Why can't we use steam again? It creates tons of power. Yes the explosions are massive. But couldn't we build a betta motor for steam? I remember stories of the 2 cylinder steam motors were fast. Just curious. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/updating_the_st.html
What on earth are you whining about? Maybe it's not a "constructive debate" to you because the discussion includes facts that you don't want to face about your liberal leaders....but that is your personal problem. It already IS a political issue. Especially when you've got leftist politicians screaming about how we all need to sacrifice and go "green"....everyone except them, of course.
Since we have gravity on Earth....Seems to me if we could oppose gravity with a non fuel type, maybe even a metal that would oppose gravity, we could have propulsion and forward momentum. Maybe I am just way outside the box.
I did, and it was. It said the car could use any kind of liquid or gaseous fuel, if I recall. That would include gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biodiesel, propane, among others. I was just wondering what kind of fuel you think would be best for the environment and for performance as well.
I think KDs's question still stands. Not only do you need fuel for the engine, but air is heated (which can be part of the process, but still takes energy).
Of course, that would lead to the same problem we have with corn ethanol - competition with food supplies, resulting in shortages and price increases. The car in the article he linked used fuel in liquid or gas form. Ethanol from switchgrass or blue-green algae might be a possibility. (Waiting for Nevilock to post anti-gravity cartoon.)
COuldn't we use super heating coils sorta like a hot water heater? But hotter? I don't know. I am just tired of gas prices. I saw an interesting show last night about super speed travel under water. Since Salt water can conduct electricity. Why couldn't that apply to land vehicles. But in a more practical role. Hybrids using salt water to conduct electricity for electric motors? Instead of Normal petroleum based fuel.
its 42 minutes from one side of the earth to the other. just figure out how to drill the hole, without making a volcano.
Have you seen this? Just when I was about to give up on hydrogen technology, too! I read someplace that they are not selling the cars, they are leasing them for $600 a month and that includes maintenance. Somebody may have already posted something about this here, maybe CAC? Just wanted to bring it up again. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
the problem with fuel from food is that it increases the price of basic food, which makes it harder for people living at the poverty level to buy basic foods. If we can find the same fuel somewhere else, without the negative effects on the food markets it would be very much preferable to increasing hunger. I agree I'd rather spend 10.00 a gallon on ethanol than 3.999 for gas, but i'd rather not do it if it meant that a poor family was going to fall from barely getting by to struggling for food. It'll take a while to increase the production of corn to a degree that we could use it for fuel without impacting food, and if its going to need time, we could just as easily spend that time growing switchgrass or working with algae.
The problem arises when it diverts food products to non-food uses and creates shortages and higher food prices. Of course, you get the same result if you convert land that is currently producing food to produce something else for fuel. There are some potential crops that will grow on marginal land, that would not be used for food crops - that would be a better solution. Or how about this - someone should figure out how to make fuel from kudzu.