Green Alternatives to Internal Combustion

Is it still true that a resulting omission from electric cars is ozone (which is poisonous to humans)? I am surprised that exhaust factors were not taken into account in this entry. It can be as important as how 'fuel' (electricity, hydrogen, gas, etc.) is obtained.

You seem very pessimistic about the chances of electric and hydrogen vehicle survival in America. Don't you believe that along with the creating of new ways to fuel cars that there will be advances at obtaining such fuel?

I am not really taking an optimistic approach as I am a realistic one. People adapt to new situations. Once more focus is on these green alternatives, greener ways of getting these fuel sources will be sure to follow. Do you think that Americans will take to electric cars like the Nissan Leaf that boasts zero emissions and a calculated 90 cents per charge?

<....think that Americans will take to electric cars like the Nissan Leaf that boasts zero emissions and a calculated 90 cents per charge?...>

In the long term will they have any other options?

That is exactly what I am pondering. At what point will Americans run out of options and be forced to embrace these new technologies?

It's fast approaching, if it hasn't passed already.....

Very good answer, TCMTECH

I think it is about time we as a civilization (not just the west, the whole world) start looking into arcologies. These would end urban sprawl, and allow most of the earth to return to it's natural state.

I have seen some very interesting designs by an architect named Paolo Soleri. His designs were well laid out cities with homes, parks and shops in one building. Outside the structure were farms and wild places. Not that these would be for everyone, but the single structures would allow a more efficient use of land, energy and resources.

just a thought, Dragon

You're making a good argument for using the IC and NG fuel.

We have an abundant supply of natural gas and the means to utilize it by simple conversion of our car's engines.

The infrastructure issue is not such a big problem. However, the bigger problem is getting the government to allow it.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the real crux of the biscuit is all about political power and control and our government (as with all other governments) will not allow unfettered public access to energy.

Right on the money with the governent control issue. That was why peasants were not allowed to own horses in medieval England. You cannot easily control a mobile populace.

Those who wish to control us have realized that, and this is their way to remove private transportation. It would cause civil war to try to ban cars, but price fuel out of reach, and the same goal is achieved with grumbling, but no open revolt.

poppycock

When the government mandates it.

Otherwise, the cost of operating a normal car trumps all the alternatives and will for a long time to come (barring a breakthrough or a huge spike in gasoline prices).

I'm not pessimistic about their survival, I was just pointing out that less attention is being paid to their required infrastructure than to the cars themselves. I certainly hope that people will gravitate towards the new options, but I am not convinced that it will be for the environment's sake.

We've known about the effects of global warming and environmental damage for a long time, but the public only pushes for alternatives when the fallout effects their wallets, specifically last summer when gas hit 4 dollars a gallon. I think that the majority of people will only "Go Green" after we have an established system of fueling stations, and the convenience of owning such a car is equivalent to that of an internal combustion car. No amount of showboating new and improved models will matter if they are not perceived as convenient.

Do you blame people for resisting the switch if it is all half-attempts? We have the vehicles, but not the fueling stations required to support them or make them convenient. When cars like the Nissan Leaf can only go 100 miles on a charge, stations are a necessity for recharging.

Absolutely not. Some auto manufacturers used public resistance as a reason for dropping their programs, while simulataneously creating that resistance by making it difficult for consumers to use the cars. We were given a catch 22, so it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't popular. I hope there is enough demand this time around to prevent that.

Some auto manufacturers used public resistance as a reason for dropping their programs, while simulataneously creating that resistance by making it difficult for consumers to use the cars.

The GM EV1 was very easy to use, as was the Toyota RAV4 EV. Which manufacturer created resistance by making it difficult for consumers to use the cars?

Sorry for being unclear, i was referring to ease of refuelling and limited range, not ease of driving or maintaining.

Hi Blink,

I think I can shed some light on what Jaxy may have been referring to.

Around 2000 CARB [california air resources board] had a mandate in place that 10% of new vehicles would be zero emission. This is the reason there was a Volt & a Rav EV. The usual lawsuits & political wheeling & dealing, resulted in the mandate being rescinded. The volt & rav ev disappeared very shortly afterwards.

The automakers had no real interest in making cars very few people wanted, gas being cheap...

"No amount of showboating new and improved models will matter if they are not perceived as convenient."

Convenience is the name of the game. Most of todays Americans (other than engineers and mechanics) have little idea of how an automobile even runs and care less about anything other than their own personal comfort and convenience. I am very sad to say that for the most part I believe we have raised a bunch of spoiled kids and the dumbing down of America is nearly completed.

Couldn't agree with you more. Imagine an American Teenager changing a tire on the roadside....OMG!

My sons may not be engineers, but they all know how and why there vehicle does what it does. Maybe someday they'll be inspired to create the next generation of mobility...

