken now.
as for the grid we dont need to use coal we can use other forms such as solar farms and wind farms ( although wind farms arnt as good) , another one would be hydro generators under water picking up underwater currents converting it into energy.

hydro electric
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6982498.html

solar farm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/2297216.htm

another way to cut down on using your car is to stop all traffic in the cbd and only use trams, trains and taxi's.

and as for the electric car most car makers are moving towards electric cars.
http://media.volkswagen2028.com/vwcm...0005.File.html

and the technology is moving forward they are looking at virus filled battery's.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/virus-battery.html

this is all positive movements and i feel Australia as a country could become one of the great economical countries if we could bring down living costs using these technology's and focuses on more technology and helping fight poverty.

i hope these sites have helped you understand my point a little more.

Solar sounds alright, but when you take into consideration that the average solar power on earth is 1000W/Square meter and that the efficiency of the best solar panels is around 25%, that doesn't leave you with lots of electricity generated for a lot of money.

I say Nuclear, but thats my opinion because we are sitting on a massive amount of Uranium that we could use to generate electricity, open up some new Uranium mines and even export it to keep the economy going.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Solar sounds alright, but when you take into consideration that the average solar power on earth is 1000W/Square meter and that the efficiency of the best solar panels is around 25%, that doesn't leave you with lots of electricity generated for a lot of money.

I say Nuclear, but thats my opinion because we are sitting on a massive amount of Uranium that we could use to generate electricity, open up some new Uranium mines and even export it to keep the economy going.

Agree 100% with that.
Funny how a lot of Australians are paranoid about nuclear power, and yet we don't have even one. Many overseas countries have lower emissions because of nuclear power. We do need to look into it as part of the energy supply solution.

[NIK516]

look agreed with the whole coal issue Australia will be loosing one of its biggest exports, but how long till no one will want to touch the stuff because it is seen as dangerous to the planet?

there will also be a day were we might even get fined for even burning it ?

we cant be one of those country's that does things in the last minuet we have to start earlier rather then later.

as for the solar panel yes right now the conversion rate is low but that is only because in the past ten to 15 years funding for solar has been very small and leaps in the technology have been the same due to it, but now in the last 5 or 8 years funding has grown due to new findings on climate change and the technology is getting much better, they hope to lift the percentage to alot more then 25 % in the next ten years.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...s_nanowire.php
just one idea.

and in ten years if we start to change the way we use electricity and make it there wont be a problem.

Australia is a lucky country not because of its coal but because of its people, the scientists that lead the way in everything and its sad because Australia never invests in Australians because coal is endangered ?

this is why all our scientists and inverters go to Europe and develop there ideas there.
http://about.murdoch.edu.au/synergy/9802/solar.html

coal may be beneficial in the short term but what about long ?
hopefully we can find a way to make clean coal and ween our selves off it without doing a massive amount of damage to the economy ?

sorry about the links but i dont want you to think im talking out of my behind.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by NIK516

look agreed with the whole coal issue Australia will be loosing one of its biggest exports, but how long till no one will want to touch the stuff because it is seen as dangerous to the planet?

there will also be a day were we might even get fined for even burning it ?

we cant be one of those country's that does things in the last minuet we have to start earlier rather then later.

as for the solar panel yes right now the conversion rate is low but that is only because in the past ten to 15 years funding for solar has been very small and leaps in the technology have been the same due to it, but now in the last 5 or 8 years funding has grown due to new findings on climate change and the technology is getting much better, they hope to lift the percentage to alot more then 25 % in the next ten years.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...s_nanowire.php
just one idea.

and in ten years if we start to change the way we use electricity and make it there wont be a problem.

Australia is a lucky country not because of its coal but because of its people, the scientists that lead the way in everything and its sad because Australia never invests in Australians because coal is endangered ?

this is why all our scientists and inverters go to Europe and develop there ideas there.
http://about.murdoch.edu.au/synergy/9802/solar.html

coal may be beneficial in the short term but what about long ?
hopefully we can find a way to make clean coal and ween our selves off it without doing a massive amount of damage to the economy ?

sorry about the links but i dont want you to think im talking out of my behind.

The thing is, solar is way too expensive for the little electricity it returns, even if we did get the efficiency levels up, it still wont be as good as other options like Nuclear, which is cheap and clean emissions wise while still laying down the option of selling Uranium to other countries to keep our economy going. I'll agree with you that Australia doesn't fund its scientists enough though.

What we could do is use Nuclear now, then slowly phase it out with improved renewable energy sources when they become better with more development and research. It'd cut emissions in the short term while having a plan for the future, or just use Nuclear all together.

Although, even if Australia managed to completely cut its emissions by 100%, we are not the only country in the world. So really, We aren't going to solve the worlds global warming problems unless we all work together, which will never happen.

[snakeoil]

A bit off track but the fastest man alive in 1902 was a bloke called Walter Baker who did 104mph on ormond beach florida in an electric car so the electric cars has had over a century to get its act togethor and still maybe has not achieved this??
Re nuclear power in a lot of ways does make perfect sense but society would have to chage its ways of thinking for this to ever happen particularly in Oz.LPG cars took off in the late 70's but it realy has taken a very long term for it to achieve general acceptance.I still do not understand after all this time why governments did not push this a little harder by dropping sales tax etc on new vehicles manufactured to run on gas to encourage people to buy them!!!!

Cheers............off to sandown for the group N cars racing today