It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by VonDoomen

Convert ?? If this stuff runs threw my engine ,then my friend , it will run threw the pumps , No conversion needed ,
Otherwise its not goin in my tank !

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by StaceyWilson

No offense, but your not thinking thi concept entirely through.
Yes, my bad, cars will not need to be converted, as far as we know.

to be more precise, the driver of the cars will have to "convert" or make a choice as well as the gas stations/corporations.

with all of the laws and regulations, you cant believe that a corporate gas station could just move to this format on its own volition. Many companies have rights over their containers, is essence, institutions are renting out the container. For example, a shopowner cannot sell non coke items out of a cooler supplied and advertised by coke.
the same concept with gas tanks. You cant expect to many whole new gas stations to pop up selling ONLY this fuel. the most probable outcome will be that a few corporations will buy into this technology at first and that these companies will have select stations selling this fuel, as well as our previous fuel too.

We cant expect these companies producing this new oil to all of a sudden be able to provide for the entire oil needs of the US? These things become integrated over time. Unless of course you have the hard earned capital to back this endeavor??

edit on 1/27/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by ledzeppelin489

I would agree to that, but there is also a lot of hydrogen that is not in its pure form, or readily processable for this technology.
But dont forget about space. as a species, we have to go there eventually right?

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by peck420

thanks for the good info!! Wish I could give you more stars. I do not know enough about this, but from my understanding, this is basically a liquid you would use just as gas. Its not an "electri car" or a "hydrogen fuel cell" car. this is a car which runs on a liquid which is quite similiar to what we use now, but the primary agent is hydrogen, instead of hydrocarbons.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:26 PM
This could be groundbreaking on so many levels if it isn't suppressed by the usual PTB, but I have a feeling this one might be viable. From the recent events involving the announcement of a possible cold fusion reactor successfully generating energy, I think that maybe TPTB may be trying to move away from oil. The reason they might be doing this is that the U.S economy is on a path to obliteration and one of the only things that could save us is a major technological breakthrough that would give us the competitive edge again. Think about how cheap we could produce goods if we were the first to create cheap, clean energy. Not to mention the massive profits that could be made by selling these technologies to other countries. Recently I have been thinking their in no hope for the U.S economy to make a comeback because of the debt situation, but maybe TPTB have an ace up their sleeve. Just my 2c

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:45 PM
By 2030 the world population could be around 8 billion people - the demand for oil will be astronomical.

There is no way our societies would be able to maintain the supply and demand for fossil fuels.

I do believe that these technologies (this new synthetic gas and cold fusion reactors) are being released for the reasons stated above - otherwise there would be a complete global ecconomic collapse.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:50 PM
this will be buried like everything else
a huge gas company will come along an pay what ever amount this guy wants an that will be the end of this
say bye bye

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

Extracting hydrogen from space will definitely be a doozy. We can send space tankers to Jupiter

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by VonDoomen

I doubt this. First of all, why is it that people keep claiming this will help the environment when it is known the contrary is the truth? First of all, water vapor is the real culprit behind the so called ghgs that cause global warming, and water vapor is released by hydrogen cars like there is no tomorrow. Second of all, hydrogen batteries are known to be more damaging to the environment, not to mention their production is not only inneficient, but downright dirtier than making combustion engines.

Fuel Cells are not Pollution Free: Where Will the Water Go?
L. David Roper (

One often hears that powering vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells will eliminate pollution; that their only emission is water. In this situation water may be a very dangerous pollutant.

When hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water in a fuel cell the hydrogen is taken from a tank carried in the vehicle and the oxygen is taken from the air (as it is in gasoline-combustion vehicles). The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O . So, for every 2 hydrogen atoms taken from the fuel tank, 1 oxygen atom is taken from the air. An oxygen atom is about 16 times more massive than a hydrogen atom, so the water molecule is 9 times [(16 + 2) / 2] more massive than the 2 hydrogen atoms used to make it.

Where is that water going to go when it is produce by the engine of a vehicle? It will come out as liquid or steam, depending on the "exhaust" temperture.

Depending on the weather conditions produced steam may rise and form clouds around the road, or it may form fog at the road surface, or it may condense and drop on the road. Even in warm weather water on the road will be dangerous. In freezing weather it will make the road downright treacherous, especially if most or all vehicles on the road are powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

The steam could be condensed and stored as very hot water in a tank in the vehicle. Then the vehicle will eventually have to carry 9 times as much mass as the hydrogen fuel tank carried when full, and the tank will be dangerously hot. Carrying the water around in the vehicle will greatly reduce the energy efficiency of the vehicle. The water tank would have to be emptied when the hydrogen tank is filled, or more often if it is not large enough to hold all the water produced by the total amount of hydrogen in the fuel tank. Pure water is good to have, but it sounds like something with which most vehicle drivers will not want to bother.

Suppose the fuel cell uses methane instead of hydrogen. Then the reaction is CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2 . In this case, since a carbon atom has 14 times the mass of a hydrogen atom, the water tank will eventually carry 2 times [[2 x (16 + 2)] / (14 + 4)] as much mass as the fuel tank did when full. How about the carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere? Wasn't the use of fuel cells supposed to eliminate that greenhouse gas being released into the atmosphere? Of course, the fuel tank itself will have to carry 4.5 times [(14 + 4) / 4] as much mass as a pure hydrogen fuel tank would.

Some will argue that the gasoline internal combustion engine also produces water. That is true, but see GasolineVsHyFuelCell.pdf, which shows that there are big differences in the amount and temperature of the water between gasoline combustion and hydrogen-fuel-cell energy production.

