which fuel/technology do you think will propel the future??

I didn't vote because a few of those apply.

I think that fossil fuels will stay on top as long as we have them. Biofuels are very exciting because it requires zero change to the infrastructure. We already have flexfuel gas cars, and biodiesel is completely compatible with conventional diesel. Plus, all of the fueling can remain the same. The same fuel stations and pumps can be used for bio fuels. The problem with biofuels is that there is no way to keep up with production at our current consumption.

If biofuels are to replace fossil fuels, we will all have to give up some serious luxuries and start living more European. Instead of 14-mpg SUVs and a 30-mile commute, we might have to limit ourselves to a small 50-mpg diesel sedan and using public transportation, a carpool, or a bike to go to work. There is just no way our current agriculture can support the energy consumption that America uses. I think that includes another one of your options; a drastic turn toward diesel. It is uncanny the hatred most americans have for diesel, even though they usually provide twice the torque, the same horsepower, and 30% more MPG. Plus the fuel is safer since it is very difficult to ignite and doesn't evaporate easily. Not to mention, biodiesel is a much more viable fuel than ethanol. biodiesel can come directly from oil crops yielding 85-90% return, then the pressed crop can still be used as livestock feed. Ethanol must be brewed, then expensively distilled, and we only get about 15% of the total brew as ethanol, and the crop is mostly wasted. 85% of what you put in the brew is waste. Its time consuming and expensive. Not to mention, the ethanol fuel itself only contains 2/3 the BTUs as gasoline. Biodiesel has about 20% BTUs than gasoline, so the return on your energy investment is much higher with diesel and biodiesel.

So, after that I see a large possibility for hyrdrogen fuel cells. The only problem there is cost to produce hydrogen. The easiest way to get hydrogen is cracking hydrocarbons; specifically crude oil. Once crude oil is exausted we'll have to resort to other more expensive ways of collecting hydrogen.

After that, I can forsee that electronic technology may expand to a point where solar power might be feasible. At this point solar cars are not practical. The only ones that exist are experimental cockpits surrounded by bicycle tires, batteries, and solar panels, and even they can't operate for long without the sun. Possibly a solar/electric with a large bank of batteries that get charged overnight, then a supplemental solar panel to extend the charge.

Another thing we need to do before using electric cars is change how we make electricity. Over half of our electricity in the US comes from burning fossil fuels. Charging an electric car right now doesn't save the atmosphere, it is responsible for many times more pollution since the source of the electricity is someone burning coal to produce the electricity.

You only need to post once! :)

It's multi-choice, so I voted for fossil fuels staying on top as long as we got em, as long as the price is somewhat reasonable (or perhaps I should say affordable)

I also voted for hydrogen fuel cells. I think the key to this isn't having huge tanker trucks bringing it in, but rather local production. Most hydrogen is presently produced using fossil fuels (which is the most cost effective). The solution would be for everyone to install solar panels on their roof (house, not car) and produce hydrogen from electrolysis. Not only could it then be transferred into a vehicle, but it could be used to heat the house at night rather than using natural gas, propane, or electricity (much better than batteries because a tank can't wear out or discharge over time). We would still need "gas stations" for travelers to fill up at, but with the majority of people filling up at home there wouldn't be a huge demand.

OTR trucks would be a different story... although with all the surface area on top of the trailer, they could certainly get a lot of assist with solar panels.

Bio diesel would also be a solution for the big trucks, but all the fertilizers and pesticides aren't a good thing. I live in Iowa, and there was a story on the news a few nights ago about how almost all county water supplies have high levels of nitrates and other chemicals, and some are above the acceptable ("safe") limit. I also heard that all the runoff into the Mississippi river is killing plants in the gulf of Mexico. If a more pest-tolerant soybean plant were developed that didn't need to be fertilized... biodiesel would be great

I think compression engines (diesel) running on a variety of different fuels will power the future.
Scania have buses with a compression ratio of 28:1 (plus turbo boost) which run on ethanol at an efficiency slightly better than normal diesel.