Along with this, does anyone consider that water is the major greenhouse gas? We have more of it than CO2.

I still believe that we have to be a bunch of morons if we dont take advantage of the fuel source that we are sitting on. Specifically the Earths core is generating tremendous heat which can power all kinds of electricity generation while generating minimal (if not zero) pollution. If we could recover that heat (either geothermally or hydrothermally) and harness that power to generate electricity for use in electric automobiles, heating, or whatever, we could solve our energy crisis and our pollution problem simultaneously. To me 2 areas of research and engineering need development:

(1.) geothermal and hydrothermal energy recovery

(2.) superconductive power transmission (to drastically reduce power losses on transmission)

These two allow generation of a clean source of energy and the ability to transmit it long distances without major energy losses.

Unfortunately, it will take an Energy program equivalet to the Space program (NASA) to fund and develop such research. I doubt if our politicians have the ability to launch such a program in our current economic situation.

If you are getting ozone out of your electric motor, you have some serious internal problems, and the motor isn't going to last very long...

<...The processes by which hydrogen is produced are extremely inefficient and still require the use of other fuels for generation....>

It's got a lot more to do with the urgency with which they are obtained. In the absence of a network of solar-income-energy hydrogen electrolysers, the use of fossil-storage-savings-energy hydrogen separation is practicable, if ecologically absurd and rather backward-looking.

<....America's infrastructure is not advanced enough to permit the widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells....>

What an opportunity!

I can't wait to see it become more common. There's nothing like widespread publicity to get people used to a new tech.

Question: Once the general public converts to propane, how long would it take for the federal government to place increased taxes on the propane to cover road use taxes not now collected?

Yes, it is the same here in Chile.

There are good propane systems available and working on the thousands in Argentina (our neighbor), but almost none in Chile. Reason? Our Government charges with a very high tax if you change your polluting gas engine to propane. Because, it thinks it will loose the taxes for the more expensive gasoline!

It doesn´t matter that our capital city Santiago has one of the highest air pollution in the world.

More wisdom is a need for our Governments: less pollution and less transport costs will benefit our economy and our people. Companies will profit more and will have to pay more taxes on profit. People will have more money for, say, groceries or books, and will pay more IVA taxes on the supermarket and the book store. And will have a better life.

No, it seems that Government do not trust on our economy and do not care about our environment and people health.

We are going to have Presidential elections soon. I will take advantage of that to make a proposal to the new Goverment. Why not doing the same with Obama? He is not Joe Nobody!

Just over half of US power is generated by coal. According to this site, a modern coal plant is about 55% efficient.

If the current aggregate of power generation is really 38%, we have a long way to go.

55% may be the efficiency of turning coal into electricity but we don't all live at the power station. Transmitting power across the grid is inefficient; I've seen figures as low as 25%, ie, 3/4 of the power lost in the lines and transformers along the way. If 38% is the grid efficiency, then the overall efficiency of coal to domestic electricity is 21%. That leaves IC engines being more efficient until we can generate electricity without burning fossil fuels.

The first sentence in your link read as follows:

Coal fired powers station generally operate with a thermal efficiency (ratio of electrical output to heat input) in the range of 35 to 39%.

What is the purpose of you misleading statement of being 55% efficient?

The 55% can be achieved in a combined cycle where the heat recovered is added to the electrical power.

By now means is that an "electrical efficiency" as you try to make us believe.

BTW, "peak oil" and "CO2 is the cause for climate change" are all lies from special interest groups. There is still plenty of oil and gas for all time to come.

What I was saying was, if we are running at 35% now then getting to 55% using something like a CCGT's 55% is a long way to go.

I am not trying to mislead anyone. I was simply stating my opinion that we have a way to go.

Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, just released a study that states CO2 is not very relevant in global warming and the IPCC models have overstated the problem by about 6 times.

MIT Study

Take it however you like. I am not saying his work is true or false (I have not reviewed it myself), but that the debate is not over. I absolutely agree with you that the climate debate and the control of our energy has long been hijacked for political purposes.

Thanks for your reply.

Reading your former post I felt that you are on the side of the E-car and try to say that going the Electric is less harmful that the ICE.

In stationary Generator sets more and more the exhaust heat is used besides the electrical power, mostly for heating purposes. The overall efficiency is then calculated by adding the electrical power and in caloric heat value. Actually smaller units reach more than 55% this way.

I appreciate your link to the MIT paper. I just glanced at it and find the content very much in line with my and many other peoples thinking. Surely, the debate is not over by a long stretch, I agree.

I find CO2 came to be named as bad because the other pollutants were cleaned up pretty good. In that sense it was a good thing, where the ICE is now much cleaner than as it was just a decade ago.

