It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

why is no one excited about ethanol?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
dude you can run a deisel engine on peanut oil, or ANY oil for thath matter...

we have all we need to stop polluting and solve this 'energy crisis'

they just want you tto stay dependant on foreign oil




posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
Yeah, diesels were originally designed for peanut oil. But there's not nearly enough peanuts to go around.

I drive over 2500 miles a week, which is a little low for the industry (dedicated run). My truck gets 7 mpg, which is pretty high for the industry. I still burn about 400 gallons of fuel each week. Multiply that by the (literally) millions of trucks on the road, and that's a heck of a lot of peanuts.

Biodiesel (when non-food is used to make it) is a good thing, but the highest blend I have seen is B-20 (80% diesel). There's only so much vegetable matter to go around. Used vegetable oil has been used by a few local fleets, but they have already tapped out most markets. It's simply a matter of quantity, just like ethanol. Just because something is feasible in a small area it does not mean it can work on a national level. We have to eat that food, not burn it.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Due to the recent hype of ethanol it has starved millions of people worldwide becuase people are diverting crops to fuel cars instead of people, if you want to use ethanol, make your own crops or promote NEW fields to grow the solution not rob countries that truly need it to have the bare min in life. And of coarse once we all wake up, we will see as they used for thousands of years, hemp will come back and stabilize many aspects of the world from paper products to medicine to fuel. look into it.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

I rank this hydrogen/water engine right up there with the perpetual motion machine.

I think nuclear power, with electric comuter cars is the way to go. Use gas guzzlers for long distance or perhaps a better rail system to transport the comuter cars for vacations.

I have always wished the USA had commuter rail cars like the one in Europe that take passengers and bikes. I comuted for years in the city of Boston using a bike and the rail but the walk at the end and the damage done by vandals to my bikes were a definate problem.

The most "think outside the box" vehicle I have ever seen was the pickup run on chicken manure in Leominster MA.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Solar panels could be one way to charge a rechargeable battery then that could be used for splitting hydrogen. Just like a hybrid except no gasoline.

Oh and you can get more hydrogen out of water by adding the addative to produce more hydrogen than there is in the regular water.

Did you look at the image in my last post?



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
There may be ways to make a more efficient hydrogen generator, but the plethora of scams being touted across the Internet are harming anyone who might come up with a better way.

Nuclear is a good mid-term solution, and electric commuter cars for city driving might well catch on. Both are better than ethanol, but neither will cut out our oil dependence.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
heh, you really like the idea of hydrogen from water! Nothing wrong with that.

Solar panels really aren't efficient enough. Remember that splitting and then recombining water does not create energy. It changes the energy into hydrogen and back into water. So using solar power to split the water would be less efficient than using solar cells to power the car directly.

Any additive added to the water becomes fuel, by definition. There are plenty of metals that liberate hydrogen in the presence of water, but the cost of the metals is higher than the cost of gasoline. Also, the energy needed to re-refine those metals for future use is more than the energy gained from using them.

Yes, I looked at the flowchart, but it's lacking in detail.

In short, the only way to make this feasible is to somehow split the water without using electron transfer to do so. I'm still waiting on someone to figure out how to do this.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Solar panels really aren't efficient enough. Remember that splitting and then recombining water does not create energy. It changes the energy into hydrogen and back into water. So using solar power to split the water would be less efficient than using solar cells to power the car directly.


The solar panel car with a rechargeable battery with hydrogen in the car has already been done. It was done sometime in the 70's by jack nicolson. Technology has gotten much better since then so why not improve on whats been done, well i guess its 30 years later and there starting on hydrogen next year.

The problem i see with an all electric car is the recharging of the car every few hours. I don't see that as efficient at all. Maybe theres enough energy provided by the solar cells? Well if theres enough energy from the solar cells, where would recharging take place? From the solar panels? Then shouldn't there be enough when i'm using only a portion of the solar energy stored?

