Think about this very carefully! We put man on the moon 41 years ago! We built an Atom bomb 63 years ago!?

Question

So with all that technology back then... Add computers and other communications now..... How come, that the powers that be! Haven't yet... or so we are told.... come up with an alternative fuel source for vehicles, that dont need oil or its subsidaries eg Petrol , Diesal, or kerosene?

I have heard that a car has been invented that runs on water.

Think about that!

I think maybe world governments have supressed this!

What would that do to global economies if such a car existed...

How much social and economic power would they lose if we could travel with just good old tap water!

What would happen to their supertaxes on fuel and global warming strategies?

The Global warming issue would nearly be resolved over night.

Me thinks that something is up!

Or am I just being cynical, in that, maybe certain countries and governments wouldnt ' welcome' a hydro vehicle!

I'm just throwing this thought out there.

I'm sure lots more ideas will come of this.

Cheers!

Answer 1

my views of this are, if we make cars that run on water, what will we do when we have a drought? if we make cars that run on electricity what will we do when the power grid runs out, i think that we need to come up with a better plan like solar. I heard something about it already but they would need to re do it and make it better. or we could always go back to the old days and go by horse and buggie

Answer 2

The answer is simply there is vast infrastructure in place to use gasoline that is the main problem and those that run that are not that keen to stop what they have and change to something else, till they have to.

You mention the moon landing of 41 years ago do you realise that the moon lander was powered by a fuel cell.

A number of transit authorities have been running small numbers of hydrogen powered bus for years.

What the people running the oil industry are afraid of is if people realise that a solar power station is stand alone all it needs is sunshine anything that runs on oil or coal requires massive costs to provide the fuel and the transport to deliver that fuel to the station.

An example of this is the recent Saudi move to increase supply one of the stated reasons was the increased research funding for alternative fuel would affect them in the medium term. Iceland is perfect example of this 15 years ago they were one of the poorer countries per capita in Europe they switched to geothermal power for most of their needs and are now one of the wealthiest per capita.

Answer 3

Running a car on water is a myth, running a car on compressed air that sucks up and compresses more air as it goes along is a myth, a practical car that runs on solar or gets 300 miles per gallon all myths.

Basic physics tells us that energy in = energy out for every system. Further every real system incurs losses, so while total energy out is same as energy in, always some of the energy out is in the form of waste heat, not useful for much. In a petrol car, even the latest and greatest, energy in (as fuel) leads to less than 35% useful energy out, the rest is heat. Then by the time that energy is actually used to move the vehicle overall useful energy is less than 30%. A diesol car can get better results because it uses a different kind of engine cycle, but no matter what type of engine you use, no matter how cunning or clever you will not achieve more than 50% useful output by any kind of heat engine. So if you put in a very tiny amount of energy you will get an even tinier amount of useful energy out.

Fuel cells on the other hand operate differently and in theory can get 90%+ efficiency, in practice 80% is good. And again by the time its converted to moving the car you are lucky if you have 75% of the energy you put in.(rest is lost as heat via friction, electromagnetic losses etc etc.). To get the hydrogen (or other energy source) for your fuel cell you have to create it by putting in energy. Electricity?, chemical energy? No matter that process is still relatively inefficient, say 70% at best. So a lot of energy in, a little useful energy out. The more steps involved in the process the less you get out at the end. This is basic thermodynamics, those are the rules of the universe we live in, there is no escaping those facts.

So the myths above remain just that myths and fairy tales for the gullible.

Super rich oil companies, sure, but look carefully, they can see the writing on the wall and are diversifying into renewables! They are into making money and they are not tied to oil. They will happily change to other options as long as they can make a buck.

There is no grand conspiracy, that too is a myth. Most governments are too incompetent to actually pull such a myth off for long enough!  Most companies are too competitive to let the other get away with such a scam. No, the sad fact is that there are no magic solutions. Just those that work by the normal processes.

Electric cars make more sense than hydrogen powered ones for lots of reasons, but only if the electricity is produced by renewable energy.

