Notices

View Poll Results: What should replace gasoline and gasoline engines?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hydrogen Combustion Engine

    0 0%
  • Hydrogen Fuel Cells

    4 30.77%
  • Other Fuel Cells

    0 0%
  • Electric Vehicles

    4 30.77%
  • The End Of Cars

    0 0%
  • Bikes

    5 38.46%
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Replacing the Gasoline Engine

  1. #1 Replacing the Gasoline Engine 
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Personally, I go with hydrogen fuel cells.


    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    I say Electric Cars... but bikes aren't a bad idea.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    In an ideal world I'd say bikes, cuz they help people stay in shape and get you were you wanna go. Of course, the world isn't ideal, but it doesn't hurt to dream.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Well I went with fuel cells because they are safe, reliable, efficient, and non-polluting.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore NimaRahnemoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    156
    Sorry, I know it doesn't completely belong here but I thought some of you might be interested.

    I heard on the news today that if you search on the internet there are kits that teach you how to make your own ethanol for 70 cents a gallon. It isn't too hard to make either. So... if you're too busy to ride your bike to work, making your own ethanol is cheaper and a bit better for the environment. It works perfectly with cars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Really? Can you test it for us?
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Nima Rahnemoon
    Sorry, I know it doesn't completely belong here but I thought some of you might be interested.

    I heard on the news today that if you search on the internet there are kits that teach you how to make your own ethanol for 70 cents a gallon. It isn't too hard to make either. So... if you're too busy to ride your bike to work, making your own ethanol is cheaper and a bit better for the environment. It works perfectly with cars.
    Here's an article: http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?ni...=791883&page=1

    Here's a place: http://www.dogwoodenergy.com/

    :wink:
    Terrapin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 In the Shorter Term: 
    New Member Truth_Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    1
    Biodiesel.

    Renewable. Just use the internal combustion engine that you already have in your trubo diesel now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    Have any links or a short explanation of what you mean by "biodiesel"?

    Must of us don't know what the heck is that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    I wish the poll had as an option "Stop driving SUVs/vans/light trucks". If we banned these vehicles, the US would become nearly self-sufficient on oil imports. Conservation is the easiest cheapest first step we should take as a society/

    As far as other options (e.g. hydrogen), it consumes far more energy to make the hydrogen then one gets back by burning hydrogen (Thermodynamics 301). So "hydrogen", by itself, is simply an assinine idea, no matter how many time GW Bush claims this is good for our future. In order for a "hydrogen economy" to work in a green and an energy self-sufficient manner, it requires that the H2 be produced via a route which does not consume fossil fuels (hydro, windfarms, solar, nuclear). So the "hydrogen" option means that we first must wholeheartedly support (hydro, windfarms, solar, nuclear) before proceeding to the next step ......otherwise (assuming we are stupid and don't understand thermodynamics) we could go "hydrogen" by massively burning coal to reduce hydrogen to H2, which would be a big mistake.

    Fuel cells still are not ready yet in terms of price and reliability. One must also contend with the thermodynamics of fueling the fuel cells, same arguments as the above paragraph.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuete
    Have any links or a short explanation of what you mean by "biodiesel"?

    Must of us don't know what the heck is that.
    Here’s a pretty good description of biodiesel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodeisel

    It should be mentioned that any diesel engine (well…maybe not turbo :wink: ) can be run on straight vegetable oils; with minimal modifications in a warm climate.

    Biodiesel is great stuff. It has a higher EROI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested…also referred to as “net energy”) than corn derived ethanol, and it burns cleaner than regular diesel.

    The only problem with it though is that there is not enough acreage in the world to grow enough plants (commonly soy beans, but it can be derived from other sources) to replace any significant percentage of our (the US’s or the world’s) current liquid fuel consumption. However, it will no doubt have an increasingly large role to play in the future as conventional petroleum derived fuels become more scarce and expensive.
    Terrapin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by silylene
    I wish the poll had as an option "Stop driving SUVs/vans/light trucks". If we banned these vehicles, the US would become nearly self-sufficient on oil imports. Conservation is the easiest cheapest first step we should take as a society/

    You make a good point here about conservation silylene, but I must point out that an SUV with 2 or more people in it is more energy efficient than the average sedan with one person in it, and a light truck can haul many things a car cannot; if you ban light trucks, many more things will have to be hauled by heavy trucks instead.

