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.

 

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

page: 5
113
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Some news sounds good on the surface. Such as, "We're going to give everyone $10 Million dollars!". Sounds great right? Well, only if you don't think about the impact.

Way too many people are short term thinkers.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wanderer1990
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.


Because this news is not sustainable



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Regardless, I'm talking about the general attitude for most topics here on ATS. It just gets old seeing all these bad regurgitated assumptions all the time. That's all I'm trying to say buddy.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
As I read it, the material is a hydrogen storage material hence it will be similar to what we already know about hydrogen as an alternative fuel, but without the storage issue.

Cella Energy Ltd makes safe, low-cost hydrogen storage materials. Our materials use nano-structuring to safely encapsulate hydrogen at ambient temperatures and pressures. This sidesteps the requirement for an expensive hydrogen infrastructure.

www.cellaenergy.com...



Originally posted by hillynilly
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)


Hydrogen powered cars are worse than electric powered cars in pretty much every way possible.


Most egregious: Where, exactly, does the Times think hydrogen comes from? Santa Claus? More than 95% of US hydrogen is made from natural gas, so running a car on hydrogen doesn't reduce net carbon dioxide emissions compared with a hybrid like the Prius running on gasoline. OK, you say, can't hydrogen be made from carbon-free sources of power, like wind energy or nuclear? Sure, but so can electricity for electric cars. And this gets to the heart of why hydrogen cars would be the last car you would ever want to buy: they are wildly inefficient compared with electric cars.

Electric cars - and plug-in hybrid cars - have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in utilising low-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of the entire hydrogen fuelling process, from generating the hydrogen with that electricity to transporting this diffuse gas long distances, getting the hydrogen in the car, and then running it through a fuel cell - all for the purpose of converting the hydrogen back into electricity to drive the same exact electric motor you'll find in an electric car.

The total power-plant-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is likely to utilise low-carbon electricity is 20-25% - and the process requires purchasing several expensive pieces of hardware, including the electrolyser and delivery infrastructure. The total efficiency of simply charging an onboard battery with the original low-carbon electricity, and then discharging the battery to run the electric motor in an electric car or plug-in, however, is 75-80%. That is, an electric car will travel three to four times farther on a kilowatt-hour of renewable or nuclear power than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will.


www.guardian.co.uk...

(running hydrogen through internal combustion engines is even more inefficient).

Hydrogen powered cars suck and they always will. Pretty much the only reason they exist in the first place is so they can delude people into believing they are better then the electric car. Since hydrogen powered cars are not feasible and electric cars are, the end result is no electric cars and a greater dependence on oil. Real smart.
edit on 28/1/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Hmmm.. not wanting to be too skeptical but how much energy is required to produce this stuff? It's usually the case that more energy is used in production than in burning the fuel it's replacing. Fingers crossed for a revolution


Thinking about it, it *cannot* be an expensive manufacturing process @ an estimated price of 90 pence a gallon.

If it was dirty or expensive, this would be reflected in the price.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 





There have been dozens if not hundreds of alternative fuel inventions over the past decades but we still use good old fashioned gas.


And the reason being ? The world economy is dependent upon it and it's price. For example , cheap oil prevents deposits such as Canadas' oil sands being utilized (along with the complete destruction and poisoning of the environment) because the oil is so expensive to remove let alone refine.
So long as the price of oil is up then low grade oil can be profitable for the oil companies, speculators as we know look long term and an abundant source of very cheap oil flooding the economy would cripple their investments.

We need to forget the environment benefits of this oil (if it's actually real) as this is of no consequence to the players in the oil industry, and focus on the insanity of having economies totally controlled by the price of oil.

Here is some more food for thought, If this manufacturer by some magic started selling this product into the world market the oil fields in the Arab world would become obsolete and US military industrial complex would be left stock still sucking it's thumb (and no doubt get called out by the likes of Ron Paul) Iran,Afghanistan, etc are suddenly off the menu and their terrorists/freedom fighters could go back to their goats.

The only way our problems on this planet will begin being solved is if totally eco friendly fuel is available to everyone, free, then we could really begin talking to each other about things like sustainable farming and responsible birth control etc.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Electric care fans always conveniently leave out the fact it produces more pollution creating the energy to charge the batteries than just driving normal cars do. That is why the new car only sold about 10 copies in the first month. It does not help the environment and it is very expensive to own and operate. They only build those to get the government handouts.


