Oh, Gorr, what I said was that Stan Meyers was a fraud, he was convicted of fraud in a court of law because he collected money for "dealerships" and "downpayments" but never ever delivered the goods. His "water car" didn't run on water, it ran from a hidden fuel source, but of course he never would admit that, it would ruin the scam. BTW, that's why he never delivered any of his water car gadgets, they just didn't work and he couldn't let on that they would never work, that would ruin the scam.

Gorr, why don't you look into getting a CNG conversion for your car? Unlike those fake "water cars" from known frauds, compressed natural gas actually works, burns clean, costs less per mile than petrol, and with the right equipment you can fill up at home!

↓↑report

Conspicuous by its absence in your grab-bag is the single most relevant, most useful, most affordable, most practical, and most effective technology to transition us away from petroleum-based transportation: alcohol fuels.

Flex fuel capability costs only $100 per car to add. If it were a standard feature in all new cars, like seatbelts, we'd have 50 million alcohol compatible cars on the road in 3 years, in the US alone.

That would create a large enough market for gas station owners to start offering alcohol fuel at their pumps, especially if we made sure that the standard included methanol, which is inherently extremely cheap. You're enamored of natural gas; methanol can be made from that and is much more convenient being a liquid and since cars that run it are also "backward compatible" with gasoline, easing the transition.

↓↑report

great post, rain.

↓↑report

Thanks,Carney and Gorr.
Sorry for the rambling writing style.
My grammar is not the best,one Irish Grandmother, bound and determined that Gaelic not be forgotten and one Dutch Grandmother not to be outdone,with English on the losing end.
Carney,the problem with Ethanol is that it drives up the price of food making it harder or impossible for the less fortunate to survive.

CNG,LPG,Ethanol and other alternatives are best left to new vehicles being modified to operate at maximum efficiency on the chosen fuel source.
All the above have problems and they also have virtues too which need be addressed by vehicle manufacturers to offset the inefficiencies and expand their respective strongpoints
.
Just retrofitting these to any old beater will have marginal returns at best and could especially with Ethanol, drastically shorten the vehicles lifespan.
Upgrades with Ethanol should include but not be limited to the previously mentioned fuel system,Stainless exhaust system with high temperature catalytic converters,ignition timing upgrades with consideration to the mechanical valve timing and computerized spark control to offset pre-detonation and the addition of knock sensors,Hyper-eutectic pistons,hardened valves,seats,guides,seals,springs and dampers,anti-harmonic crankshaft balancer(vibratrol for example) and extreme duty rod,main bearings and seals,non-metallic head gasket,computer controlled exhaust gas recirculation and cold air induction into the header/manifold collectors to control S2OX emission levels,reverse water pump to cool heads first then block and an aluminum radiator.
Assuming these are not already equipped and they should have already been.
These mods should make a vehicle fueled with Ethanol last well over 300,000 miles and take advantage of the strong points of the ethanol while maximizing fuel mileage on this or any other vehicle.

I would suggest the same treatment for CNG equipped cars as well except using high compression pistons and long duration valve timing to take advantage of the fuels energy and maximize the small onboard fuel capacity.
LPG is great for B-B-Q's,smokestack pyro-technic's and farm trucks,tractors or other simple machinery like lawn mowers etc.

It may seem silly but marginal,minute losses add up rather quickly considering an ounce of prevention with responsible conservatism could have saved a pound of cure from slash and burn,quick profit privateering.

Thanks again for the comments.
Ta.

↓↑report

Rain said:

"Sorry for the rambling writing style. My grammar is not the best,one Irish Grandmother, bound and determined that Gaelic not be forgotten and one Dutch Grandmother not to be outdone,with English on the losing end."

Strange that you'd say that. The classic immigrant pattern is a REFUSAL by the old generation to pass on the language of the old country, caused by unfounded fears of imparting a foreign accent or hampering English skills. In truth, children can thrive learning multiple languages, and while initial language skills are acquired from parents, decisive influence comes from one's peers, schooling, and the media environment - thus 2nd generation lacks an accent unless it is ghetto-ized.