The contributor who suggested that renewables cannot meet the demand is not looking at the whole picture. In Europe most countries are achieving 20%+ use of renewables and they have only just started. Renewables covers a lot of ground, it includes hydro power, tidal, solar, solar hotwater and space heating, wind, geothermal, hot rock geothermal, bio fuels of all kinds, wave and that is not exhaustive. No one of those will do it, but combinations of them will. Nuclear has a role, but it will never (well not in my lifetime or yours) be a viable option for a large percentage of world energy use. Not because of direct technical issues, but because of political issues. For starters minable uranium deposits are limited, so a nuclear powered world would very quickly need to resort to breeder technology (produces more fissile fuel than you put in), trouble is that then involves the management and transport of thousands if not millions of tonnes of fissile material around the world. Thousands of tonnes of plutonuim, relatively simple for any terrorist to turn into a nuclear weapon. No not going to happen. Even now some states are objecting to other states operating nuclear reactors because they could in theory be diverting materials into production of nuclear weapons. And doing so with conventional reactors is expensive and time consuming and definately not for anyone without the resources of a nation state. However go the plutonium route and separating that out from fuel rods is a piece of cake by comparison. Any well equipped terrorist organization could do that cheaply and easily. If now people object to Iran and North Korea from doing their thing, does that mean in a nuclear powered world, only some 'permitted' countries will be allowed to have energy, the rest do without? I for one do not think that is either moral nor desirable.

Very hard for a terrorist to convert a windmill into a weapon of mass destruction!

The advantage of renewable energy is that it diversifies the sources of energy and decentralizes them so that no one group nor one company nor one government has control overall. Much safer from many points of view.

Our best bet is to move to compatible interim solutions such as (but not limited to) bio fuels because existing infrastructure can work with them, and to move as quickly as possible to longer term solutions as and when they become viable. This will cause minimal dislocation to economies and produce the desired results, but it does require idiots who continue to stick their head in the sand to wake up.

Forget the myths of magic cars that fly and run forever on nothing, that will not help us any.

Answer 4

Just saw this on discovery channel where a Japanese company developed a car that runs on water.  It uses the hydrogen from water to fuel the car.

Answer 5

It's been revealed to me in 1957 that everybody's elevators fail to go to the top floor!

Of course things like the hydro powered automobile are not condusive to Satanic manipulations of greed, violence, mayhem & murderous diamond hard gold & oil prices.  Unfortunately, the food productivity is being catipulted to increasing jepardy & Nero fiddles while the planet burns....

Oh well, best wishes, anyway!  K-den, M1  

aka: Dorfus Chucklenose

"~Geniuz @ Woik ! ~ MikeWon Iz Kewl !~"

Answer 6

Hello,,holy sheepcrap batdude,,the steam engine is back!!!

Answer 7

cause the fuel companies arew making too much money out of oil to care about the envoirment a company is about proft, and profit is coming from oil, alternative sources would cause them to loos money.

the boss is just gonna delegate the job to the next in line cause when the oil runs out in 30 years, the boss will have reatired with his £18 billion on his yaught.

so basilcly so they dont have to do the work

the car can be run off water, but its a problem with storing hydrogen, buut once thats sorted it be ok.

salt water as to be used at a certaiconcentration

Answer 8

Oil was the cheapest and there is an infrastructure.  With high prices we see now, there should be plenty of incentives for alternatives.  I suspect there will be a few good ones in the coming years.

Answer 9

Its all because the oil corporations have so much power in government and they're making far too much money.  There are already solutions.  

The patent for the electric car battery made for a short time by GM was bought by Chevron and they are refusing to release the patent so no electric vehicles can be made.  There are cars that run on compressed air and can basically run indefinitely with the air that it sucks up and powers the engine as it moves, it also recharges the compression chamber so that it can start up again.  The only thing with this car is that it doesn't have much power.  It would be great for a city car though.

Volkswagen has already made a car that gets 300+ miles per gallon.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/g...

However, this technology is being held back by the immense power that the oil companies have and less money is put into alternative sources.

In fact is was the oil companies that dismantled the electric trollies that were used in cities for public transportation in the early 20th century and instead replaced them with buses, buses that need oil and gasoline to run.

Answer 10

such vehicales defo exist,i heard sum1 made a car dat flys n gos on water.but oil n gas companys wud go outta business losin money so politicians have kept it quiet.we have technology 4 solar cars,n u can make a car run on apple juice,but if theres pollution theres tax payers cash 2 pay 4 it,which goes on politicans pay rise,if theres pollution theres illness,theres health insurance,all bout cash.

Answer 11

well the car defo exists!! check this out http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoI...

Answer 12

Just because we may have the technology to build alternate-fuel cars doesn't mean it's commercially affordable; what if the cars cost millions and the fuel is 15 dollars a gallon? Noone will want one' not even the biggest tree-hugger.

    

     Also, the car that runs on gas you were talking about does not run on water; the commercial is deceptive. Listen to the end; they tell you that the car has lower CO2 emissions and emitts water vapor only; NOT that it runs on water. It only partially (any probably not much at all) runs on water.

Answer 13

So what has the Moon or Nuclear bombs got to do with alternative fuel cars? Nothing at all, that's what.

