Here we go...

[Waxman]

Watched a very cool show on the Science channel called 'Future Car'. The show explored all types of alternative fuels, from biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, water, and even air.

Then I got this today in my inbox.


http://netmail.verizon.net/webmail/...folderName=INBOX&messageID=2081&partIndex=1.1

 

[pitzerwm]

You need to log in to see whatever you want us to see.

 

[Waxman]

I screwed up and couldn't figure out the linking of this.

Anyways, it was a news clip of a guy using water as fuel for welding and then firing car engines. He developed the process in his garage and is now in negotiations with one US auto company as well as the federal government.

 

[mac]

You can actually run cars, or most anything else, on water. We did it in science class back in the 1960s. You simply split the two components of water, hydrogen and oxygen, and when they are recombined, they yield heat, just like burning gas. The only little glitch here is that the bond of the two gases is quite strong. It takes more energy to break that bond than is released when they recombine. If schools today actually taught useful things instead of reading that Sally has two mommies, most of this crap would be laughed off.

 

[Skipper Jack]

Is this the video you saw?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1037523/run_your_car_on_water/

 

[MEP001]

The torch melting steel without getting hot isn't a big deal - I use a MAPP gas TurboTorch for plumbing that doesn't get the tip hot.

Something they didn't show is whether his torch "engine" required electricity to break down the water.

 

[Waxman]

Yes, that is the video.

 

[Skipper Jack]

MEP))1 asked: "Something they didn't show is whether his torch "engine" required electricity to break down the water."

In the video he says, "take water and electricity and you break it down using our very unique electrolysis process"

MAC says: "It takes more energy to break that bond than is released when they recombine."

That may not automatically disqualify this because it may be a matter of swapping x numbers of energy units for y number of energy units (X > Y). That may help in a transitional period because we can swap x number of "clean" energy units (photovoltaic, hydroelectric) for y number of "dirty" energy units (fossil). Even though we lose energy units during the process, we can use the transitional technology until we develop the infrastructure to deliver the "clean" energy units directly.

 

[Jimmy Buffett]

Add nuclear power to your equation and it makes lots of sense. Clean energy into more clean energy. Nuclear is the only feasible answer available to us at this juncture. Oddly it is the same people who claim to be "green" that oppose nuclear. How do you look at a smokestack at a coal fueled electric plant and come to the conclusion that is better for the environment than nuclear?

 

[MEP001]

Unfortunately nuclear isn't all that "green" - it requires burning large amounts of fossil fuel to mine the nuclear material, and it's very difficult and costly to dispose of the nuclear waste. There's also a very limited amount to be found, which is the main reason there haven't been more nuclear plants built.

 

[Jimmy Buffett]

The amount of fuel burned to mine uranium is miniscule compared to the energy used to mine coal and drill for oil and gas. Every tanker that crosses the ocean is as big of an envoiromental risk as disposing of spent nuclear fuel. Misinformation and the money spent to spread the misinformation is the reason we have not built any nuclear plants. Fear mongering by those making money from fossil fuels. I'd be willing to bet that more people are killed by coal trucks driving to electric plants than have been killed by nuclear accidents or exposure to spent nuclear fuel.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

The amount of fuel burned to mine uranium is miniscule compared to the energy used to mine coal and drill for oil and gas. Every tanker that crosses the ocean is as big of an envoiromental risk as disposing of spent nuclear fuel. Misinformation and the money spent to spread the misinformation is the reason we have not built any nuclear plants. Fear mongering by those making money from fossil fuels. I'd be willing to bet that more people are killed by coal trucks driving to electric plants than have been killed by nuclear accidents or exposure to spent nuclear fuel.

Wait... Dam Jimmy you and I agree AGAIN! Somethings wrong here. While I'm not really a big nuke fan.... fossil fuels are killing way more people (oops forgot about hiroshima and Nagasiki, sp) and Chenobel (sp too). But the overall enviromental impact seems to be greater from coal, oil and gas.... while nuke energy (and it's byproduct) are a deterent to WAR. Seems having large deposits of OIL under your home has alway played badly for some group, Cherokee (trail of tears), Bedowins, Iraq and maybe Iranians too! Sooner or later a bigger fish comes along and throws sand in your face to get at the oil. If you have Nuculear power plants (and the potential tech to make bombs) that deters the big fish! That's the rush for Iran to get nukes, why India & Pakistan recently aquired them and other nations have them (Including Israel). However agin if Jimmy counts those killed in conflict over oil instead of truck accidents.... hell yes, nukes are safer!

 

[Jimmy Buffett]

Ok if Doug agrees then I change my mind.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

Ok if Doug agrees then I change my mind.

Jimmy, just for you I found this diary this morning. Quite interesting too and very on topic.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/13449/4124/913/477071

What is the connection between Saudi Arabia and advanced lithium-ion batteries that could revolutionize electric cars as we know them?

His name is Yi Cui.

Rei's diary :: ::
Electric cars often seem to have the world against them. While gasoline is incredibly energy dense, with 12,000 Wh/kg, lithium-ion batteries have a mere 100-150 Wh/kg. Now, thanks to EVs lightening up other portions of the car, you really only need about 350 Wh/kg to outrange an equivalent weight gasoline car. Still, a severalfold improvement in energy density may seem like a long way to go. Thankfully, many new technologies promise to push us close to or past that mark. Without a doubt, the most intriguing of these is the silicon nanowire anode developed by a team led by Stanford's Yi Cui, assistant professor of nanomaterials science and engineering


Please take 5 mins to read it. Non-political

 

[Jimmy Buffett]

I can save you a little time with the dailykos links, don't bother on my account. The difference is, I'm afraid, that they know that they are making ridiculous claims and comments but you don't know it.

 

[Ben's Car Wash]

I can save you a little time with the dailykos links, don't bother on my account. The difference is, I'm afraid, that they know that they are making ridiculous claims and comments but you don't know it.

Jimmy.... go read the article.... not the comments.

It's only about the battery technology! No far out claims.