What do you think is the fuel of the future?

Question

1. Hydrogen- we cant transport it and it costs energy to the compressed hydrogen we want

2. Solar- it cant go that far/fast

3. Other-you pick the fuel that you think is best and tell me why it isnt in use currently

Answer 1

None of them are currently good enough

Answer 2

Solar- it cant go that far/fast

Answer 3

It is oil & gas . Our fossil fuels have a built in recycle system the plant.

  Do U understand the water cycle??

  Do U understand the CO2 convertes to oxygen by the plants???

  There is another cycle that has worked for millions of years. It is the plants They take in CO2 and give us back the O2. The plants keep the Cin its leaves. As they die and wash down the river to the delta where it breaks down into fossil fuels.

Answer 4

I think hydrogen still has a chance.  Check out the hydrogen project in Iceland.  I think it could be transported through pipes, same as natural gas.

Here is another possibility for hydrogen:

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Thomas Edison had an electric car almost a hundred years ago.  Surely we could have one now.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_...

if it works good enough.

The biggest threat to hydrogen is if it is acceptable to the power people of the world.  A lot of people would make their own and I don't know if the government and others would want that much independence to be in the hands of the people.

Edit:  This has a pic of edison's electric

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electri...

Answer 5

It think a dark matter/light matter reactor and/or chicken schmaltz will fuel the future.  Psst, Sir d**k Branson already has a Boeing 747 that is fueled by chicken schmaltz and it can attain an altitude of 3m and a range of 67m....

http://www.solarnavigator.net/sponsorshi...

Answer 6

Solar.  Battery technology will develop to the point that a car will have a 300 mile range at 65 mph.  One battery unit will be charged during the day while you are driving with the other one. The car will back in to your solar garage and drop the battery unit like it is laying an egg.

Answer 7

algae.Biodiesel.

Answer 8

Probably all three. Hydrogen can be made with electrolysis as you need it either for combustion or in a fuel cell. QSI Quantumsphere has a new nano-material that makes the process 85% efficient, well beyond the long-term target the US Dept of Energy set. No storage needed if you can produce it on-board as needed. http://www.qsinano.com/

Solar thermal generation is predicted to cost only 10cents/kWh soon, competitive with other generation methods. It uses mirrors to heat water, which turns a turbine to generate electricity, much less expensively than photovoltaic cells. It would be great to have one of those for the backyard. http://www.ausra.com/

ECD Ovonics continues to innovate with battery storage, they contracted to provide them for the GE EV-1 but claim that car never used the advanced batteries Ovonics offered. http://www.ovonic.com/

Compressed air cars might be possible, Tata Motors in India plans to begin selling them this year. People have been trying to do this for a long time so we'll have to wait and see if they've really ironed out the problems. http://www.theaircar.com/

**edit The main problem with methane or LNG is that it has to be kept liquid, requiring temperatures of -260F. If it leaks into the atmosphere it is, as pointed out, at least 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I'm not sure if the overall emissions would be better than gasoline since CO2 is only reduced by 25% while it's methane emission rate is higher. It's nitrous oxide emission rate is half that of gasoline and N2O is about 310 worse for greenhouse warming potential. This is good, but it's particulate emissions are 1/2 as well, which isn't entirely good. The IPCC thinks particulate emissions have had a dimming effect to keep warming from being as bad as it otherwise would be. Overall, I'd need to see some links to research before deciding if LNG on a wide-scale would be a good thing.

Fortunately I think the global warming scare is just that, another attempt to grab headlines and tax dollars by overstating the risk of a very slight warming. The final link is from a news source but it states that James Lovelock, one of the more radical AGW theorists, thinks that reducing air pollution would actually cause more disastrous warming than not reducing it. Rock and a hard place I suppose, if you buy into the AGW hype.

Answer 9

Okay... first some credentials...

I am a senior in a well respected vehicle research program which focuses on alternative fuels research.  We have looked at almost every conceiveable fuel source, and have built experimental cars that run on most of them.

At the end of the day, we've chosen methane as the best solution.  Common, ordinary natural gas.  We have a mess of it!  It's all around us, and can even be made from waste materials with the help of an anerobic digester.  Also, if it were just released it has an effect 23x that of CO2 for global warming potential.  So, why aren't we using it?

We are!  Many major cities have switched most of their taxi and bus fleets of to compressed natural gas (CNG), and Honda offers a production CNG vehicle.  It's called the Civic GX.  Here in Washington, at residential rates it would cost around $1.40 for one gallon of gasoline equivalent energy.

And just in case you don't think there is sufficient supply to support our needs, look into methane hydrate.  This is a naturally occuring substance which is simply sitting on the ocean floor (among other places) and it contains massive amounts of methane in suspension within the ice structure.  Estimates place the methane content on the order of 4 million trillion standard cubic feet of Methane.  Which equates to around 31,549,783,550,000 gallons of gasoline equivalent.  So a little bit then.  And that's just one source...

So come on people...  Do the research, the Civic GX is listed as the cleanest vehicle in the United States.  And yes, that means it beats everyone's beloved hybrids.  This is a real fuel, the infrastructure already exists, and it's an easy conversion on most engines already in service.

Any questions?  Feel free to contact me.

Peace!

Answer 10

scientists need to explore to produce petrol artificially, not extracting from the earth..