However CO2 is synonymous with power, it and H2O are the products of combustion. Reducing CO2 is only possible by increasing engine efficiency. Perhaps that is what "they" are after, however "they" is.

The biggest data point that troubles me is the CO2 and planetary temperature record for the last 600 million years. Graphs of both these components show no correlation at all from the Precambrian era onward... That is, until the start of the era of Al Gore.

I actually like the idea of an electric car and it makes sense to me in the longer run. However, the battery technology is simply not there yet. It sounds like a fun adventure, although. The whole matter really should be market driven. When the price of fuel hits the upper limit of tolerance, people start begging and looking for alternatives. Works every time and I consider the issue of oil, natural gas, etc. a self correcting problem.

I wont comment on the Al Gore data.

The other point that going electric will save energy is simply not the case as long as it comes from the so-called "fossil" fuels meaning from oil and gas.

Electricity from wind, solar, tidal or whatever renewable source changes the picture. However we are far away from making the sources practical and economical.

I agree that the "problem" (it isn't one) is selfcorrecting. All are.

Its good that we can discuss these things.

"The other point that going electric will save energy is simply not the case as long as it comes from the so-called "fossil" fuels meaning from oil and gas."

I am not so sure about that. I can say, all other costs being equal (i.e., cost of vehicle and it's maintenance), the cost per mile to the owner is cheaper using electric than gasoline or diesel.

However, all things are not equal and the cost of ownership of an electric vehicle is higher than its equivalent internal combustion counterpart. At least right now.

"Far more efficient might be a stretch."

The other thought was you mentioned the Prius and the VW diesel efficiencies, but both are not the norm, rather the exception to the average car's efficiencies.

It would be interesting to compare the total US automotive fleet efficiency to the grid.

I think that's another example of the US/Rest of the World divide. Most people I know wouldn't buy a car that did less than 50 mpg (unless it's a classic).

Swapping units (because I don't have % efficiency figures) to mpg:

The Prius is supposed to give "outstanding" fuel economy, however, a colleague of mine has less than a year old one and it returns ~50 mpg whereas my 8 yo Skoda Octavia returns ~54 mpg.

This test shows an interesting comparison:

Wait. There must be some mistake. How can an autobahn-inspired performance machine beat one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever made?

It looks like that is exactly what happened on a 545-mile London-Geneva run, when a diesel-powered BMW 5-series posted better MPG stats than a petrol-based Toyota Prius hybrid. The BMW 520d with a 2.0-liter diesel engine and regenerative braking posted an impressive 41.9 mpg--about 0.9 mpg better than a full hybrid Prius. The difference may not seem huge. But given that the Prius weighs about 500 lb less, BMW's fuel economy lead was significant enough to raise new questions about which drivetrain technologies are more environmentally viable and should become the future mainstream of sustainable transport.

A less fair test was done by "Top Gear". The test, I would agrue, is not like for like because the cars are operating at different points in the torque/power curves. However, the published economy figures quoted are interesting.

Finally, wikipedia provides tables of best and worst fuel economy.

"I think that's another example of the US/Rest of the World divide."

Exactly!

We complain about the taxes we pay on gas, but Europe pays many times the taxes on gas that we do and for decades have been living with gas prices Americans could not fathom paying. However, I am not advocating that we pay more taxes, just for the record. ;-)

And you are right about the Prius mileage compared to other European cars (i.e., VW) that deliver even better mileage.

Diesel i not very popular here and we have a pretty dirty blend of the fuel, which makes it unpopular in the US.

we have a pretty dirty blend of the fuel

Not for much longer. The US is moving from 500 ppm S fuel to 15 ppm. Europe is currently on a mandated maximum of 50 ppm, in practice about 10 ppm at the pumps and Sweden is already on mandated 0 ppm.

The reduction/removal of sulphur in the fuel is vital to emissions control as it allows catalysts to be used which would otherwise be poisoned by the sulphur.

"Generating electricity is far more efficient than generating that same power in your car."

This may be true, but to the general public EV'S are being sold as the carbon free/emission fee alternative, and it's not. If Nuclear power was more popular and used widely & our power grid was upgraded plus infrastructure.($trillions) it would be a different story. I think Ev's have a future but the ICE will be here for a long time.

Jim C

I'll have to agree with you on the first point, I only learned of direct injection engines after i uploaded the post, and i already want one of my own . On the other hand, while I agree that these cars can be charged at night without straining the grid, I also think that many people will probably "plug in" during the day before their drive home.

I'm starting to sound like a cracked record...DI engines are standard on this side of the pond, and have been for some time.

I agree that "at work" charging will wanted - question is who pays?!

Agree, good thougts!

