Ethanol

[sanchez]

We have hydrogen buses where I live . And biodiesel cars are becoming more common as well.

Ethanol debates in the US are very difficult to cleanse of a long, ugly political history of big agriculture and subsidies, etc.. It was researched a lot in the early part of the last century as well, for the early internal combustion engines, but politics intervened then too.

[Piscator]

No, it is in fact more efficient already than just using the electrisity to power the car, so it has an upside there

How can it be more efficient? If you use the electricity to split water and recombine the hydrogen and oxigen directly afterwards in an fuel cell (and as far as I know the whole hydrogen technology is based upon it) to power an electric motor it simply can't be more efficient than using the electricity directly.

It' like using electricity to pump water to a reservoir on the roof in order to use it to run a turbine in your cellar which produces the power to operate your coffee machine.

[deadboy]

Can't explain that, because when hydrogen combusts it forms water, so yes, strictly it would be unlimited energy, but, I think in reality you end up losing more energy through the mechanical processes as heat than you do by turning it to hydrogen first, but I don't claim to be any sort of expert on it

[Piscator]

Hydrogen is not a unlimited source of energy because it's not a resource. There's nothing like hydrogen wells somewhere in the desert. If you want to have it you have to produce it first. And the energy to make it from water is the same as the energy you get when you burn it.
Hydrogen is a good storage medium for energy, but it's not a energy source, at least on the global niveau.

[Reindeer^]

It is also easier to refuel water than hydrogen.

Actually, hydrogen cars are quite safe

Also when the hydrogen car gets in a accident? Of course, if there is a water tank not a hydrogen tank.
But back to topic which was about ethanol if somebody doesn´t remember:
In my opinion a car which uses ethanol is the best choice because ethanol car is safer than hydrogen, faster than eletric car and pollutes the environment less than oil.

[Antichrist_Online]

Hydrogen fuel cells aren't as good as people think when you look at all the hidden costs, like the oil and energy used to mine the materials to make them. The metal nanoparticle engines look like the best solution but will take years to develop properly, so frankly soon alot of people will be walking.

[Neuman]

I would like the Plasma Converter to be included in the discussion. $250 million for a machine that destroys garbage, produces fuel, and can keep running during a blackout? Plus it pays for itself in 10 years? I want one.

[Zanthos]

I personally want a car run by hamsters on wheels

[Piscator]

A sleigh pulled by hamster would probably be easier.


@reindeer: Having a water tank instead of a hydrogen tank is probably safer but sure as hell absolutely useless, because cars don't run with water.

[Nakranoth]

It is also easier to refuel water than hydrogen.

Actually, hydrogen cars are quite safe

Also when the hydrogen car gets in a accident? Of course, if there is a water tank not a hydrogen tank.

Why are people so worried about Hydrogen being unsafe? The stuff's no more dangerous then gasoline. What's more, it's able to be produced Without the consumption of fossil fuels via water/wind/nuclear/etc processes. And while it is true that you only get to keep about 60% of the power, that's more then you get to keep from conventional burning of gasoline (which gets lost to friction and heat durring combustion).

http://www.commutercars.com/h2/

In short, Hydrogen's the way to go.

[deadboy]

Actually hydrogen is far, far more dangerous than gasoline, as gasoline tends to merely burn, whereas hydrogen has a tendency to explode more often than not

[N-Aldwitch]

Actually hydrogen is far, far more dangerous than gasoline, as gasoline tends to merely burn, whereas hydrogen has a tendency to explode more often than not

That's because it spreads further in the air over a bigger distance and all lights up at once when it touches a hot enough heat source. Gasoline doesn't really float around in the air. Generally it sticks in my car. Unless there's an Aussie aboriginal sniffing it. Then it's in his nostril. But that's a different story.

[formerly known as hf]

It's clear what the answer to all the world's energy problems are.

Have western Europe and the US puch for major expansion in nuclear energy production.

Then just sit back and wait for some terrorists to fly fully fuelled passanger aircraft into the reactors.

Et, viola - massive population drop, in some of the most polluting nations...

[Antichrist_Online]

Tiny side point... a bomb in a reactor isn't that damaging, it'll blow the core apart, irradating the area, but much less than a problem with control rods or such (Like in russia.) Like a controlled explosion on a bomb. Not saying it won't destory and irradiate a huge area, but a cockup is much worse. And I'm pro-nuclear power.

On a point that marks me as less of a terrorist... (really that was just something that came up in Nuclear Physics 1002...) hydrogen as in burning it is very inefficient and the current fuel cells are very wasteful.

[formerly known as hf]

A bomb won't do much. But setting it alight would be the cause of a major catastrophe.

Most people have heard of, and maybe seen those videos - that the domes built around nuclear reactors can withstand a full-speed coliision with a fighter jet.

Fair enough. But none have been tested to, or designed to, withstand the blunt-force impact of a fully fueled commercial airliner. Point-impact protection means nothing against blunt force, and airliner fuel can burn for a very, very, very long time.

Whatsmore, when asked what Sellafield (UK nuclear reactor) are doing in response to the increased terrorist threat. They've "commissioned two new fire engines"...