Splitting water into hydrogen then burning it creates the energy. There is no energy being used to recombine the water. The solar energy and rechargeable brakes would be enough energy to charge the battery or solar cell that would be used for splitting water. The hydrogen produced would then be burned as the fuel for the car.

Its just combining the best of two things to come out with a car that doesn't need to be refueled/recharged.

The addative i would add would not be some kind of metal. Metals break down especially if placed in water even though on youtube it shows metal plates being used. The addative i would use would be a powder to get more hydrogen when the water is split just to provide more energy. The hydrogen would be burned up and water would be formed again and the addative would needed to be added again, but that shouldn't be a problem.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix

Splitting water into hydrogen then burning it creates the energy. There is no energy being used to recombine the water. The solar energy and rechargeable brakes would be enough energy to charge the battery or solar cell that would be used for splitting water. The hydrogen produced would then be burned as the fuel for the car.

You're still not getting my point. If you spend, say 100 units of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then you burn the hydrogen in the oxygen (recreating the water), you get exactly 100 units of energy (less any inefficiency). There is no energy production involved in such an arrangement using electrolysis on the water. To do what you are suggesting, you would need 150 or more units of energy from the hydrogen/oxygen mixture, and that is over-unity.


The addative i would add would not be some kind of metal. Metals break down especially if placed in water even though on youtube it shows metal plates being used. The addative i would use would be a powder to get more hydrogen when the water is split just to provide more energy. The hydrogen would be burned up and water would be formed again and the addative would needed to be added again, but that shouldn't be a problem.

It is the breaking down that accomplishes what you are saying you want: increasing the hydrogen content. No matter what you put into the water, if it produces more hydrogen than water alone, it will have to be replenished, just like any other fuel. Metals are generally good at releasing hydrogen gas in solution, but also amoonia/ammonium could be a good choice for that.

A hydrogen/electric car has been produced, yes, but never made it to market. That's because there are some serious technical problems that have not yet been resolved. The hydrogen cars i have heard of do not burn water; they burn hydrogen (I think using fuel cells). The hydrogen comes in a tank.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

You're still not getting my point. If you spend, say 100 units of energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then you burn the hydrogen in the oxygen (recreating the water), you get exactly 100 units of energy (less any inefficiency). There is no energy production involved in such an arrangement using electrolysis on the water. To do what you are suggesting, you would need 150 or more units of energy from the hydrogen/oxygen mixture, and that is over-unity.


An energy transfer is somewhat true, except its not a 100% transfer. Its like a 35% energy transfer and a 65% production of energy. Its due to all the stuff thats added onto the car (too much stuff to list generators etc.). The splitting of the water could also be done using bacteria taking no energy at all.

one link amongst many (thanx google!)
www.physorg.com...


A hydrogen/electric car has been produced, yes, but never made it to market. That's because there are some serious technical problems that have not yet been resolved. The hydrogen cars i have heard of do not burn water; they burn hydrogen (I think using fuel cells). The hydrogen comes in a tank.


If a car was produced that was a hybrid hydrogen car why not improve on it? Is the design so bad and risky as to not improve on because of major "flaws"? If the flaws were anything it would be no residual on the fuel.

Could you show a website on where the technical problems are shown?



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Quickfix
 


Have you ever dealt with hydrogen? The stuff is VERY explosive The only way it would be safe in a commercial vehicle is if it was produced in small quanities as needed. The second probelm is hydrogen is very small and loves to leak. In a stationary Lab situation I went nuts trying to keep my hydrogen cylinders from leaking. No way would I want that stuff behind me on a rough road.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Yeah, i know hydrogen is very explosive. Ever deal with gasoline? Its very explosive aswell.

You don't need to keep the generator from leaking, just need to direct it so it goes on the right course. To have something strong and air tight would be best of course. Use a pressure lid/top and rubber along the sides to keep the seal tight so no leaks would happen. As small as hydrogen is it can still be kept in an airtight container and controled through the proper system.

To have personaly experimented with hydrogen fuel cells and etc. not yet but i will be soon. The car is possible, its been done if there is a problem solve it, don't let anything stop you.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Quickfix]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join