Maybe we'll see flexifuel diesels which can run on dino-diesel, bio-diesel, vegeoil and ethanol. All exist at far greater efficiency than you'll ever get from a spark ignition engine.

i think Hydrogen Fuel cell is a good idea, yet it is simply not practical (at least not in the near future). true that it's clever and efficient but the costs are way too high. they say that a fully functioning car costs about 1million$ to build and that in order to create a world-wide infustructure ridicules amounts of money needs to be spent. it is a good solution yet it is just not realistic.
untill i hear of a car develoption that a low-class family could purchase, it is just Sci-Fi. i see the future in Diesel, Hybrids (Diesel-Hybrids would be a realistic solution to reducing green-house gasses in my opinion like the all new VW Golf BlueMotion) and EV's. i know that electricity needs (in most cases these days) the use of fossiled fuel, but mass production of 'clean' electricity is already available today and with enough funding - it could work (look at Holand and Germany). unfortunatly, bio-fuels/diesels are just too much of a fuss - they take long time to manufacture and they are not very efficient (low mpg). i am actually hoping for a major development from the direction of CAV (compressed air vehicles) - it is something which i have seen in action (in France if you wanna know) and with a bit more "polishing" it has a lot of potencial.
it is important though, to mention again that i really think that hydrogen fuel cells are a waste of time. as good as they are (and they are not that good atm) they are just too expensive.
EA

Maybe we'll see flexifuel diesels which can run on dino-diesel, bio-diesel, vegeoil and ethanol. All exist at far greater efficiency than you'll ever get from a spark ignition engine.


They get my vote.

I just read and article at work, there is a guy in the states useing duramax diesels in big GM cars, hummers etc, and getting 400+ hp and 40-50mpg.
There was an ausie who worked on mixing LPG and Diesel and Hydrogen and Deisel, and this yank is following on from that, and proving it works, and works very well.

They get my vote.

I just read and article at work, there is a guy in the states useing duramax diesels in big GM cars, hummers etc, and getting 400+ hp and 40-50mpg.
There was an ausie who worked on mixing LPG and Diesel and Hydrogen and Deisel, and this yank is following on from that, and proving it works, and works very well.

You'd need a very aerodynamic vehicle to get 40-50mpg with an engine the size of the duramax. Bigger engine with more internal friction than necessary and all that.

LPG fumigation of diesels works by accelerating the diesel combustion, effectively advancing the injection timing.
Unfortunately it does this by preigniting, so it's not a good thing for your engine.
Efficiency measurements for such systems are notably absent. Saving diesel by substituting lpg might be economic in Aussie, but here LPG costs double per kg what diesel does and has nowhere near the energy content.

I chose diesel/biodiesel and electric vehicles. Im hoping that people will smarten up and allow nuclear power to gain a foothold again, and I'm also hoping that nuclear fusion reactors will be invented soon, as well as someone discovering room temperature superconductors, which will solve our battery needs.

as well as someone discovering room temperature superconductors,

I'm rooting for zero friction lubricants.:grinyes:

that is a horrible list. I'd have picked something if I could figure out what the vague categories defined

look, im sick and tired of hearing about the "hydrogen economy"
its a MYTH.

hydrogen comes from water, through a process called electrolysis.
this requires huge ammounts of energy, as you are actually separating water into hydrogen and oxygen.

then the hydrogen is compressed, which again, requires a lot of energy.

then the hydrogen is shipped to you in a truck (burning diesel most likely)

then you put the hydrogen in your car, where it is burned, which creates... WATER!!!

its a big circle.
ignoring the fact that hydrogen leaks out of every container we can put it in, hydrogen still sucks because no process is 100% efficient. most are around 75% or so. IC engines are about 30% efficient.
if you add it up, you realize that hydrogen SUCKS.
the only Possible good that could come out of large scale hydrogen production is the creation of lots more oxygen, which then gets burnt to make water, instead of fossil fuels using oxygen to create co2.

[/rant]



i voted for biodiesels, drastic turn to diesel, and hybrid tech.
i should have also voted for electric cars powered by nuclear generated electricity, and smaller, lighter cars in general.

