The end of gas-powered cars!

Remove all ads!

I found this piece of news exciting in that scientists in Minnesota have invented a new form of engine/reactor that can be used to power cars on ethanol.

The reactor converts the ethanol into hydrogen gas which is then used internally.

The best parts of this story is that the reactor will not create pollution or the infamous smog and, secondly, the United States (and any other nation for the matter) will no longer have to bow before the Middle Eastern states.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/index.html

 

Don't be so optimistic about this. There have been many projects in universities around the world the last 20 years, which have produced cars or engines powered by alternative forms of energy (electricity, solar energy etc) but none of them has gone beyond the prototype stage. The reasons are ranging from high cost to the fact that their perfomance isn't equivalent with the perfomance of the gas-powered engines. Also, don't forget that the oil companies are not going to lose the goose with the golden eggs so easily.

[ February 13, 2004, 22:15: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

Nothing new. Alternative fuels already exist.
Hydrogen, liquid nitrogen systems, solar power, olive oil... cheap and non-polluting solutions exist or could exist very soon, only "motivation" (read: big investment) is needed.

 

There is only one way any technology will replace oil as the dominant - or even viable - energy source on the planet: Money.

If someone can find a way for alternative, clean-burning fuels and energies to be more profitable than oil, oil production and consumption will dwindle. Conglomerates like Halliburton, Exxon, Schlumberger, etc. will follow the dollar anywhere it leads, even if it leads to a cleaner world. Let's face it - they're the ones in charge here. Unless it benefits them, they won't go near it. Hell, Exxon still hasn't paid for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and that was what...13 years ago?

I welcome the day when gas-powered cars are considered antiques. I just don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. My kids either.

 

as far as i know, Brazil has used ethanol powered cars for years.

 

Alternative fuels won't have the chance to become widespread for a long time, and not the effeciency is the necessary problem. I heard about the electricity-using cars. They would work fine if the building of filling stations would be possible (the energy given by electricity is consumed quickly in the car). But the oil cartells would stop any attempt. This applies to all other categories of alternative energy that could replace the power gained from oil-based fuels.

 

Most of the alternative fuel sources have just been completely unfeasible.

• Electric cars have a very limited range, low HP, and there is no intrastructure to refuel them. There have been versions that you can plug into a power outlet, but this must be performed at home given the time requirements. Private businesses would object.

• Gas-powered cars limited in other ways. Currently, large refineries are required to extract the hydrogen gas - which do create polution. Transportation of the gas is dangerous and storage is also quite dangerous. Attempts to store hydrogen gas has created protests. No one wants the Hindenburg in their back yard. In addition, there is not existing infrastructure.

• Solar-powered cars suffer all the weaknesses of electric cars with the exception range and a lack of refueling needs. Unfortunately, they need sun to run properly and, due to the solar panels, just a tad, ugly. Ironically, the most liberal cities in the United States happen to also be the foggiest.

The reason why Minnesota got into the news - especially in political quarters - is that this technology is feasible. Ethanol is easy to transport (at least as well as gas) and the current refueling infrastructure can be used to distribute it. In addition, ethanol burns hideously dirty. Conversion to hydrogen solves the polution aspect which as limited its feasability.

There is a great amount of territory in the Montana and Idaho to name a few that is idea for planting corn. This could be the respective member states cash crop (literally).

Personally, I don't expect to see this technology for a while now. However, given the environmental aspects and the "liberation from OPEC" aspect, there will not be a political fight of note.

 

Read the article. This "reactor", as they call it, converts the fuel to hydrogen gas. This will power the car. Our neighbors have not been doing this for last dozen years because the technology did not exist - still doesn't outside the engineering lab.

Do you think the reason America does not burn ethanol is the oil industry?

Do you honestly think this battle will be fought at the Federal level? People who live in large cities want cleaner car technology. L.A., for instance, has a huge cloud of smog that sits over the city. Even with smog regulations on car emitions, it the result is still pretty bad. In the case of L.A., 18 million people live in a geographic basin.

I will look into the "Kyoto" reference you posted.

The Oil Industry is strong, true, but not as strong as was classicaly depicted by the Communists. This industry, like all industries, is looking to change. Don't forget the automotive lobby as well.

As far as the economy is concerned, transportation does play an important role. This is true. Few people live within close proximity to their places of work. However, the U.S. economy is quite able to kill the horse if need be. The OPEC sponsered oil crisis of the 70s was a mere inconvience - or so I have been told.

 

There's the rub. It's a catch 22. They won't be cheap until they're mass produced, and they won't be mass produced unless there's mass demand. I do think, though, that it's only a matter of time. Po' folks didn't buy dvd players when they came out because they were prohibitively expensive, but now you can get one for thirty bucks at Wal Mart.

 

The problem (or benefit, as you see it) with ethanol is the low energy of combustion. And the low rate of reaction, as well (which translates into power).

Even ICBM's use hydrogen.

 

Totally justified question IMO. The answer is obvious: not many people will want to use them. On the contrary, if we consider all the great inventions which are now common and natural parts of our life, they all started like this. As development becomes better and the creators can lower the costs, the mass production will be able start, and the product can spread. But everything takes time... lot of time. So I don't expect for example many electrical cars on the roads in the near future.

 

Toyota has been marketing a combined electric-gas car for several years now (it is called the Prius here, probably the same elsewhere but I can't say for sure). The car is basically an Echo that uses half the gasoline and costs a little over $10,ooo CDN more. You don't plug it in as the electrical part is charged up when you brake etc. and used to power the car at low speeds (unless the battery is run down in which case gasoline is used).

The car is mostly promoted as being something that helps the environment, however, the number of people who are actually willing to spend the extra money to help the environment is virtually nil. I have spoken to numerous Toyota salespeople and they will all tell you the same thing, everyone they pitch the car to is interested until they find out the additional cost at which point they immediately go back to looking at an Echo.