You may have heard that a car has been invented that runs on water, but it is not true. No car can run on water alone because it is theoretically and actually impossible to extract any energy from water alone.

So stop dreaming and living in a fantasy world of imagined cars and conspiracies that don't exist and take some math and science classes and become part of the solution to our problems instead of being the problem.

Answer 14

The technology exists and it doesnt cost much to own it in your own car only about $125 dollars i believe. i am going to turn my car into hydro powered soon. I just need to research it a little more.

Rob

Answer 15

becasue we dont need too, oil is a NATURAL RESOURCE!!!!!

  that means we dont need to worry about it ,   ever!!!!!!

Answer 16

tottlay agree with you

Answer 17

I think it is because there if a lot of money to yet be made.  We will get away from oil when there is no more oil and there is still a lot left to be exploited.

This web site has some interesting info in it also:

http://www.rogerwendell.com/fossilfuels....

Answer 18

have the technical ability does not mean we could produce it on a mass scale, also you have to ask how many people would be affected by such a transition you have to think beyond the big oil company's, when ever you start putting people out of work competition for lesser paying job increase and all a sudden we have millions making minimum wage and they cant afford this new car, there will be no more old style gasoline cars because they will have gone out of business now we would be in total chaos

Answer 19

They have come up with alternative fuel vehicles.  They've made cars that will run on solar power, vegetable oil, and even hydrogen.   However, most of these cars running on alternative fuel sources were bought up by and subesquently destroyed or are being exploited by big oil.

Answer 20

God!...you're easily taken in!

Hydro cars. LOL. That's a hoax / scam.

Basic physics dictates that you CAN run a can on water...but it takes MORE energy to spit the molecules into Hydrogen & Oxygen than they produce in viable fuel...by a HUGE margin. Easier & cheaper just to use an electric car if you must go that way.

Answer 21

who wants to run there car on Atoms or rocket fuel. no one

Answer 22

The alarmists think we need answers now.  Okay, how long would it take to develop a 'hydro car' if it were possible to do so?  Long enough, by the alarmists' data that we'd be beyond the point of no return anyhow.

Enjoy you gasoline run car, that's the best we have.  Even if everyone had an electric car, what would that do to power bills?  And black outs whenever we plug them in at the same time? Can you imagine, lol!??

Answer 23

Because its not just vehicles------ everything we do including your post questions happens with electricity generated by coal, natural gas, and oil generating plants--

Petroleum products are in everything (literally) that we use from medicine-- to computers--

Think Nuclear for the replacement-- no CO2 emissions-- nuclear needs to replace all the current power plants. Renewables will never be able to generate 80% of our power requirements that are now fossil fuels. (It's less than 2% now)-- so maybe 20% if we really work hard on it. ) of course this would take a huge investment and many years to do. Why not already-- ???? maybe ask your Congressman or Senator.

Edit-- just a comment-- I see the conspiracy theorists coming out--  and I noticed on TV that folks want to charge CEOs of oil companies with crimes against humanity! Have we lost our mind?

Answer 24

I wouldn't invest in any companies promising a water powered car, but there are already multiple alternatives available.

Honda already has a hydrogen fuel-cell powered car.  The problem is getting refueling stations in place. Forward thinking politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger are calling for the quick development of these stations. Meanwhile, Bush and McCain are merely trying to prolong our demise by calling for more oil drilling.

Cars that run on compressed air are already being built in other countries and could be produced here as well. All it takes is some incentive to move away from the old way of thinking (i.e. unlimited cheap oil, we need loud powerful engines, etc.). Every home could have a relatively inexpensive air compressor to "refuel" them.

There are several companies making electric cars with impressive specs and more to come.

But for each option, we do need additional power generation capabilities. That should come from solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.

Answer 25

Hmmm.......So so True!

Answer 26

I agree completely with your answer Ken (the post above mine)

That is an excellent answer! I couldn't of said it better myself.

"....., but there are already multiple alternatives available.

Honda already has a hydrogen fuel-cell powered car. The problem is getting refueling stations in place. Forward thinking politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger are calling for the quick development of these stations. Meanwhile, Bush and McCain are merely trying to prolong our demise by calling for more oil drilling.

Cars that run on compressed air are already being built in other countries and could be produced here as well. All it takes is some incentive to move away from the old way of thinking (i.e. unlimited cheap oil, we need loud powerful engines, etc.). Every home could have a relatively inexpensive air compressor to "refuel" them.

There are several companies making electric cars with impressive specs and more to come.

But for each option, we do need additional power generation capabilities. That should come from solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.

    * 18 minutes ago

Source(s):

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automoti...

"

Answer 27

totally agree with you ....