A Car that runs on Salt Water?

Water has always been our most precious resource. Also, I don't think we could ever run out of ocean, unless we start expanding into space. Then all bets are off.

Then again, there's plenty of water on other planets, so if we get to that point, we'll probably drain those instead.

 

AFAIK there's a lot technology floating around that could potentially replace fossil fuel consumption, people just don't bother to develop it for whatever reason. Or if they do, then it's under the very watchful eye of sponsors like the big gas companies.

 

If we could easily replace fossil fuels, oil companies would start suffering massive losses, so I'm quite certain they're doing everything in their power to stall the development of alternative fuels. Most of the research is probably done with far fewer funds than one would realistically expect.

Not that I'm big on conspiracy theories, it just seems like the obvious business strategy.

 

Agreed Keneth. The governor here in WI (friendly to fossil fuel companies) is trying to cut funding for research into alternative fuels.

If the car runs on what could be ocean water I don't see too much trouble (especially near coastal areas). If it runs on drinkable water then I see a problem.

If it works as presented then great.

 

Anything to get us off fossil fuels at this point. I will take a car that runs on flower power and positive thinking.

 

I'd never get anywhere with that...

 

Even the Flintstones can do that so yes we can

 

A bit more technical, I would also argue.

The marketing speak used in the first link suggests basically a different type of battery than normal. I'm fairly allergic to marketing speak, so I didn't read too carefully.

The second link is more useful and it sounds like these claims probably are too good to be true, or at least should be specified more accurately in order to be of any worth.

Anyway, none of this is a replacement for fossil fuels. An electric car doesn't use fossil fuels directly, but most electricity is still generated by fossil fuels (coal, mostly). It could theoretically be more efficient, as typically an electicity plant will be more efficient in converting fuel to a usable form of energy (electricity) than a car, but a car converts the chemical energy directly to mechanical energy, whereas an electric car would have several more steps in between the conversion of chemical energy to mechanical energy, which will reduce the total efficiency of the complete conversion.

I suppose the real sustainability of electric cars would be in the fact that it's possible to generate the electricity from other sources as well, such as wind, solar or hydro energy. Though the sustainability of creating wind farms and solar panels is more dubious.

Those saying that we should move from fossil fuels to other sources are right, and I fear that our children may be in for a cold shower when liquid fossil fuels become rarer and rarer so that cars become less and less viable as a form of personal transport.

Anyway, coming back to these batteries, if it would have about the same energy density as a typical Li-ion battery, and the metals used as electrolyte aren't too rare, it could definitely be worth it. Mostly because Lithium is fairly limited in quantity (and most of it is mined in China), so an alternative could definitely be useful to have, if only not to be too dependent on a single material/source.

 

A Car that runs on Salt Water?

For me, the salt water isn't the interesting part. It's the fact that the car is going to be running. Every car I've ever seen rolls on wheels. Replacing those with some sort of feet is going to be bizarre!

Alternatively, wow, I thought only Jesus could do that. And he only walked.

I'm here all week.

 

Do you do birthday parties?

 

Oh look I'm playing Pillars of Eternity. WOW this game is so amazing...

 

Not necessarily. When the environmental and human health costs are taken into the picture, fossil fuels turn out to be more expensive.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/new-models-yield-clearer-picture-emissions-true-costs

 

Surely you realize the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels are worse and manifest in more ways. Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.

Here's another B.S source that does puts the issue in a different perspective. I've never seen anything that puts wind turbines in the ranks of the real problematic bird killers, but of course i'm open to it if you have it.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

Also another, different source saying basically the same thing: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509001074


Obviously, the researcher you quoted from my source is right, that there are a ton of variables and having an accurate count of all of them is very difficult. By no means am I saying I hold the final answer. Only that from what i've seen, it's pretty well accepted fossil fuels are way worse in all regards mentioned and by a very wide margin.