More on, from the best of my knowledge, power plants that generates electricity have two advantages:

First: They use turbines to convert heath to mechanic energy for moving the generators, which are up to 97% efficient. Compare to 18% of gasoline, 23% of a diesel (approximate figures), maybe some place in between for Hydrogen engines.

Second: The generating plants are located in fixed places, so treatment of emissions are easier and cheaper than in millions of moving cars.

Third advantage of the electric approach: On the car side, the electric engine is a lot more efficient than the internal combustion engine (don´t remember actual figures, can you tell me?).

Fourth: unlikely hydrogen or alcohol, electric network energy is everywhere. We may even charge the engine at home.

What is missing is the cost side of the equation. Anyway, I think this is a matter of time and political decision.

OldBeaver.

Every averagely educated person should know that there are on this world no clean car combustion gases. Even burning only the mixture of hydrogen with oxygen and air we have in the effect an aqueous vapour and NOx (nitrous oxides). Every after all knows that in mid air is contracted 72% Nitrogen. Do not exist in car vehicles perfect {excellent} methods of the separation of nitrogen from air and the stockpiling of him in separate reservoirs. So the conversation about clean {pure} combustion gases is abstract and aimless. Instead of to till the hysteria on the subject CO2 and his influence on the tepefaction himself the climate better to take for the protection and guard of the Amazonian forest and planting of leafy forests everywhere there where surrenders this to do.

That is a good point - whenever you combust a fuel, the temperatures produced will caused the unused Oxygen and often ignored Nitrogen to combine.

Without the nitrogen in the chamber, the combustion temperature would be much higher, making containment difficult. There are methods, e.g. water injection or pulsed fuel injection, which can be used to lower the combustion temperature and thus inhibit the formation of NOx compounds. There is a lot of research being done in this area (check out the SAE papers published in the last few years).

Caterpillar have a series of engines (ACERT) which meet the latest Euro 6 and CARB2010 regulations without the use of exhaust after-treatment. Their engineers have been able to control the formation of both NOx and PM in-cylinder. this a a major breakthrough as, generally speaking, the control in-cylinder of one results in excess formation of the other.

Your last point is also correct - we need to protect and expand out forested areas in order to balance the CO₂/O₂ cycle. Unfortunately, this has to be balanced with other land uses and the modernisation of "primitive" tribes. Who are we to say that Amazon Indians must continue to live a stone age lifestyle, when they want the advantages we regard as rights? Who are we to say that there should be no roads built across the savannahs of Africa because that would encourage petrol/diesel use and that's bad, whilst we add another lane to each of our motorways to "ease" congestion?

There is no easy answer. If there were, the uneducated masses would already be using it! The thing we most need is international co-operation that is able to see what is best for all, not best for its own constituents (as long as I'm not worse off, of course ). If we keep the "untouched" Amazon Rainforests, do "we" re-home the current inhabitants? Forcibly?

I don't have the answers. Being able to frame some of the questions is a start. Challenging the "quick answer" merchants to think through the consequences of their ideas is a must.

There are methods, e.g. water injection or pulsed fuel injection, which can be used to lower the combustion temperature and thus inhibit the formation of NOx compounds. There is a lot of research being done in this area (check out the SAE papers published in the last few years).

What!!!!!!

When will begin progressive engineering, keep going in the same direction and stop flip flopping.

I worked on automobiles in the 1960's and 1970's, the average vehicle mpg was equal to or superior to current models and the combustion temps were lower then. Where are we going this time chasing our tails!!!!

Are you talking about petrol engines? I'm talking about diesel engines - and serious reserach into better diesel engines didn't start until the 1980s. First, there was a need to make smaller ones for PasCar, which resulted in the noisy smoky (MG Metro anyone?) engines that got such a bad name for small diesels. Then came the refinement, addition of turbos etc. Power densities have been increased enormously (also true of petrol engines). Drivability is now superior to petrol engines (soon standing start acceleration will be too ).

To achieve the higher power densities and increased fuel efficiencies (you didn't actually quote any figures - are you talking US efficiencies or European/Japanses efficiencies?), combustion temperatures and pressures were increased (among other things). Increased temperatures reduced particulate formation (at the expense of NOx production).

Now the legislative limits have changed, and we want all these improvements with even higher fuel economy, no PM and no NOx. give me a modern engine anyday.

Just pump the nitrous oxide back into the passenger compartment and then we can laugh ourselves all the way into oblivion!

Jaxy,

Said and told ,a constant effort to find alternate propulsion means got to be on the work out. Alternate options got to be sorted out for long and short range travels, using apt technologies.

Reliance on a single technology leads to total disability in case of non availability of fuel a possible future case.

In my best opinion shared use of electricity and fuels- like all long travel trucks, distant travels can be allocated to electric trains and fueled travel restricted for short ranges. They can also be well supplemented by electric cars/ buses.

