Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Can a car truly run on water?
So I was on Digg reading the news and I saw this http://easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.com/2006/12/inventor-of-water-powered-car-murdered.html
I would like to know if there are any proof that a car can truly runs on water.
I would like to know if there are any proof that a car can truly runs on water.
Comments
The examples I have seen tend to involve using an electric current to break the water into it's base elements and then burn the resulting gasses.
So is Ethanol as it has a much lower amount of energy within it as opposed to gasoline. It also takes a shit-ton of land to make it from corn. Sugar cane based ethanol is better but we can't grow it so well in the USA...
The most cost-effective (not efficient) source is probably nuclear. Though it is not efficient in any sense of the word is does pack a large amount of energy and as technology improves the "waste" can be used as fuel again as it still contains a shit-ton of energy that we can't get to.
Seriously, though, I have always had a hard time buying into the energy crisis predictions. Human history -- especially in America -- is marked by periodic technological jumps concurrent with demand. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. When oil becomes so scarce that it's cost-benefit ratio declines under the point of profitability, we'll see another energy source emerge immediately. My cynical self says that such a technology probably already exists, if not physically then at least as an idea protected by patent, and is being held by a gas company against the day that the oil market dips.
There is also a ton of oil left to tap. Again, the problem is that it's in places that make it expensive to extract. When we say we're running out of oil, we are actually saying that we are running out of cheap oil. To be sure, there is plenty more oil to be had.
I agree - nuclear is the future. It's amazing just how safe modern reactors are. It's also greenhouse friendly. Yes, there is waste, but that problem is outweighed by the benefits.
Unfortunately, the Soviets and Hollywood have made the United States public afraid to develop nuclear energy. The Chernobyl reactor was a flawed piece of junk that bares no resemblance to anything used today (or anything used in non-communist countries back then). The "China Syndrome" was a bunch of Hollywood crap.
Two rants:
1) Battery technology. It has lagged for years. As our devices get more complicated, and need more power, our battery technology hasn't kept up.
2) Global Warming. I am so sick of people saying something like this: "Wow, this winter is really warm. Look what global warming is doing to us." As if one winter is an appropriate statistical sample. I have no doubts that the earth is warming. We are, after all, coming out of an ice age. I also suspect that we aren't helping matters with our pollutants. I"m not, however, certain as to the extent of our impact.
2) Global warming - What amazes me about this topic is that environmentalists seem to think that the Earth's climate is supposed to stay static forever. The glaciers should never melt. Greenland should never lose mass. Sea levels should never rise.
Yet, in the history of the world, this cycle of ice age to tropical age has been repeated dozens of times. The same rings true for preservationism -- environmentalists assume that all endangered species deserve to be protected forever. But looking at evolution, we know that species that can't adapt don't survive. That's natural selection.
The argument is that man is an "unnatural" interference on the natural order. I contend that humans are just another part of the ecosystem. Nobody gets mad at a cheetah for over-hunting and wiping out some food source on the savannah. Nobody can fault locusts for swarming every few years. It's all part of the circle of life (insert Lion King music here).
But we fault people for some unknown reason. We think that we're above the environment, that we're not a part of it. Our emissions are "unnatural." Our garbage is "unnatural." Our terraforming is "unnatural." But we're just another land mammal adapting our environment to our needs.
I'm not abdicating any responsibility to preserve our resources, here, you know. I'm just saying that we are part of the Earth's macrosystem, not above it, and that there is no logical imperative to keep the world in a static state until the end of time. Change is OK.
The "environmental" platform that drives me nuts is organic food. It is not nearly as simple an issue as most people think it is.
The food is much more likely to make you sick, and doesn't contain fewer carcinogens. It doesn't even have any clear nutritional benefits. Research has also shown that the natural pesticides in organic plants (chosen due to their insect resistance) produce greater carcinogens than in non-organic plants. The difference in non-organic plants is that any pesticides can be washed off. You can't wash off the natural pesticides contained in organic plants.
Lastly, the farming imprint for organic operations is much larger than for non-organic methods - taking much more land out of its natural state.
I don't have a grudge against those who choose to eat organic food. I just can't stand the holier-than-though hippies that think that they are doing something so pure and perfect. The simple truth is that most of the hippy lifestyle is about image... and that's all. They are conformists in their non-conformity.
My bet on the alternative fuel front for cars is the gradual shift to full electrics. We'll be seeing plug in hybrids soon. You'll run your car on it's batteries for the first 30 miles and then the gas generator will kick in. You'll get used to plugging it in at night. Eventually, you'll be able to plug it in and charge it in minutes. You'll go further on batteries and only need the generator in an emergency. This will decrease our dependence on oil for gas for our cars. We'll still need oil for a lot of other stuff though.
Another benefit from electric cars is that there already is an environmental friendly infrastructure for transporting electricity. We don't have to use fuel to transport fuel. I read somewhere that for every gallon of fuel we buy, two gallons have already been used on producing and transporting it. I don't know if the number is correct, but there are obviously environmental benefits from transporting the energy as electricity.
I'm a bit concerned about more nuclear power plants. My neighbour country Sweden had two very serious accidents in separate plants this summer. However, there are new and safer nuclear technologies on the drawing board.
Still, I stand by the claim that transportation of gas is a pollution problem by itself. I'm guessing here, but the loss of gas in transportation may perhaps be at approximately the same scale as the loss of watts over the power line.
Now, in the loss of gasoline, I can think of only a few ways that there would be loss of power (after refining of course). One of the few things that would cause a loss in transport is the handling of the gas itself. Some major losses could be spillage, fire, leaks around seals of tanker trucks and other storage containers, and related to spillage capsize and tanker accidents. Now seeing that tanker accidents being rare and that they usually only carry crude oil before it is refined that is ruled out here. On the topic of spillage, we would have to consider every load and unload of gas from tanker and storage container. The gasoline is moved from storage to transport through lines designed to keep the gasoline and the vapor from escaping. Now again we have to believe that these are keep up to date and are well maintained. The only loss that could occur is user error in the effect of not tightening the hose or the hose being not completely empty when removed. This would really only be the only loss of gas during transport excluding accidents.
Electricity transport, on the other hand, is always losing voltage from the lines. That is the reason there are substations along the way to keep the power boosted to the correct levels. Seeing as there is constant transport of electricity in huge amounts which would I say dwarf the transport of gas losses.
If we are to convert to electrically powered vehicles, it will be desirable to produce the power locally in the densely populated areas. That's a good argument for building nuclear plants based on thorium, as they can not melt down like traditional reactors can, and can therefor safely be placed almost anywhere. Thorium technology is a hot topic in Norway these days. Wikipedia is not as positive, but the information there might not be completely up to date with the new advances in thorium technology.
The future of nuclear power looks good in other ways as well.
(I'm sober now.)
There is nothing in the known universe that has a negative resistance... Well, except for drunk blonde girls, but that's a different matter!
Yes, fusion (with one 'S') is potentially cool, but not yet available.
Materials that can superconduct do so only under certain conditions. Usually, these conditions require them to be cooled to nearly absolute 0. So-called "high-temperature superconductors" can superconduct up to a balmy -130 degrees Celsius (or thereabouts). Performing that cooling, of course, requires a significant amount of energy itself, so using them for long-distance energy transport isn't anywhere near possible.
A room-temperature superconductor would be exceptionally spiffy for all sorts of reasons, but it's another case where we've got a long way to go.