Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/17/2004 10:00:20 AM EST
This one little area I disagree with Bush on is the lack of emphasis on alternative fuels.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:01:59 AM EST
Or more emphasis on taking it from terrorist.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:02:14 AM EST
Such as alcohol? Hell, I spend too much on alcohol now!
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:02:36 AM EST
I agree. Instead of saying we have to reduce the dependency on foreign oil, we should be reducing our dependency on oil in general. There are plenty of other fuels out there but are too costly at the moment. Money should be spent finding more effecient ways to either produce or use those fuels.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:02:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:03:47 AM EST
Hydrogen fuel cells, solar, wind, vegetable oils.

A new lasting fuel for our vehicles not Middle East oil.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:04:38 AM EST
drill alaska!
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:04:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By DigDug:
If alternative fuels is a money maker, people will put their own private funds into it. Don't sound like a socialist.



People are investing in it but right now oil is cheaper and gets cheaper when OPEC lowers oil prices to prevent gains in alternative fuels.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:05:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
drill alaska!



No the oil there should be kept only for a military or national emergency.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:06:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:07:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:07:32 AM EST
When gas gets so high we're all bleeding from the ears, then something will begin to happen. If big oil is smart (and they are), they will corner the market on alternative fuel research and technology. There has to be a buck in it though and people have to demand it.

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:07:57 AM EST
Well oil is going to eventually run out.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:08:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Captain_Picard:
When gas gets so high we're all bleeding from the ears, then something will begin to happen. If big oil is smart (and they are), they will corner the market on alternative fuel research and technology. There has to be a buck in it though and people have to demand it.




"Big Oil" is the leading producer of solar energy!
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:09:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:12:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:16:08 AM EST
The market will decide.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:16:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Captain_Picard:
When gas gets so high we're all bleeding from the ears, then something will begin to happen. If big oil is smart (and they are), they will corner the market on alternative fuel research and technology. There has to be a buck in it though and people have to demand it.




Big oil thought they were smart and started buying metals/mining companies back in the 70's. They lost big time when metals prices returned to normal. One of my professors showed us proprietary metal price forcasts - totally unreal prices - gold well into 4 digits, silver over 100/oz, copper around 10/lb, and this is what those companies were basing acquisition strategies on.

Stick to what you know - good slogan.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:21:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By pogo:

Originally Posted By Captain_Picard:
When gas gets so high we're all bleeding from the ears, then something will begin to happen. If big oil is smart (and they are), they will corner the market on alternative fuel research and technology. There has to be a buck in it though and people have to demand it.




Big oil thought they were smart and started buying metals/mining companies back in the 70's. They lost big time when metals prices returned to normal. One of my professors showed us proprietary metal price forcasts - totally unreal prices - gold well into 4 digits, silver over 100/oz, copper around 10/lb, and this is what those companies were basing acquisition strategies on.

Stick to what you know - good slogan.



I would think that like Microsoft, rather than developing the stuff that people will need, you buy the companies that develop the stuff. The alternative is to eventually become obsolete. Diversify and push the monopoly thing to the edge.

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:25:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 10:26:37 AM EST by WackyG]
"We need more money spent on alternative fuels"

Then spend it...What's this we jazz, you got a mouse in your pocket?
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:29:59 AM EST
Were I the President, I'd call for an Engergy Manhattan Project. It would consist of al the following:

- LOTS of money for alternative fuel research. (All the foreign aid money would go here instead).

- Drilling for oil wherever we can find it on our own soil or waters. Utilize all the technology we have to keep it safe and clean, but DRILL.

- A 10 BILLION dollar bonus (either i cash or tax breaks) to the first manufacturer who developes a marketable car, SUV, and truck engine (three seperate awards) that DOESN'T use fossil fuels.

- Freeze ALL OPEC assets in the U.S. and use the money to fund the project. Fuck 'em.



Oh! I would also declare that as soon as we don't need them anymore, we will be pulling out of the Middle East permanently, and they will be free to fuck their goats, kill their women, beat their children, and drink their oil, but if they so much as FART outside their own countries, we will promptly nuke ALL of them off the face of the planet.

Doesn't have to be done all at once, but quickly enough to make a difference.

Anyway, that's the end of this internet rant....
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:31:24 AM EST
Wasn't there a guy in WW2 that tried to sell the rights to the gov't a process that could make gasoline from some alcohol/water + his own proprietary chem mixture?
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:37:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 10:38:16 AM EST by Hoppy8420]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Were I the President, I'd call for an Engergy Manhattan Project. It would consist of al the following:

- A 10 BILLION dollar bonus (either i cash or tax breaks) to the first manufacturer who developes a marketable car, SUV, and truck engine (three seperate awards) that DOESN'T use fossil fuels.