    Perhaps we should ban people riding in cars by themselves instead? :wink:

    As far as other options (e.g. hydrogen), it consumes far more energy to make the hydrogen then one gets back by burning hydrogen (Thermodynamics 301). So "hydrogen", by itself, is simply an assinine idea, no matter how many time GW Bush claims this is good for our future. In order for a "hydrogen economy" to work in a green and an energy self-sufficient manner, it requires that the H2 be produced via a route which does not consume fossil fuels (hydro, windfarms, solar, nuclear). So the "hydrogen" option means that we first must wholeheartedly support (hydro, windfarms, solar, nuclear) before proceeding to the next step ......otherwise (assuming we are stupid and don't understand thermodynamics) we could go "hydrogen" by massively burning coal to reduce hydrogen to H2, which would be a big mistake.

    Fuel cells still are not ready yet in terms of price and reliability. One must also contend with the thermodynamics of fueling the fuel cells, same arguments as the above paragraph.
    I would agree that hydrogen is a very questionable idea, for the reason you mentioned, and for several others, but add that there are already examples of energy “sources” that people buy that require much more energy to produce than they yield; disposable batteries is the most glaring example.

    There is no single replacement for hydrocarbon derived fuels on the horizon. All large scale potential replacements require conversion of one energy source to another (and the subsequent loss of energy in the process (second law of thermodynamics; physics 101). Since electric motors are significantly more efficient than internal combustion engines this makes up for some of the difference. One should also remember that fuel cells essentially only replace batteries; they still power “electric” vehicles.
    Terrapin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    electric power can be generated in different ways.

    Some bacteria generate electricity while living.
    They can also generate combustable methane gasses, even selfsustaining.(CO2 dissolving in water, using algea to proces food for the bacteria)

    Solar power isn't very usefull, but it might be added to normal power, that way it'll save a lot of power and it'll cool down the vehicle at the same time.

    Big combustable molecules (like oil) can be stripped down electrically, it won't combust, but it'll generate energy non the less. Don't know how yet, but it seems possible.

    ( the matrix idea of generating power is stupid by tha way, it's impossible. Without light/fusion/fission/extracting from nature, there'll be a huge loss of power, it'll whipe out )
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrapin


    You make a good point here about conservation silylene, but I must point out that an SUV with 2 or more people in it is more energy efficient than the average sedan with one person in it, and a light truck can haul many things a car cannot; if you ban light trucks, many more things will have to be hauled by heavy trucks instead.
    Every day I commute 23 miles back and forth on I-495. I drive a 33 mpg Saturn. A large majority of the vehicles I see in the daily long commute are SUVs, trucks and vans.....each with a single driver.

    It is a very rare occasion to see a SUV, van or light truck with two people in it during the rush hour commute. Actually, I see more cars with multiple passengers than SUVs with multiple passengers. (this would be an interesting discussion on why this is so. And yes, it is like this, I pass my time counting numbers, because that's how I am)

    Yes, if what you said was the way people behave, I'd agree with you. But all those 13 mpg Denalis have just a single driver - that's it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
    Posts
    77
    Silylene, I guess I was not very clear with my point. My main point of disagreement with your original post was your use of the term “ban”.

    I am well aware of the frequent misuse of large vehicles. On the other hand (since you’ve opened up the murky world of first person testimonials :wink: ) we live on a dirt road. When the weather is nice I drive our Insight into town, but when the road gets muddy or icy and the potholes get big it doesn’t do so well (neither would your Saturn unless it is a VUE which I doubt; I know because I owned an SL2 at one time also). I drive the Subaru under these conditions. People that live farther out the road past me (where conditions are worse) have little choice except a high clearance 4WD if they hope to make it into town in the winter.

    We could have a discussion about the sustainability of driving 20 miles to work, or living 10 miles out of town as lifestyle choices, but I doubt either of us wants to go there now. Suffice to say that I don’t think vehicles that do fill a need for some folks should be banned because others don’t use them for their intended purposes.