Anything that doesn't cause shortages or cause producers to divert production to fuel. For example, the use of corn for fuel. More and more farmers are planting corn to be sold to processors for fuel. As a result they are switching crops in the process and not planting their usual crops that are still needed, causing shortages. And to add to that the supply of corn for human consumption/animal feeds is being diverted to fuel production in larger numbers causing ,more shortages driving up the cost of the product which trickles down to the rising cost of such items as beef, pork , poultry, eggs, anything that uses corn as an ingredient.I think the farmers should open up more land to the production of corn while still planting enough to keep our supply steady and allow others to continue to plant other needed crops.

which fuel/technology do you think will propel the future??

because the united states can produce huge amounts of natural gas from a variety of materials and the cost to produce and the cost to convert vehicles this would be a good fuel to use within the next 2 years before gasoline raises to 10.00 /gallon...


if there were more availability i would convert... my state has their vehicles on it...


alcohol is a poor fuel.....natural gas would be extremely clean burning....

because the united states can produce huge amounts of natural gas from a variety of materials and the cost to produce and the cost to convert vehicles this would be a good fuel to use within the next 2 years before gasoline raises to 10.00 /gallon...


if there were more availability i would convert... my state has their vehicles on it...


alcohol is a poor fuel.....natural gas would be extremely clean burning....
Going off of this idea,(which is a great one IMO,) would be to use the gases that are emitted from the hundreds if not thousands of landfills scattered across the country. There are programs in place at many sites currently that do such a thing and I think it could be expanded to meet other needs. You can even set up commercial composters or similar type technology to create gases from the composting of materials that we produce as waste. We could also use livestock waste and use the gases from that which would also leave an end product (pun intended) that could be used as fertilizer for crops.
In our county we have an incinerator that burns all of our trash and the steam produced is sent to be used for other purposes, ( generate electricity I believe.) This technology could also be used to produce an energy source to power vehicles as well.

Going off of this idea,(which is a great one IMO,) would be to use the gases that are emitted from the hundreds if not thousands of landfills scattered across the country. There are programs in place at many sites currently that do such a thing and I think it could be expanded to meet other needs. You can even set up commercial composters or similar type technology to create gases from the composting of materials that we produce as waste. We could also use livestock waste and use the gases from that which would also leave an end product (pun intended) that could be used as fertilizer for crops.
In our county we have an incinerator that burns all of our trash and the steam produced is sent to be used for other purposes, ( generate electricity I believe.) This technology could also be used to produce an energy source to power vehicles as well.

Such a setup works excellently for stationary heat and power. Being used to heat local swimming-pools, shopping malls, run water pumps etc.
It's hard to compress natural gases enough to get a decent energy density for road transport.

Such a setup works excellently for stationary heat and power. Being used to heat local swimming-pools, shopping malls, run water pumps etc.
It's hard to compress natural gases enough to get a decent energy density for road transport.

with oil 125.oo/barrel soon to be 200.oo /barrel landfills will soon be gone, as everything will be recycled or converted to power generation....only old land fills will still be used as methane gases are created from refuse..


in my area landfills are banned..has been for several years now...


i think that our love affair with the automobile is gonna end soon.....

with oil 125.oo/barrel soon to be 200.oo /barrel

How soon are you expecting that, the $US is devaluing fast, but not that fast.:icon16:

How soon are you expecting that, the $US is devaluing fast, but not that fast.:icon16:

i wish this were my own projected price rise to 200.oo/barrel ,as it would not be correct...this is the projected price in 2years by people in the business of oil.....rising demand world wide and the dollars fall is the main cause.....

if the there were a world wide resession/depression then this would probably not occur with in 2 years...


very soon only people that have alot of money, and businesses will have gas guzzling vehicles ...


gas stations will begin to close as the profit margin will drop as the gallons sold and drive in traffic to buy other products falls..not a good future...

gas stations will begin to close as the profit margin will drop as the gallons sold and drive in traffic to buy other products falls..not a good future...
This is what I truely dislike about the current situation. The oil companies are making truely obscene profits but they're screwing the local people who own the fuel stations.
Here it seems the margin the fuel stations make hasn't changed (in cents/litre), despite the fuel price roughly doubling in the last 5 years. Effectively their cut has halved.

Here it seems the margin the fuel stations make hasn't changed (in cents/litre), despite the fuel price roughly doubling in the last 5 years. Effectively their cut has halved.


Don't believe that for a second.
There has never been a lot of margin in fuel, profits in service stations in NZ have always come from shop sales, not the fuel sales.


Your right about the oil companies declaring billions in profits while still claiming they have to keep putting the price up.
It is all part of our wonderful capitalist idea called share holder responsibility, and the growing short term demands of share holders.

"I want it all!
I want it all!
And I want it now!!!!!!"