Fuel cells will be better feasible by ensuring low cost electricity.

Shipping and aviation technologies need major attention to supplement fuels.

One positive hope in my best opinion is the viability of low cost, renewable, augment able green electricity, which is potential answer to all the gruelling problems haunting us.

Whether you think that such powers as Shell, Petronas and other so... will agree easily on the close of this oil-business. This surely some world cataclysm will close them insatiable throats and abysmal pockets. The electromotion is well-known since a long time. Batteries and converters of the current are more and more better and nonetheless still one increases the quantity of produced vehicles burnt oil and the benzine.

That the way - in this reductive fervour CO2. We reach because to this that and to Australian sheep we will put corks {jams} into the ass so that they do not stink to the atmosphere. Green plants are a best consumer CO2 and must have what "eat". One tree can process CO2 on necessary oxygen for 10 people.

Rogerzz, you are saint right . Only this must be taught children from the beginning of their education.

As this to make when schools on this beautiful world produce undereducated individuals who have to know to count to 100, to sign on the cheque or the form for the credit.

These other, well educated and is intelligent proportionally too small quantity with relation to of the generality, so that such consciousness in the nations have some meaning ..

Good points, Rogerzz

Not only is our dependence on finite resources growing, it is near total. Without the finite resources of fossil fuels and metallic ore, we could not maintain our Western, consumerist societies. As we get into the 'scraping the barrel' stage of resource exploitation, everything becomes more expensive as returns on investments plummet.

We need to change the way that we do things and change our behaviour because we've depleted the resources and are running out of time. How can we travel as much as we do without the cheap petroleum that we've become used to? Do we need to travel as much as we do?

Current technologies exist that are green alternatives to IC engines but are they socially acceptable? Walking produces very few harmful emissions; cycling is remarkably efficient; mass transport is intrinsically more efficient but even car-sharing is difficult for most people to adopt. Our main challenges are (as is noted elsewhere in this thread) sociological rather than technological.

Even comments on this discussion board reveal the fear that we may be coming to the end of easy personal transport and people's "right" to travel. Of course, the government are blamed for some great conspiracy to take away our freedom! The truth is that we are not good at living within our means (as the "credit crunch" has shown) and we need to learn to do that before we try sucking more resources out of our depleted planet.

I like the idea of environomics! Ecology and economy are both based on the same Greek root: 'eco' meaning 'house'; the study and the numbers thereof. The numbers have gone awry because the study (and application of what is learnt) has been inadequate.

All for now…

Frankly, we have all the natural gas reserves that we need for the next half century or beyond of travel locked up on our own country, but government refuses to give it to us.

This is not a problem of resources, but political.

Thats one of the biggest limiters in every technological advance. Political bureaucracy and lack of common sense combined will keep every improvement hidden or buried from public use or development.

There are methods and devices that can already supply the needed energy for or world and they are not even new ides. Many were discovered decades to even over a century ago. Politics, bureaucratic red tape and general lack of public knowledge or interest buried them.

The reason of keeping with what we have now in order to keep people employed is crap. If given the opportunity to live comfortably without needing to work all year round I will take it! Some 'I have to have a job' type person can have my old one when I don't need to do it any more! So there. The employment problem is solved. The new tech means I don't have to work. And therefor opens up a job opportunity for someone who's old job was displaced by the new technology. Win Win if you ask me!

Details! We need details. We could set up our own consortium to exploit them (and keep them away from the shadowy KrisDel™ organisation!

According to the 2007 figures published by eia.doe.gov, the ration of reserves to production is 10–11 years for both dry and wet natural gas at current usage rates. That sounds to me as if the peak has already been passed. … and that assumes that the reserve figures are sufficiently accurate rather than artificially inflated like petroleum reserves.

This also misses the point of this discussion thread, which is to look at "green alternatives" to the IC engine. We're not going to reduce the greenhouse gasses if we burn natural gas rather than 'petrol'.

I've just receivedan advert for this from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. I wonder if he'll cover ICEs?

English Rose

Hi, from Sleepy.

The link that you provided in post?? This did not work for me, can you provide the link agaain please but perhaps in html form?

Thanks

Sleepy

Thanks ER, the event is now in my diary and i will seek more information from the Mechanicals later.

Thanks again

Sleepy

Just read in the paper yesterday the Chevy Volt is set to start manufacture at the end of 2010. It gets approximately 40 miles on battery and then switches over to a gasoline engine. They are claiming 230 mpg based on this system.

Chevy Volt

That's impressive, But GM said it will be selling for 40K. not a price that the average middle income can justify, the technology will get cheaper but how long will it take?

Jim C

They are claiming 230 mpg based on this system.

And the way they are claiming it (the site won't let me cut & paste) just goes to prove that we need new ways of measuring the performance of EVs.