My mother is a native Irish speaker and met my father through their mutual interest in the language. (Sadly it was never passed on to me.) Anyway.

"Carney, the problem with Ethanol is that it drives up the price of food making it harder or impossible for the less fortunate to survive."

I know that SEEMS to make sense on first blush, but the facts show that claim is untrue. Growing crops for ethanol neither reduces the farmland available for food nor results in fewer food crops grown.

In the USA alone merely 30% of farmland is even used to grow anything; there is tremendous slack capacity. Furthermore per acre crop yields are constantly rising; up 17% since 2002 alone, and Iowa now grows more corn than the entire USA did in the 1940s.

Also despite corn ethanol production going up several fold in the last few years, food ethanol has gone up as well, as have other staple crops.

What's more, corn ethanol has a byproduct called "distiller's grain" used in high protein animal feed meant for meat production, so it not only ends up in the human food chain anyway but would have been needed to grow for feed anyway as well.

In fact, only a tiny percentage of the retail price of a box of corn flakes comes from the actual corn; much of the rest is directly affected in multiple layers by the cost of energy. Ethanol reduces the prices of fuel and fertilizer, thus REDUCING food prices. The high cost of food has had multiple sources, most especially high fuel and fertilizer, but ethanol has NOT been one of them, quite the opposite. Do not believe self-serving propaganda from Hugo Chavez and the DC PR firm hired by the United Arab Emirates.

Finally, the less fortunate in the world could be far better off if the trillions flowing to the OPEC regimes were instead going to them. Trade is a much better and more effective development program than foreign aid, and they are desperate for cash crops (other than drugs) to sell us.

For more, see

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

Making sure methanol is part of the mix (rather than focusing only on ethanol) would be a huge help as well, since it can be made from any biomass including weeds, crop residues (stems, leaves, etc), trash, and sewage. Under developed areas have oil wells that burn off ("flare") their NG; if that were made into methanol it would be economically transported and sold.

I don't have a stance on retrofitting existing cars; my recommendation is limited to requiring that all NEW cars sold be flex fueled. Since that would be done at the factory by the automaker it is much cheaper, easier, and better standardized.

Problems with natural gas cars are significant.

NG is a GAS at normal temperature and pressure, making it highly inconvenient as a fuel. LNG requires energy intensive cryogenics, and ongoing insulation and refrigeration, adding greatly to cost and complexity, always risking boil-off. CNG requires heavy strong containers capable of resisting the high pressure that seeks to escape or explode, presenting significant safety hazards and performance problems given the weight. Finally neither fuel system is compatible with gasoline; any NG car owner must carefully plan trips so as to avoid being stuck far from a rare NG fuel station when his fuel runs out.

By contrast, alcohol is a liquid a normal temperature and pressure; no need for elaborate containment schemes, or efforts to compress and liquefy it. Much more convenient. Furthermore inexpensive ($100 per car) "flex fuel" technology has existed for 20 years now that enables cars to run equally easily on gasoline or any alcohol fuel. If you are low on alcohol and far from an alcohol pump; you can just fill up on gasoline. This makes transitioning away from gasoline MUCH easier, and an easier sell for policymakers and the general public.

↓↑report

I said, "Also despite corn ethanol production going up several fold in the last few years, food ethanol has gone up as well, as have other staple crops."

I MEANT to say: Also despite ETHANOL CORN production going up several fold in the last few years, 'FOOD CORN' has gone up as well, as have other staple crops.

Lame, non editable Blogsmith comment system.

↓↑report

Ok, then what do you propose? What will provide the same performance and range and convenience as a conventional automobile and cost the same amount? Of course a redesign is overdue. Plenty of people are already trying to figure it out. The trick is not the engineering, it's the economics. There are plenty of technologies that reduce the fuel consumption of an engine, but most of the time they add complexity or cost or both. We could fill a car with batteries and give it a range of 500 miles or more, but how much will it cost? How many passengers will it carry? How much will it weigh? How long will it take to recharge? Hydrocarbon fuels certainly have their problems, but they are unrivaled as an energy source for transportation and many other things. That's why they are still in use today.