The least polluting scenario using fuel cells for transportation would be to have fixed hydrogen fuel cells producing electricity, with the pure water captured for use instead of dumped on the road or into the atmosphere or carried around in tanks on the vehicles, and then use hybrid or electric vehicles.

Don't forget that water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, don't forget the pollution that occurs in the process of producing the hydrogen to be used as fuel; that needs to be studied very carefully.

Two modes of transportation that might make good use of fuel cells are railroads and ships. In the railroad case, the pure water might be cooled and then used for drinking, cooking and cleaning or poured out on the sides of the tracks to moisturize the surrounding land. In the water transportation case it can just be cooled and then dumped into the water already there, helping to clean up the pollution. Iceland's Hydrogen Buses Zip to Oil-Free Economy::

"Sometimes I have to explain to passengers that it's just water vapour," the driver said of white clouds trailing after his bus along the streets of the capital, Reykjavik. "When it's very cold there's a lot of white steam."
Among other problems, some scientists say the atmosphere might simply become too cloudy in a hydrogen economy, emitting vast amounts of water vapour, perhaps reflecting sunlight back to space or trapping it and warming the globe.

Not to mention...

'Clean' hydrogen fuel cells could have pollution problems of their own
WASHINGTON (AP) — While hydrogen is touted as a clean fuel waiting to replace fossil energy sources, a new study concludes its widespread use could increase damage to the ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet radiation.
The report in Friday's editions of Science magazine says such trade-offs shouldn't prevent development of hydrogen fuel cells, but they should be taken into account when considering what measures might be needed to limit any environmental downside of a hydrogen-fuel economy.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:58 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So then we capture the water? You can really argue that the results of combusting energy and releasing that toxin into the air are better than releasing water vapor into the air?

But as has been shown by the thread, everyone against this technology uses one or two examples as end all examples of how the future will play out. I believe however that we DO have the ability to do this stuff without rocking the boat to hard. As I advocated earlier, we wouldnt need every car to be doing this. however It could help to have this be a PART of the ENTIRE system.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:07 AM
Great find! I just hope that it's put to use and not buried.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by VonDoomen

Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions

UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

This is just so never going to happen.
Just like Solar powered cars, cars running off Water

Even if it worked, and really was cheap to make you still have the same problem.
People won't buy the Cars if you can't fill it everywhere, People won't build the stations until there are cars, and Manufactures won't make the cars unless sheeple will buy them.

And then you have the next problem, just like more solar Electricty on Houses, caused everybody else to pay more. As more people use the Cheaper system, it will become more costly, defeating the purpose of converting in the first place.

And I'm reminded of US President since JFK has said the plan was reduce the Dependance on Oil. If you were an Oil Company, you could BANK on the Dependance on Oil would Increase.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by skeptic_al

It will never happen? Or it wont happen until the scarcity of oil makes it economically feasible?

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:41 AM
Hate to break the news, but the most common source of hydrogen is fossil fuels. Natural gas a great source, and abundant in the USA and Alaska.

Burning hydrogen fuel would create water vapor which would contribute far more to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide ever could.

The CO2 scammers (Gore, Soros, etc) hyped up carbon dioxide to cash in on carbon credits, but plants and trees do crave CO2 and more CO2 (not less) means a greener planet. Millions of cars and homes burning hydrogen and blanketing the earth with fog and clouds would then ensure that man would truely be the cause of the greenhouse effect.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Deebo
TPTB will either buy the patents to this, or this guy will turn up missing. Or his lab will be burnt down, etc etc.
Pretty neat news though. S+F


Attention TPTB!
I have created, after many years of research, a synthetic fuel from banana skins and empty cat food cans.
Before you burn down my house or assassinate me I am prepared to hand over all my data and the patent for a measly $10,000,000. (I figure 10 mil will see me out)

Waiting in anticipation...

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by dbriefed

You guys have made me think about this differently. I wish knew more about the chemistry and physics of this.

However I will just say im glad they havent made an engine that puts out water And flouride
for example.
I like pure water.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:56 AM
Synthetic gasoline will not be really energy efficient. Making it uses really much electricity. And its weird that they won't say what its emissions are.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:56 AM
The al gore electric car loving fanatics in this thread
is something sick.

Hydrogen technology will be the gas of tomorrow, I gurantee it.

The oil we do have will not last another 100 years.

No one in the right mind wants to *plug* in a slow, bulky, over modded golf cart on batteries...
Which will take another 100 years to have it perfected. We don't have the time.

edit on 28-1-2011 by hillynilly because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:44 AM
Why are so many of you ATSers responding so negatively to this great news!

Yes many new inventions and patents have been suppressed in one way or another, I'm not denying that at all. To all you people responding with these same old negative rhetoric and assumptions, I just have to ask why? I hope you all realize that sticking with this thought pattern isn't going to get us anywhere. You should be happy and hopeful that this new development will succeed. I myself am partial to the belief that thought it the most powerful form, and most of you ATSers are showing very poor form. Sure history repeats itself guys, but the variables are always gonna be different, nothing stays the same. All I'm trying to say is that some of you need to get a better outlook on life, it will help all of us more than you might think.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by hillynilly

Check out this site! If you scroll down about 3/4 of the way down you will see an energy chart in real time that shows how much oil and gas and coal are left till they run out. These numbers are just figurative though as many factors play into how much is left. the big one being when it becomes to expensive to pump out of the ground. anyways check it out. They will eventually HAVE to come out with an alternative source for all nonrenewable resources.

My calculator shows only 42.8 years left until we run out of oil completely. That's when we get new oil sources.
can't wait.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in