power sources for cars

[Steve]

With petrol expected to reach £1.00 per litre this summer, we should all be thinking about alternative power sources for our vehicles. I did watch Tonight, last night, and they tested 5 cars with different power sources.

The electric car was a joke, frankly. The guy looked a right nerd, and his car had a top speed of 40mph, and couldn't climb hills.

They had a Toyota Prius petrol electric hybrid, but the conclusion was that since its primary power source is still petrol, its no good for the impending energy crisis!

Hydrogen was dismissed by Quentin Willson as a waste of time, because if everyone drove Hydrogen cars every 4th car would be a hydrogen tanker making a delivery. Also hydrogen production is energy-intensive at the moment.

There was a car running on biofuels, but to produce enough biofuels for every car in the world, the entire crop production area on the planet's surface would have to be doubled, which is neither practical, nor possible.

Vegetable oil is where my money is. A diesel engine can function perfectly well on a mix of veg oil and diesel, and only suffers a slight lack of performance and increased service intervals when run on veg oil alone.

All in all i think the future is with a mixture of the above. Soon petrol stations will be selling veg oil, biofuels, hydrogen, and have a few 3 pin sockets!

 

[bernardgreen]

Hydrogen was dismissed by Quentin Willson as a waste of time, because if everyone drove Hydrogen cars every 4th car would be a hydrogen tanker making a delivery. Also hydrogen production is energy-intensive at the moment.

All fuel production is energy intensive, the energy has to be put "into" the fuel in order for the fuel to be a fuel that produces energy. The one exception is nuclear where matter is converted into different matter at the atomic level with the release of energy.

Fossil fuels come from vegetation that absorbed large amounts of solar energy millions of years ago as the plants grew.

 

[big-all]

Hydrogen was dismissed by Quentin Willson as a waste of time, because if everyone drove Hydrogen cars every 4th car would be a hydrogen tanker making a delivery. Also hydrogen production is energy-intensive at the moment.

All fuel production is energy intensive, the energy has to be put "into" the fuel in order for the fuel to be a fuel that produces energy. The one exception is nuclear where matter is converted into different matter at the atomic level with the release of energy.

Fossil fuels come from vegetation that absorbed large amounts of solar energy millions of years ago as the plants grew.

surely the only one that your analergy applies to is battetries

all the others are "energy "used to convert from a non usable source to one it can so the "energy used bares no relation to the power stored

its just some energy conversions are more efficiant than others

 

[ColJack]

no all, he's right..
all "fuel" needs to be "charged" before use..

coal is trees that absorbed sunlight millions of years ago and stored it as carbon compounds..
oil is the same but was animals that ate plants..
vegetable oil is plants again.. but recent ones..

hydrogen can be "carbon free", or at least carbon neutral ( as the production of the manufacturing equipment has to be taken into account.. ).

you need electricity to seperate hydrogen from water and this electricity can be derived from solar, wind and nuclear power..

vegetable oil IS biofuel..

it's just had a chemical rinse to remove free fatty acids.. ( or something along those lines.. )..

running on pure vegetable oil in this country is impractical as it need pre-heating in the colder weather to make it less viscous.. ( it thickens when cold and can't be pumped..)

it can be mixed with deisel though in the winter months which acts as a solvent..

everyone keeps on that nuclear power is bad and that it should be banned.. but the alternatives at the moment are coal, oil and gas fired power stations..

we don't get enough sun to make solar practical, wind is to unpredictable, and wave is just no good.. ..

hydro electric is good for short term peak demands, but then the water needs to be pumped back up to the top resevoir during off peak times which uses more electricity than it makes..

 

[Steve]

hydro electric is good for short term peak demands, but then the water needs to be pumped back up to the top resevoir during off peak times which uses more electricity than it makes..

Not if its a man made dam across a large reservior, which is constantly being filled.

I dont see why each water tunnel in a dam cant be fitted with more turbines. You cant say all the energy has gone out of the water after the first turbine, because its still going downwards, by gravity, and you can see the energy on some dams where the water emerges at the bottom.

The energy output by some dams is simply phenomenal. I say build more dams. Why not build smaller dams across rivers, and force the water through turbines?

It looks like our main source of energy in future will be nuclear, its the only sustainable option.

Does anyone use veg oil in their diesel cars?

 

[joe-90]

There is no answer to the energy problem. The fact is that we are heading back to the stone age, but that's only if you survive the coming oil wars.

Do a search on 'peak oil' and you'll see what I mean.

 

[gcol]

Where's ya bin Joe?

 

[empip]

Where's ya bin Joe?

Outside the gate waiting to be weighed in... ...

 

[gcol]

Shame on you pip.

 

[joe-90]

Just busy at the moment.

 

[noseall]

you haven't done a stretch have you Joe?

 

[ColJack]

hydroelectric dams release more water per minute than can possibly be put back in, so the resevoirs would be empty in no time at all..

also, it turns out that dams are actually worse for greenhouse gasses than oil fired stations since the trees and vegetation that is flooded when the damn is built, rot and release greenhouse gasses and vegetation rotting underwater produces methane which is released when the water passes through the turbines...