↓↑report

I don't disagree with any of the points you make, Billy. However I do thnk that most of the current drawbacks to, say, battery powered transport, are ones that can be overcome, and will be now that they are being taken seriously as a mainstream option rather than being treated as a fringe novelty.

Battery costs will surely tumble once a real mass market gets under way. As will battery size (with cellphones, a battery the size and weight of a brick was considered unavoidable).

Distance per charge is rising. For depot-based delivery fleets it is already adequate - and getting those fleets into service is one way of kickstarting volume production of batteries. Check out the Case Studies page of the Smith Electric Vehicles website at http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com for examples from the 400 vehicles sold in the past year or so. Battery swap stations are a feasible option - drive in, drop the underslung battery pack, hydraulically uplift a fresh pack, drive out. That won't happen with the present generation of EVs because there is no standardisation in size or position of batteries. But I'm guessing it will happen - again starting with vans and trucks (ModecZEV.com already offer something similar. Their battery cassette slides out sideways using a standard forklift, and is replaced with a fresh pack, taking 15 minutes).

In the US, I fully understand why hybrids hold more appeal. Journeys of several hundred miles can occur - well beyond the range of any pure EV. Unfortunately, because Americans know they have a gasoline engine onboard, there is less of an imperative to strive for huge battery-only distances. Hence the targets there being 50+ miles, whereas in smaller countries where 250-300 miles range is plenty, there is greater attention being devoted towards getting there with pure EVs, and more examples already of EVs exceeding 100 miles per charge.

↓↑report

To this day nothing compares to the ICE in power per cubic centimeter combined with affordability.

↓↑report

Carney,
Maybe you should tell Peter Bakker - boss of TNT Express, the European delivery firm who bought 150 of the 7.5-ton Smith Newton truck and the 4-ton Smith Edison van, costing his company several million dollars.

Hardheaded fleet managers don't do things like that for mere green credibility reasons (a highly publicised token quantity would achieve that).. The deal has to stack up on economic grounds and practicality. Those economics involve assessment of ongoing maintenance and fuel costs over the lifespan of each fleet vehicle, in comparison with the usual diesel alternative.

In the past 85 years, Smith have quietly shipped an estimated 70 thousand electric vehicles worldwide. Four hundred in the past year or so. That's a heck of a lot of customers who presumably did regard them as worth buying and using.

↓↑report

Carney, electric motors have always been smaller, lighter and cheaper than the equivalent IC engine, that is why they are used in many more applications. Take the motor in the Tesla Roadster - 70 pounds, the size of a watermelon, and 250 hp. You'll never find a 250 hp IC engine that matches that size or weight. For applications from fractional hp to the very largest mega -powered machines, the electric motor is smaller, cheaper and lighter than any equivalent IC engine.

The only problem for EVs is the battery, which have been too big and expensive, but battery technology is improving rapidly. If batteries get good enough, the old fashioned IC engine is doomed to obsolescence.

↓↑report

I agree Phil. I am very keen to make the switch to a battery car. My present petrol vehicle is likely to last me another 3-4 years before I trade it in. Were I buying today, I could not justify buying an EV for my specific needs - they would need to travel twice the distance per charge, and cost half what they do. Clearly some way to go yet - and might not get there in time for my next swap. But I see enough news from around the world, day in day out, to see that it's an inexorable tide.

Meanwhile there are tens of thousands of those localised return-to-base delivery fleets. Every postal service worldwide operates in that way. Japan Post has begun a programme to switch most of its 21,000 vehicles to battery power, and La Poste in France is initially changing 10,000 vehicles. It's a niche market but a very big niche. Big enough to kickstart volume demand for batteries, which in turn will help bring down battery costs for cars.

↓↑report