Sorry, but Rudolph Diesel is already dead... can I have it in his honor?

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:41:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Were I the President, I'd call for an Engergy Manhattan Project. It would consist of al the following:

- A 10 BILLION dollar bonus (either i cash or tax breaks) to the first manufacturer who developes a marketable car, SUV, and truck engine (three seperate awards) that DOESN'T use fossil fuels.


Sorry, but Rudolph Diesel is already dead... can I have it in his honor?

Hoppy8420



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Diesel is a fossil fuel....
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:43:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:45:57 AM EST
Here it is:

www.phoenixproject.net/

Read through the articles. Hydrogen would be an ideal course to take. Then we could tell the Arabs to drink their oil.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:46:52 AM EST
In the automotive realm, one thing that stands in the way of alternate fuels is emissions standards. Bio-diesel is a great idea, but current clean air standards a harsh towards diesels and will get even tougher in MY08.

Funny thing is, there have been tremendous advancements in the area of emissions on internal combustion engines. I've read that the current engine technology could comply with 1992 clean air standards with no exhaust-side treatment, meaning no catalytic converters. Pretty impressive when you think about it. The problem is, every 3 or 4 years, the standards ratchet back up and everything starts from square one. And mileage standards are another thing, efficiency drops a bit with some of this blended fuel.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:48:11 AM EST
Yes, we should have had alternative energy YEARS ago..but wth oil so cheap(even at $3/gal, our gas is still way cheaper than the rest of the world's prices), Americans got lazy and did not focus on it.

With oil prices rising, there will be a push in the private sector. Let's face it-the person who gets another fuel source (assuming the oil compaines don't buy the patents or make it clear to the person that if they do go mass market, bad things will happen to them) is going to make BIG $$$$$$.

however, with Peak Oil coming, it may be too late.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 10:50:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Were I the President, I'd call for an Engergy Manhattan Project. It would consist of al the following:

- A 10 BILLION dollar bonus (either i cash or tax breaks) to the first manufacturer who developes a marketable car, SUV, and truck engine (three seperate awards) that DOESN'T use fossil fuels.


Sorry, but Rudolph Diesel is already dead... can I have it in his honor?

Hoppy8420



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Diesel is a fossil fuel....

Diesel originally used peanut oil in his engine. Do a google search on biodiesel.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:12:42 AM EST
Hydrogen is the answer . No carbon , so no Co2 in exhaust . The BTU is more then double that of gasoline . 99% of existing engines can use it without any internal changes .
The metal oxide storage matrix has been developed and is safer then a conventional
fuel tank . Hydrogen can be stripped from Sea water and has been done since the 1950s
on every submarine , only they discard the hydrogen and use the O2 also produced .

Why don't you see it in use , you ask ???

I'd have to put on a tin hat to answer that

Then there is small detail that about 7 years ago a small company invented a way to strip
hydrogen on board the vehicle from a 10 gal water tank using a retentive system
that produced the needed current from the energy generated during braking .
This was a closed loop system that reclaimed the H2o from the exhaust at about a
1% loss . They predicted that once in production , the unit would cost about $5000
per vehicle .

Would you be willing to pay $ 5K extra for a vehicle that would go about 20,000 miles
on 10 gallons of salt water .
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:15:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Hydrogen is the answer .



Roger that. Check the link in my post on the previous page.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:17:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Hydrogen is the answer . No carbon , so no Co2 in exhaust . The BTU is more then double that of gasoline . 99% of existing engines can use it without any internal changes .
The metal oxide storage matrix has been developed and is safer then a conventional
fuel tank . Hydrogen can be stripped from Sea water and has been done since the 1950s
on every submarine , only they discard the hydrogen and use the O2 also produced .

Why don't you see it in use , you ask ???

I'd have to put on a tin hat to answer that

Then there is small detail that about 7 years ago a small company invented a way to strip
hydrogen on board the vehicle from a 10 gal water tank using a retentive system
that produced the needed current from the energy generated during braking .
This was a closed loop system that reclaimed the H2o from the exhaust at about a
1% loss . They predicted that once in production , the unit would cost about $5000
per vehicle .

Would you be willing to pay $ 5K extra for a vehicle that would go about 20,000 miles
on 10 gallons of salt water .





