posted 10-23-2003 02:02 PM              

I always thought it was some foolish story, some wacko college engineering professor made-up, followed by a conspiracy theory that this technology was keep undercover via threats, bribes, assignation attempts by the petrol companies to stay in control of the world’s economy. It seems far fetched, but the closer this issue is scrutinized, the more it starts looking like an X-files episode.

This issue sparked my curiosity even further when I heard over the news the other day that Caterpillar was pursuing research in this area. Why only now have people started looking into this plentiful source of energy?

So I did a quick online search and found these web sites. There was actually a patent issued to a Charles Garrett in 1935 for the invention of an Electro catalytic Carburetor, which separated hydrogen and oxygen from water, via an oversized car generator, and then used the hydrogen as a combustion source in the engine.

posted 10-23-2003 03:09 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by ruggie:
Are you sure it takes that much energy to separate water? You can do it with a battery.

---

And just how much hydrogen were you able to get with your battery?

Also... where did the battery get the energy to break up the water molecule? - could it be fossil-fueled or nuclear power plant?

posted 10-23-2003 03:26 PM              

Really interesting stuff. Its got much lower emissions than most other fuels, is mostly soy based I believe, and can be produced locally. And best of all, it's very close to being cost effective.

posted 10-23-2003 04:24 PM              

To the other respondents,

Bio fuels run into the same efficiency issues just in different ways:

What is the energy yield per acre of an plant producing a sugar that is then refined into an alcohol or an plant based petroleum?

What is this yield in relation to the original energy conversion in photosynthesis?

Per acre what are the costs and how does it compete with selling the crop as food?

Current corn based fuels still use massive amounts of petrol-chemicals (fuel and herbicides) to get the fuel crop. Further the post harvest biomass of current crops is a very poor source of sugars for fuel refinement so we have to use the sugars from the seed not the shalk.

Additionally, as soon as you start using massive amounts of the food crop for fuel you will either depress corn prices in good years or make them go sky high in drought years. The pressures on either bio fuel prices or food availability will create an unsustainable economy around the crop.

posted 10-23-2003 04:31 PM              

The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is just that! It's not going to solve anything because the electricty is still going to have to be generated in a nuclear, fossil-fuel, geo-thermo or hydro plant. And another plant for creating hydrogen cells

posted 10-23-2003 04:41 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunnie:
ruggie- I suggest that you do an electrolysis experiment and you'll see how much energy it takes. I did this eons ago in high school and the energy consumption is great in relation to the hydrogen yield.

To the other respondents,

Bio fuels run into the same efficiency issues just in different ways:

What is the energy yield per acre of an plant producing a sugar that is then refined into an alcohol or an plant based petroleum?

What is this yield in relation to the original energy conversion in photosynthesis?

Per acre what are the costs and how does it compete with selling the crop as food?

Current corn based fuels still use massive amounts of petrol-chemicals (fuel and herbicides) to get the fuel crop. Further the post harvest biomass of current crops is a very poor source of sugars for fuel refinement so we have to use the sugars from the seed not the shalk.

Additionally, as soon as you start using massive amounts of the food crop for fuel you will either depress corn prices in good years or make them go sky high in drought years. The pressures on either bio fuel prices or food availability will create an unsustainable economy around the crop.

I'll reiterate; The sun keeps shining everyday and the direct conversion of the solar radiation into electrical energy is the most efficient (long-term) option. Stop-gap measures only prolong the pain of converting to another energy source.

---

Sugar gain is used in Brazil to produce alcohol for there krazy VW bettles. They solved the issue of not using the seed/fruit. The only problem with this is that in cooler climates it is harder to start an alcohol engine, but this could probably be solved.

posted 10-23-2003 05:31 PM              

Wind power is a very effective way to produce green electricity (which could then be converted to a more 'mobile' form via fuel cells. Solar is of course very clean as well but the technology is just not there yet (not enough demand I suppose). Wind power is popular in many parts of the world and is starting to really gain in popularity even in Coal-burning Alberta, Canada. (though it is still only 1% of total electricity production here).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ruggie:

The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is just that! It's not going to solve anything because the electricty is still going to have to be generated in a nuclear, fossil-fuel, geo-thermo or hydro plant. And another plant for creating hydrogen cells

---

posted 10-23-2003 08:08 PM              

Sunnie, point well taken on the biodiesel. But it seems any generation, renewable or not, has its environmental issues - even solar (production process is NOT environmentally friendly) and wind (birds, etc. as seen in the debates about offshore wind recently). Regardless, it seems any of the alternatives to traditional oil/coal etc. are preferable despite their issues.

posted 10-24-2003 08:47 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by well...:
im pretty sure there is an alternative that uses trash, yes, all our waste, to create electricity. i worked for an environmental agency a long time ago and this is how i found out. dont remember what it was though

---

I know that in some countries incinerators are commonly used instead of land fills, but I'm sure a lot of toxic fumes are developed as a by-product of burning trash.

Couldn't this be used as a system to generate heat to turn steam generators? The systems that we have in place today are already toxic, it's just a matter of developing ways of containing or eliminating these emissions, possibly even reusing them in the generation of energy.

posted 10-27-2003 04:07 PM              

- A staggering 98 tons of prehistoric, buried plant material is required to produce each gallon of gasoline we burn in our cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles." For a reasonably efficient car, riding 25 miles per gallon, this translates to 4 tons of prehistoric plants per mile, or more than two tons per kilometer. The research paper also mentions that everyday, we are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plants growing during a whole year just for our cars.