If I travel 220 miles in town, charging every 40 miles and then drive 10 miles using my gasoline engine and use 1 gallon, does that mean I have an overall efficiency of 230 mpg?

Bl00dy marketing men.

I agree the Estimated MPG is fishy but for someone like me who only travels about 8.5 miles to work each way it would be perfect. I would be able to charge overnight and almost never buy gas. However, the $40,000 price tag is prohibitive.

More than 50 years ago, there were many vehicles available that got good gas mileage. Vehicles in Europe, GB, Japan were made because the masses wanted economical cars that they could actually buy. At a time when countries were emerging from a wartime economy, there was little money to go around. Companies like BMC, Fiat, Renault, VW and Citroen made cars that got 35mpg and the people eat them up. When the economy improved and more people had money, larger (and less efficient) cars were produced to exploit those with the money. The small fuel efficient cars were affordable, but did not have performance, interior space, creature comforts; some were positively ugly; but people put up with them and learned to like them. In this country, at least, the better economy was exploited by the big car companies and the creation of the interstate highway system. The public might have been happy with a small economical car, but the big car companies would mandate bigger and faster cars is what the public wants. It wasn't difficult to convince people who were coming out of a wartime economy with increased buying power to embrace the "bigger-is-better" idea. It is hard to take someone out of a big, luxurious car and expect him to be content with a small, cramped car, despite better fuel economy. I feel the only way we can realistically survive is by returning to a time when economical small cars were the rule. Third world countries have inherited the small economy technology because it is all they can afford. Gas costs much more everywhere in the world than it does in the U.S. What do we want to do? Sacrifice one for the other? or try to maintain the status quo. I for one am willing to make the sacrifice if it means that I can drive, maybe not the car of my dreams, but to at least be able to drive. Those not willing to make the sacrifice will find another way to "have their cake and eat it too".

My first car was a Renault R8 that I drove during the first US gas shortage. I had to stop only twice during the whole summer for gas. Got me over 30 mpg.

However, it was a pretty cheesy car and had only three lug nuts per wheel, but a lot of fun to drive (if you have a sick sense of humor).

Hydrogen, as many have said, is NOT a fuel, merely a transport mechanism.

Every drop of Hydrogne required for Transporatation has to be generated from, probably, electricity.

Transport of Hydrogen is still problematic since the size of the molecule makes it an incredibly leaky transport idea.

I am sure that someone on the forum will have thereal numbers, I believe that whatever pipeline isproposed it will be around 10 times more inefficient( leaky) than , say, methane.

Generating Hydrogen locally does not seem to be an economic proposition.

Sleepy

There are a couple of alternatives that I have not seen mentioned. On is similar to the old trolley cars or even the cable cars of San Fransico. In many locations in the world their trains and busses are driven by electric power either from a rail or a catenarry. What would be wrong with a larger system similar to the old slot cars. You could use other power to get up to speed and "hook-up".

Another system would be the use of flywheel technology. If you spin a 200kg mass at 20,000RPM, the energy is massive and will drive your vehicle for the average distance traveled, whereupon before you return you "recharge" the flywheel and are ready to go again. You could use the braking system or any time you coast to regenerate like they do with the electric cars. With a small motor or engine you could even make it into a hybrid that would charge itself on the fly. This has not really been looked into with any great seriousness due to the lack of profit.

American Semiconductor once announced that the price of a 2k chip will decrease only when the purchasing infrastructure adopts the electronic calculator over the slide rule (my time in school). At the time the calculator was worth well over $200 (I couldn't afford one)........it did subtraction, division, addition and multiplication. HP corrected that problem. Since then the economy of strange and wonderfull things has adapted both economically and mentally.....and the world has evolved to the point of the internet (or bloody well should have)......

Energy is an equation of history.......or better yet , history is an equation of energy. Now I grant Anonymous Heros' immediate model of the moment..........and he well knows it's a model based on an immediate mechanical equation (which hasn't changed in 200 years btw...he is, after all, a geometrist).....but necessity will dictate the terms of our mechanized society as energy becomes the equation. Simply put, at todays consumption of energy the model draws a simple 3 way parralell. What is available, what can be got and how much of it must be discovered before the easily available becomes finite. The answer is simple: It becomes finite when no amount of new discovery can complement the amount wasted (Hummers and V8's come to mind).

The real equation is marketing. Last I heard the casting moulds for the 350ci GM V8 were made in the late 1920's.....Bigger, better, more hump in the pump.....(uh oh, I'm beginning to sound like a socialist)...but do we really need the housewife driving an SUV with her 1.5 kids?

questions, questions..........I subscribe to the idea that necessity will dictate the terms that history will subscribe itself to............and green has just become another marketing ploy.....which really bugs me...........