    On the other hand, I fully support raising CAFE standards and adding the SUV/light truck category to them. I also have little problem with high gas prices, Both of these moves have the effect of discouraging the misuse of fuel inefficient vehicles, while still allowing their use for those that truly need them and can justify the cost.
    Terrapin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    I understand some people actually need SUVs and light trucks. One example is dirt road travel (as you mentioned), another can be for towing or for cargo carrying. If all the SUV and light truck owners fell in this category, I don't think anyone, including myself, would ever complain.

    On the other hand, the large majority of people I observe driving SUVs and light trucks don't need them. They simply like the feeling of riding above the cars, or the spaciousness, or the intimidation factor, or the perception that SUVs survive crashes better. You know the types I am talking about who buy SUVs and light trucks, but don't need them: soccer moms, suburban dads commuting to work, career women "on the go", and the spoiled children of the wealthy.

    When gas prices get high enough, the market will sort out what people want to drive and don't want to drive - regardless of government intervention (mileage standards, or special taxes or special licenses). And yes, this day will come.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    W. coast, N.A., Third Stone
    Posts
    77
    I agree with you, the vast majority don’t need SUVs. On the other hand how can we tell by looking at them? Maybe they just dropped off their load of school kids?

    The film: The End of Suburbia raises a lot of interesting questions about the way we live here in the US and the end of cheap oil. It goes beyond what kind of cars we drive and examines the consequences of living long distances from where we work, and from other “basic necessities”, particularly without suitable public transportation alternatives to private vehicles. These options have only become possibilities for the “average US citizen” because of cheap oil, in the last few generations. They are still impossible and likely always will be for the majority of the worlds’ citizens.
    Terrapin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    Sorry guys, but you leave the good old 4 stroke gasoline ICE alone,
    One of my hobbies is going like the clappers in my BMW Z3 with the hood down, the chicks love em, to hell with the ozone and global warming and global dimming etc, put yer foot down and go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Bikes!!!! all the way. Imagine how much space we could save if all the roads were smaller.

    Oh yes, and advanced technology on those mag-lev trains.

    That electric bacteria thing sounded kinda cool too though.

    Ah haa. Bikes that have powered accessories (speedometer, lights, turn signals etc.). Powered by bacteria.

    I WANT ONE!!!!!
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    I want a superconductor electric car. They actually have an electric car out with a McLaren frame that goes like a bat out of hell.

    To the SUV issue, the people that drive them I never see hauling kids around. Most of the time they are talking on their cell phones while weaving in and out of traffic without signalling. SUV drivers have a bad mentality. Tax the crap out of them is what I say.

    Those that are afraid of the world often hide in an SUV, those of us that don't fear anything jump on a motorcycle and live on the edge.

    I do however want a CJ7 or a wrangler, something small I can take off road.

    Sometimes freedom of choice is not what's best for the general public. Leaving people to their own devices they tend to do everything they can to be selfish and self destructive. Many people feel what they do doesn't impact anyone else in the world. SUV's are clearly not good for the rest of the normal drivers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    If I could vote twice I would say "end with cars". Obviously referring to cars that are on roads (as apposed to railroad cars).

    They are so out of date. Why do we still use them?? They are wasteful, dirty and stink when they warm up. They are the cause for a very large amount of deaths, they pollute. Why do we use something that weighs many, many times more than we do if we want to get places faster. It makes no sense. Hmm... I want to move faster, Oh yes, why don't I just strap a hunk of metal on me (sarcasm, in case you didn't get it)

    Oh wait, I know, we still use cars because there is money in them. Transportation, oil, fast food, etc.

    This is my dream world when it come to transportation:

    All houses are in the woods. These woods have trails for bicycling or walking/running. Above the woods are mag-lev/monorail type systems. These lead everywhere. A city, where all the industrial stuff is, would be in the center and have no need for roads. The monorails could get you anywhere. There would be large sidewalks though (or should i say centerwalks).

    Sorry if that was really boring and you don't care at all about my dream.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Strugle Town
    Posts
    222
    The instantaneous transportation of matter is the one that will fix it,
    But how boring
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    DaBob said: "Sorry if that was really boring and you don't care at all about my dream"

    Yeah...but it's such a NICE dream... 8)
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •