Cars Running On Water

jollyrgr · Post by **jollyrgr** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:09 am

<Begin RANT mode>

I understand the need to get off the dependency on foreign oil. I also understand that solar, wind, hydrogen, and other psuedoscience methods won't make it. The closest thing we can come to cars running on water and solar power is to use ethanol.

Basically you take plant material (it can be the leftovers from corn or almost anything), yeast, water, and a few other things and put it in a large container. Plants "run" on solar power. This energy is stored in the material that make the plant. The little yeast do their thing and convert the water, plant matrial into alcohol (ethanol) which can then be used as engine fuel.

Basically you now have a form of solar power and water that will run a car! Brilliant idea, right? WRONG! Now the doom sayers are complaining that making ethanol will use up too much water.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_ ... NlYwM3NTM-

I guess we might as well give up, turn off the lights, dig us a hole, and pull it in on ourselves as we will never win.

<End RANT mode>

Thanks for reading...

Sambuchi · Post by **Sambuchi** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:07 am

Reading that article from yahoo news told me two things that I already knew..

Ethanol is not the solution to our oil shortage..

and that Angelina looks better than ever.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:57 am

Change can never occur as long as we let politicians lead us around by the nose? There are always more excuses than reasons for change away from big business, if we let them talk. And so far not only do they talk, they even steals seats and power with out asking. They call them self lobbyists. And we let them do the talking for us.

Sambuchi · Post by **Sambuchi** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:53 am

I think change can occur if the solution to the problem is hard to market... Meaning, everyone has access to the solution... access enough where the solution could not be taxed controllably... in turn it is accepted.

Of course, the person who would come up with the solution would get hosed..

if that makes any sense to anyone but me

VIRAND · Post by **VIRAND** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:40 pm

According to the above article,
The areas where the ethanol plants are planned is, or should be, near the Great Lakes.
Of course the aquifers should not be "wasted".
Neither should the water be polluted and released in the process, but used again.

As the ethanol is used as motor fuel, 2 CO2 + 3 H2O is Returned to the environment.

"Brazil's total use of motor fuel is 33% ethanol." That country is bigger than the USA.

jollyrgr · Post by **jollyrgr** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 pm

VIRAND wrote: < SNIP >

"Brazil's total use of motor fuel is 33% ethanol." That country is bigger than the USA.

How do you mean "bigger"? The US population is 296 Million, Brazil has a population of 186 Million.

According to ASK.COM (formerly askjeeves.com):

The area of the United States is 9,631,418 sq km, or 3,718,711 sq miles - about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; about two and a half times the size of Western Europe

Do you mean their use of Ethanol is larger? If so, I agree. Not to nit pic but just point out the US most likely has a much bigger demand for oil than any other country. But up and coming rivals would be China and India.

I read last fall that a huge shale oil field was discovered in (under?) Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Supposedly this oil field contains three times that of Saudi Arabia. Here is one link I found regarding this story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... udy01.html

One thing I do find rather clever is that the US is buying lots of foreign oil. I do not like the $70+ per barrel price and think the oil companies and shieks are getting very rich right now (as if they were not already).

Sorry to sound like a pompus American but I say let's use up all "their" oil and save ours for the future. Maybe some day we will pay $20 a barrel while charging them $200. Payback would be a [female dog]. But I know better and we will simply GIVE it to other countries.

lazertronic · Post by **lazertronic** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:56 pm

Chris Smith wrote:Change can never occur as long as we let politicians lead us around by the nose? There are always more excuses than reasons for change away from big business, if we let them talk. And so far not only do they talk, they even steals seats and power with out asking. They call them self lobbyists. And we let them do the talking for us.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that change in use of oil cannot occur as long as we have oil tycoons in office as politicians. I believe that atleast one of these technologies will work. But, I believe there is more to this problem than just big business.

There has to be some sort of taxing method that is based on road usage. Currently those taxes are attached to the gas prices. If everyone could run their vehicles on water that comes from your household tap, then there would be no road usage tax; subsequently, the roads would become damaged over time, and there would not be the incoming revenue to repair them. However, one could run on ethanol, have to pay for it at the pump, and the taxes still get paid.

Another way to go besides ethanol would be bio-diesel. Which is relatively cheap, and could have a nice tax on it to bring all roads up to perfect conditions.

Externet · Post by **Externet** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:27 pm

Hi fellows.
Continuing with the off-topic, enjoy or cry with what the Arabs are doing with your fuel dollars:

www.clubraco.org/argemi/docs/Petrodolares.pps

Sorry it is not in English, but barely needs translation.

Miguel

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:36 pm

Change is always possible. But first we have to grow some real huevos, fire our politicians, make it a crime to do the wrong thing, prosecute goof offs in office, and JUST DO IT RIGHT.

Its all very old news.

Yes, this means no more large profits, partial socialism, doing the right thing, and going slightly left instead of under the pillow with the rich and right wing?

And Ps, no more B.S. wars, we need the money for US.

Or as they say, right after Ice Bergs in hell?

Dean Huster · Post by **Dean Huster** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:09 am

Why not do more research on Fred and Wilma's method of transportation? I'm sure we could make it more efficient if we updated the hardware from tree branches and rock cylinders and added a few bearings.

As a side benefit, our shoe industry would really love it.

Seriously, you can go back in history and come up with more efficient, albeit slower, methods of transportation. Compare the NiÃ±a, Pinta and Santa Maria or the Golden Hind with today's ocean liners as far as cost of operation. Granted, the payload capacity wasn't there, but then, they didn't have 21st century engineering available, either!

Dean

Externet · Post by **Externet** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:59 am

Hey Dean; it's semantics! Is not about running cars ON water by fitting sails on them as the Pinta, NiÃ±a and Santa MarÃa.
It's about using water as fuel...

Somewhere I read the 'Quenn Anne' and aircraft carriers make six inches per gallon !

Miguel

HighFrequency · Post by **HighFrequency** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:16 am

You have a good idea there Dean. How cool would it be to go back to sailing ships as a primary means of ocean-borne transportation? Of course all the voyages would be about 10 times as long, you would need to store about 10 times as much food, and ten times as much water. I suppose you could make potable water from seawater (we do it in the Navy all the time). And I imagine with 21st century engineers on the problem, we could come up with lighter materials and more efficient sails to better harness the power of the wind.

This would have to start as a novelty, and cruise companies would charge an arm and a leg for it.

You know what? I like the idea, but then I like sailing. It'll never catch on.

Chris Smith · Post by **Chris Smith** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:39 pm

I prefer weeds making methanol, screw the politicians and their false taxes.

They donâ€™t need a second swimming pool, or any thing else.

Let them go back to the old days, 10 bucks for every actual appearance they make in congress, no profits, no greed, no nepotism, no Bribery.

Or as they say in the land of Marinoâ€™s, right after hell freezes over.

But would we know about history, we just repeat its mistakes like there was no tomorrow?

Dean Huster · Post by **Dean Huster** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:03 am

Well, Miguel, my original comment WAS going to be about boats running on water but that they still used gasoline in those outboard engines. I decided to take a different tack (oooh!).

I think that transit time is the only major factor (other than weathering storms) that a sailing "liner" made with today's engineering would propose. The wind, though, has to at least be there somewhere.

I've a feeling that the vast majority of complainers about the "energy crisis" and "global warming" haven't put their butt on the seat of a bicycle since they were kids. The trouble is, with a major lack of rural mass transist, everyone would have to live in cities in order to get to work. And if they talk about cities now being massive hot-spots that greatly contribute to GW, well ....

Dean

MicroRem · Post by **MicroRem** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:19 pm

Well if this global warming thing works out, think of all the energy we will save not heating the northern US all winter! Oughta offset the cooling needed through the summer I would think.

regards

Tom

T&L Publications

Cars Running On Water

Cars Running On Water

Who is online