The Fall of 1972 I saw my first hand held electronic calculator. It was an HP and the Iowa State student government was raffling one off. It was priced at over $500 and I was amazed as I went to my slide rule class. Now I can buy one that hangs on a keychain that has more functions and is easier to use for less than $2.

If you are from my generation you can have fun when you tell the younger generations that your first really good hand held calculator was made from bamboo.

The very best slide rules were made of a special bamboo that would not bind or swell like either wood or plastic and were much lighter than a metal one.

You can also tell them that you may not have really rode a dinosaur but you could talk to them. COBOL, Fortran, Pascal for instance

Rich Hurd

For starters I would like to see more diesel engine vehicles offered in the US. The VWs and the occasional Mercedes get great fuel economy. I know the Japanese manufacturers make diesel engines as well, you just can't find them in the states. I take it this is because of emission standards? The new VW jetta boasts 44mpg highway. Personally I would rather invest in a diesel engine that have outstanding engine longevity versus a hybrid system with similar mpg ratings that require more maintenance and the added routine costs of battery replacements.

I don't think that can be done here with the blend of dirty diesel we have.

I take it this is because of emission standards?

that shouldn't have much bearing - EU, Japanese and US (CARB) Emissions standards are almost aligned. My experience is in the heavy world, where Euro 6 and CARB2010 will be pretty close. The PasCar world is usually several years ahead of the Heavy world (and Off-Highway several years behind). By about 2020, all three should be equal and then we can really get our teeth into aircraft and shipping emissions...<rant off>

From what I hear this side of the pond, it's more about demand. Too few people want them, so I would guess the diesel premium on a new car is higher in the US than in Europe...so then fewer people buy them....

Also, we're told the infrastructure is aimed at trucks rather than cars. I take this to mean that only highway fuel stops have diesel pumps and they're high speed fillers, which are not suitable for cars. Is this the case?

A'Hero mentioned "dirty diesel" - do you know the sulphur level in US standard diesel? I thought it was down to 35 ppm now, so that Diesel Particulate filters (DPFs) could be used on trucks. I'm sure the CARB Regs mandate this.

DPFs (or more accurately the catalysts that go with them) are rated to 50 ppm of suphur. Europe is moving from this to 10 ppm at the moment (Sweden is already on 0 ppm fuel).

All the cars I've owned have been diesel. Only one (the current Skoda Octavia, 8 yo) had less than 100,000 miles on the clock when I bought it. When I've traded on, the outgoing cars had 180,000 - 196,000 on the clock.

How about a holiday in Europe, travelling back by boat and taking a diesel car with you?

Then other factor (probably the primary factor) is the cost of diesel in the US is as high or higher than premium gas. There is little cost savings for the normal consumer.

The reason that diesel is more expensive is that it is taxed more.

Alright...1985 Dodge D-50 Turbo-Diesel 2-door pick with a Mitsubishi 2.3L TD. 48 mpg, 216,000 miles before divorce, and only oil, oil filters, air filters, front brake pads and rotors and fuel filters plus basic chassis lube for the lfe of the vehicle.

Only a hand-full of vehicles period can boast this mpg. You can blame EPA for screwing with Diesel fuel which ruined injection pumps.

We are going backwards...

I had that very same vehicle. It was the best vehicle I ever owned. I bought it new and it lasted me up until 1995. I never had any problems with it. The great thing about it was the ability to climb long mountain grades without losing power. I could maintain 65 all the way up I-80 from Sacramento to Tahoe passing gasoline powered cars that were "pinging" due to the altitude. I also had a Ford F-350 TD and a Peugeot 505-S TD. The demise of the Mitsubishi PU was my fault. I used starting fluid in it and that wrecked the cylinder head and pistons. All gave great mileage and service. Although the Peugeot engine was great, the rest of the car fell apart from rust. The F350 was a crew cab and the reason I got rid of it was, it was too big. My wife and I had trouble in parking lots and supermarket lots; Traded it for a smaller truck (1500). In Japan and most of the Orient, diesel is the most used type of vehicle. Economy is the main reason.

UK Govt has done the same thing with tax - premium is /was 2 - 5p per litre. One of the supermarkets (Asda, owned by WalMart!) broke ranks recently and now charges the same for diesel and petrol. The others took about a fortnight to follow suit.

Yet another thing, emission standards proposed in the US Waxman-Markey will purposely increase our dependance on foreign oil, not decrease it.

A number of steps are proposed that will increase taxes on refined gasoline and diesel, curb both on-shore and off-shore oil and natural gas drilling, and increased regulation and taxes on the refining of fuel.

Even though natural gas sounds like it could be a breakthrough for energy independence, as there has been in the past there continues to be government roadblocks thrown in the way of getting it.