Chrome, you may be right, but my general feeling is that if this were possible, we'd be doing it right now.



I'd like to see nuclear power plants, the new small ones running on helium 3 on every corner. Or in my back yard. I'lll get all the power I need and I'll sell you guys what I don't use. Battery tech needs to come a ways to make the use of electric cars feasible but this is proven technology that we could use now.


But you're right, If I could pay 5000 bucks, and make my car run even 100 miles on ten gallons of sea water, I'd be installing it right now........
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:18:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 11:19:43 AM EST by DigDug]
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:20:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By DigDug:

One word: Hindenberg.



That's the first thing everyone thinks of.

Go to the Phoenix Project site. That is discussed there.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:21:22 AM EST
http://www.greasecar.com/
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:21:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Hoppy8420:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Were I the President, I'd call for an Engergy Manhattan Project. It would consist of al the following:

- A 10 BILLION dollar bonus (either i cash or tax breaks) to the first manufacturer who developes a marketable car, SUV, and truck engine (three seperate awards) that DOESN'T use fossil fuels.


Sorry, but Rudolph Diesel is already dead... can I have it in his honor?

Hoppy8420



Correct me if I'm wrong, but Diesel is a fossil fuel....

Diesel originally used peanut oil in his engine. Do a google search on biodiesel.

Hoppy8420



Ah! I see....
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:24:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Hydrogen can be stripped from Sea water and has been done since the 1950s
on every submarine , only they discard the hydrogen and use the O2 also produced .



Serious question:

I'm well aware of how seawater is split by applying a current through it in order to get O2 (I'm qualified in Submarines).

However, if hydrogen later releases its fuel energy by burning (i.e. - combining it with oxygen to create water), then isn't the energy output equal to or less than the energy needed to split it from water in the first place?

What am I missing?
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:25:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By DigDug:
One word: Hindenberg.



Only when gaseous Hydrogen is stored under pressure. Wouldn't be a problem with a water-based engine.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:27:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
[
However, if hydrogen later releases its fuel energy by burning (i.e. - combining it with oxygen to create water), then isn't the energy output equal to or less than the energy needed to split it from water in the first place?

What am I missing?



I'm not a phyicist, nor do I play one in the movies.

However, wind farms can produce current for the electrolysis, so it doesn't have to be a question of expending more energy than we get back.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:27:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:28:25 AM EST
But according to the post above, all this would occur internally to the car....
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:28:52 AM EST
Hemp Oil
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:29:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Would you be willing to pay $ 5K extra for a vehicle that would go about 20,000 miles
on 10 gallons of salt water .



Damn straight, I would!

If only to tell the Arabs to take their oil and shove it!
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:29:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:30:38 AM EST
Go here and read:

www.phoenixproject.net/

This sounds like a viable plan.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:33:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:33:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By DigDug:
We already have 80-20 fuel and cars that run on it. That's 80% alcohol and 20% gas. CRC, you are using this already, right?



It will also eat your car's guts out....

Alchohol + present-era cars DO NOT MIX, the practical limit is 10% corn juice to 90% petrol (which we are allready at)
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:35:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:35:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Hydrogen can be stripped from Sea water and has been done since the 1950s
on every submarine , only they discard the hydrogen and use the O2 also produced .



Serious question:

I'm well aware of how seawater is split by applying a current through it in order to get O2 (I'm qualified in Submarines).

However, if hydrogen later releases its fuel energy by burning (i.e. - combining it with oxygen to create water), then isn't the energy output equal to or less than the energy needed to split it from water in the first place?

What am I missing?



That is the current problem with almost EVERY alternative combustion fuel

The energy input to refine it is higher than the energy produced by consuming it...

Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:36:02 AM EST
http://www.greasecar.com/
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 11:38:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 11:40:33 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By DigDug:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By DigDug:
We already have 80-20 fuel and cars that run on it. That's 80% alcohol and 20% gas. CRC, you are using this already, right?



It will also eat your car's guts out....

Alchohol + present-era cars DO NOT MIX, the practical limit is 10% corn juice to 90% petrol (which we are allready at)



Sorry, but you are wrong. There are plenty of 80-20 certified vehicles and more on the way. You need to do a little more research. Check your fuel cap. You may be driving one and not even know it.



My service manual says no more than 10% alchohol, 91 or higher octane gasoline only. The car is a 97 Z28 running a 350cid LT1

Flexible Fuel Vehicles are limited to a few types commonly purchased by government. The Ford Taurus is one that I can think of, and only certain models...

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top