Dead wrong.

Let's do the math.

Nissan Leaf electric car is based on the Nissan Tiida gasoline car, they are very similar.

Nissan Leaf gets 2.73 miles per kilowatt hour on the highway or 0.2088 kilowatt-hours per kilometer.

Nissan Tiida gets 9.3–13.5 km/litre on highway with the engine that is the same power as the Leaf. Hence Nissan Tiida gets between 0.1075 liters per kilometer and 0.0741 liters per kilometer. A liter of gasoline puts 2.356 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere hence the Tiida will put between 0.1745 kg of CO2 per kilometer and 0.25333 kg of CO2 per kilometer.

Hence for the Leaf to put out as much CO2 as a Tiida, the CO2 emission intensity of the grid will need to be above between 835 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour and 1,220 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Denmark = 650 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour.
France = 90 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour.
USA = 607 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Canada = 234 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.
Australia = above 1,000 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hence in almost all countries, driving an electric car will be cleaner than driving a gasoline powered car. Also more efficient as the Nissan Leaf gets the equivalent of 92 mpg on the highway, far higher than any gasoline powered car meaning less energy is being consumed. And what do you think is better, pollution at a power plant with massive scrubbers fitted to the stacks located out of sight, out of mind, or exhaust pipe emissions where people actually do live and work with in comparison, rather crappy emissions control?
Conclusion: Electric cars are cleaner.

Significantly less price volatility, and greater energy security since you're not importing oil from the middle-east. Also means no (or less) oil-wars like Iraq... electric cars use less energy, but even for the same amount of energy even coal is safer than oil:


Conclusion: Electric cars mean greater energy security and less deaths due to mining / drilling / air pollution / water pollution.

Here in Australia, a Leaf will cost about 2.4 cents per kilometer @ 15 cents per kilowatt hour.
A Tiida will cost between 10 cents and 15 cents @ $1.4 per liter.
Fuel cost advantage = factor of 4, in favor of electric car.
Conclusion: Electric cars are cheaper to fuel and gasoline is only going to get more expensive. I can't find maintenance costs.

The reason why the electric car hasn't caught on is due to hype about the hydrogen car, people like you, lack of knowledge about the electric car, oil companies, and a high up-front capital cost. The capital cost can and will come down over time with mass production and better engine and battery technology. Through better engine technology, rare earth metal use can be almost eliminated. Better batteries will also increase range. The electric car along with advanced biofuels (e.g. from algae) are the future, not hydrogen. And if it isn't the electric car & biofuels that are the future, then it will be oil, oil, and more oil. I can't say when the electric car will really catch on, but it looks obvious that its market share will only increase from now on.
edit on 28/1/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


No disrespect, but that external content you posted is probably the most ridiculous, insane argument against using Hydrogen as a fuel source i have ever seen!

Water...a pollutant?!!! Who the hell is the reports author trying to kid?

Fresh, clean water is not a pollutant, it is an essential requirement for life!

He or she is prattling on about liquid water and or steam coming from the exhausts of vehicles..YEAH..SO WHAT?!

Perhaps he/she hasn't noticed, but the stuff falls freely out of the bloody sky on a daily basis!!
It falls on the roads all the time. It falls as rain, snow, hail, fog, dew, and condensate.

Perhaps the author also hasn't noticed that the world is moaning about the *lack* of clean, potable water supplies, in wet countries (like the UK), we will simply allow the water to run out of the tail pipe, and into the sewers from the roads, but in dry countries who will adopt this fuel readily, the water can be captured, at both the power station level, and from individual vehicles/households to provide, clean and safe drinking and irrigation water.

What's the problem? There isn't one, except perhaps the falling profit margins of the greedy, bloated dinosaur oil companies, and for me that's a plus, not a problem..personally, i hope they remain short sighted, don't diversify into these alternative fuel areas, and lose their shirts.

I still can't get over what you posted...posing as some kind of scientific research too! It's absurd.

Water being called a pollutant indeed! Now i really *have* heard everything! What next..a report that breathing is bad for us, so we should breathe only once every minute?!

This technology is cheap...it's clean...it produces *MUCH* needed water as it's only 'waste' product when combusted..it's going to put conventional fossil fuels out of business...it's a winner!

ETA..This technology isn't actually new.

Bob Lazar built this technology inside his car years ago.

He used Scuba tanks filled with hydrides to contain hydrogen made on demand in the car...the H didn't have to be cooled or pressurised either, and were very safe. I have a video clip somewhere, i'll have a look for it.

Here it is on YT..www.youtube.com...

The only difference with this version of the tech, is how the hydride is manufactured inside the polymer micro tubes.





edit on 28/1/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Just one smart question...How are they going to put that synthetic gasoline deep under the ground?????????????????????



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gloster
Just one smart question...How are they going to put that synthetic gasoline deep under the ground?????????????????????


Pardon?

I don't understand what you're saying?

Why would you put this fuel 'deep under ground'? And if you wanted to, why would it be a problem?

This hydride H storage method, needs no high pressurisation (huge expensive and dangerous pressure tanks) or massive cooling (minus 230 C)...it is ambient temperature and pressures..it can be pumped underground if you wanted to, with no problems.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


lol no humor left, do you really think someone would ask that question seriously? even with those funny simbols you didnt get it as a joke



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gloster
reply to post by spikey
 


lol no humor left, do you really think someone would ask that question seriously? even with those funny simbols you didnt get it as a joke


Nope..sorry. I still don't get it.

Oh hold on...i think it's filtering through slowly...you're saying they'd pump it underground, 'drill a well' and extract it again as crude oil...and sell it as such...yeah? (i've often thought that energy companies might be using 'free energy' systems like Cold fusion or similar, generating free or nearly free energy and flogging it to us for 100X the price it costs them!)

And honestly...i've read loads of answers like your one that were totally serious!

I'm not wearing my humour head today.


edit on 28/1/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
great post, i hope somethign turns out



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Hmmmm.

I know these guys are not backyard proffesors or anything and have a lot of backing....but

How long I wonder before all the reserarchers die in a big Lab fire and the formula gets "missing".



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


No problem that you didnt get the joke. We cant replace something nature does, thats why we never should got that oil in the first place and sell it? why sell somthing its not yours?( ours ) I think Nikola Tesla found the solution long.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Conclusion: Electric cars mean greater energy security and less deaths due to mining / drilling / air pollution / water pollution.


Electricity doesn't make itself it's just a carrier of the energy from mining and drilling, you still have to generate electricity.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 



Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Conclusion: Electric cars mean greater energy security and less deaths due to mining / drilling / air pollution / water pollution.


Electricity doesn't make itself it's just a carrier of the energy from mining and drilling, you still have to generate electricity.


Maybe I wasn't clear enough...:
1.Electric cars are more efficient than both hydrogen powered cars and oil powered cars, hence they need less energy.
2. The energy that they do require is safer than oil in the first place.

edit on 28/1/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
In 2007 John Kanzius figured out salt water will burn. Cheaper than $1.50 a gallon.

He figured out radio waves can break the hydrogen bond...much more efficient than electrolysis.
The US Navy will field it on the new Ford Class Carriers and will use it's nuclear reactors to zap radio waves at salt water to create Hydrogen Gas/Carbon from CO2 and they are using the Fischer Tropsche Process to convert those gases into diesel/jetfuel.

It will be a floating oil rig making all the diesel/jetfuel it needs...from sea water.

Our Air Force won't be able to project air power in 2020...but the US Navy will. Go Navy!!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Conclusion: Electric cars mean greater energy security and less deaths due to mining / drilling / air pollution / water pollution.


Electricity doesn't make itself it's just a carrier of the energy from mining and drilling, you still have to generate electricity.

Try hydro, tidal, wind , solar cell etc.

There is absolutely nothing to stop governments encouraging home generation and storage of electricity for both home and car use.......well except that the "fuel" would be free and thus not generate any tax revenues.

Batteries are poor at present so storing the enregy in the form of synthetic fuel is a reasonable compromise. It also means we don't have to scrap all the current hydrocarbon vehicles!

We do have the technology to switch entirely from fossil fuel use but not the will. Capital costs on a go it alone basis are far too high due to low volumes. Again government intervention and support would result in those costs plummeting.......but no ongoing tax revenues, yet again....darn it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
How difficult is it for people to understand that if this turns out to be practical then it will be the oil companies that will manufacture and distribute this new fuel.

Saving billions in exploration, rigs and piplines etc they will just sell it for close to what fossil fuels sell for while making a hell of a lot more from it.

The only benefit will be less pollution which as most of us already know was only really an excuse to hike up the tax in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join