The current US administration has publicly stated that the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil. However, the legislative action out of Washington does two things. First, it further clamps down on domestic energy harvesting. Second, it pass on higher and higher taxes and fees for the current energy production.

If reduced energy dependence on foreign oil is really the goal, the current legislation could only accomplish that by pricing energy so high that the populace will be forced to cut back consumption.

On the face of it, this looks like it may not be all bad, but the kicker is that nearly half of the oil used in the US is part of the economic manufacturing sector. The net effect of raising costs on this segment of the economy will reduce GDP output and keep unemployment high. Neither is something that a wounded economy can bear well and teeters on the possibility of economic collapse if pushed too far.

I take it this is because of emission standards?

Mental remission is closer to the mark

Personally I would rather invest in a diesel engine that have outstanding engine longevity versus a hybrid system with similar mpg ratings that require more maintenance and the added routine costs of battery replacements.

Whoa up there! You're putting out to much accurate information, be careful you may know too much, the leadership doesn't actually intend to do anything.

Agree.

Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline, produce less CO2 to atmosphere for the same work.

Diesel engines are being improved every day, because they was left apart of research for many years in the US, for reasons you described very well.

Besides, you can fuel diesel engines with a variety of fuels, including biodiesel and LPG too!

Regards to performance, they are improving every day.

In the meantime, while we wait for electric-diesel cars or just electric, my opinion is in favour of diesels. I have a Mercedes myself, that I converted to diesel (swap engines). It is a comfortable sedan, with a remarkable suspension and security, not a small car.

It gives me over 35 mpg of diesel in the road, with a maximum of 39.5 mpg on a 90 miles trip. I am spending half the money that I spent with the same car when it was on gasoline .

But I wish I have an electric car. I am seeking efficient electric engines now. That is why I entered this interesting Forum.

Where are you getting your chemistry? Both diesel and Gas are hydrocarbons. Converting them to energy means the carbon atom combines with 2 oxygen atom to make CO2 and water. And that is at perfect combustion. There is no free lunch. You are still combining carbon and oxygen to get energy.

Rich Hurd

i am boasting my gas mileage with hydrogen generator and don't tell me it don't work because it does.

Hydrogen, made from other fuels? HMM, let's see, what happens when we pass an electric current thru water? 2H20 + energy -> 2H2 + 02 -> 2H20+ Energy. the energy can come from solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear ( preferably fusion when we get it working ), tidal, hydroelectric, etc all clean energy.

Sounds so wonderful. But, and there is always a but or a butt; electrolysis is pretty inefficient.

Quote from Wikipedia, "Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen gas (H2) due to an electric current being passed through the water. This electrolytic process is rarely used in industrial applications since hydrogen can be produced more affordably from fossil fuels."

I don't know of any commercial electrical plants running from the tides at the moment. Sounds like a good idea, but I don't know what the real feasibility is.

Part of the problem is the over one hundred year old, inefficient, reciprocating piston engine. There is an alternative, that when staged, is over 90% efficient, will burn any fuel, is simple and cheap to manufacture puts out large amounts of torque, and has only one moving part.

I am working on developing a multi-staged version for production that will produce over 200 bhp and is a hybrid vehicle that uses off the shelf components (no expensive and toxic batteries).

It is retro-fittable to any vehicle on the road and weighs less than 150 lbs.

The technology is out there we just have to demand it.

Regards Dragon

Good news! Please keep us informed of your progress. Are you talking about Wankel engine, turbine engine or electric engine?

The Wankel, although an engineering success, in the fact that it worked at all, is actually an environmental failure. Its efficiency was lower, (higher fuel consumption) and it was considerably higher in pollution rates than even the R.P.E.

The standard Curtis-Parsons turbine engine is too fragile for automotive use even though the Chrysler "Turbine" concept vehicle actually worked, its lag time and the fragility and weight of the engine, doomed it to failure.

An electric motor or engine, while producing 100% torque at start-up, is still waiting for compact storage of electricity or some efficient on-board generation system to catch up to it's capability. I am confident that this new engine can generate the necessary electricity to satisfy the need.

This is a different type that has never been built for any automobile.

It is a turbine based loosely on the Tesla design. His design was a single stage unit that used steam and exhausted freely to the atmosphere. This is a multistage unit that combines the turbine and a vacuum exhauster that will remove the burnt fuel.

I will be happy to keep you updated. I am trying to accumulate the funds necessary to begin production on an industrial scale.

Regards Dragon

I have revisited the information on the Chrysler "Turbine" engine and I was mistaken on several points. Weight being the primary mistake.

My apologies.

Dragon

Dragonsfarm,

Well, very interesting.

What if someone want to help in your project?

Oldbeaver, My thanks, I will consider the offer.

Dragon