Don't believe that for a second.
There has never been a lot of margin in fuel, profits in service stations in NZ have always come from shop sales, not the fuel sales.

Outside of the main centres, small fuel stations keep disappearing.

The upside of massive oil company profits is a massive tax take for some countries. But it's the citizens who always end up paying.

This is what I truely dislike about the current situation. The oil companies are making truely obscene profits but they're screwing the local people who own the fuel stations.
Here it seems the margin the fuel stations make hasn't changed (in cents/litre), despite the fuel price roughly doubling in the last 5 years. Effectively their cut has halved.


i believe that the price of gasoline has trippled in 5 years...

price of oil closing in on 130.oo/barrel...

do i eat tonight or put gas in vehicle so i can go to work....

do i eat tonight or put gas in vehicle so i can go to work....

You sleep in your car outside work so it needs no fuel.:smokin:

You sleep in your car outside work so it needs no fuel.:smokin:

then put your dinner on the exhaust manifold for heating/cooking..

This is what I truely dislike about the current situation. The oil companies are making truely obscene profits but they're screwing the local people who own the fuel stations.
Here it seems the margin the fuel stations make hasn't changed (in cents/litre), despite the fuel price roughly doubling in the last 5 years. Effectively their cut has halved.

There is a congressional investigation currently happening concerning your first statement. ExxonMobil's profits in 2006 were $13.5 million. In 2007 they were $41 million.

Don't let the cents/liter debate sway you. Here in the states I was listening to the radio where they reported that crude had topped $131/barrel. As I was driving to work, I saw four fuel stations changing their prices on the board. At lunch I heard it topped $133/barrel and I saw them changing it again. Makes sense to the public, right? The problem is, from the time an oil company buy the crude at that price, ships it to a refinery, refines it, stores it, ships it, distributes it, and gets their money back from the consumer for it, it can be anywhere from 3 months to 3 years depending on the product. Gasoline, propane, diesel, and other fuels move pretty quickly, but parafin, greases, and other byproducts move slowly. The fact that gas stations are out there raising prices 2 minutes after the stock market reports is nothing less than price gouging. The prices of barrels of crude don't affect the gas station for at least 3 months.

Back during the gulf war the same thing happened. Gas prices climbed to well over $1 a gallon. There was one station who had the right idea. They sold gas at 86 cents per gallon. People flocked from miles around and waited in line for hours to get gas there. I drove nearly a half hour to get fuel there because it was still cheaper despite the drive.

Actual fuel cost at the gas station won't be affected for months. The fact that they are raising prices now is just a reflection of consumer stupidity. Diesel here is as high as 5.67 a gallon and gas is approaching 4.25 a gallon. Yet there hasn't been one pathetic dent in the amount of traffic or fuel consumption on the road at all. People still drive their huge SUVs to work with one person inside.

The other thing that shocks me about this survey is that 53% at this point have voted for electric vehicles. Do people not realize that over 60% of our electricity on this planet comes from burning fossil fuels? Then consider that of that energy in fossil fuels only a pathetically tiny fraction makes it to your house. Seriously, the amount of energy you get from gasoline in a car is very similar to the amount of electricity you get from burning the same amount of fossil fuels at a power plant. Then consider the insane loss of energy that takes place as it is constantly converted, transferred hundreds of miles, and then used in your house. The loss is staggering. I haven't done the math, but I would wager that driving 40 muscle cars would use less energy than driving ONE rechargable EV.

The other thing that shocks me about this survey is that 53% at this point have voted for electric vehicles. Do people not realize that over 60% of our electricity on this planet comes from burning fossil fuels? Then consider that of that energy in fossil fuels only a pathetically tiny fraction makes it to your house. Seriously, the amount of energy you get from gasoline in a car is very similar to the amount of electricity you get from burning the same amount of fossil fuels at a power plant. Then consider the insane loss of energy that takes place as it is constantly converted, transferred hundreds of miles, and then used in your house. The loss is staggering. I haven't done the math, but I would wager that driving 40 muscle cars would use less energy than driving ONE rechargable EV.

I believe the "pollution relocation" is something that appeals to many.

I believe the "pollution relocation" is something that appeals to many.

Amen... landfills are another great example of that. "Let's haul our trash 10 miles away and put some dirt on it."

I also found some research that might be helpful. These are all from reputable sites, not just someone's blog or wiki. Sites like the EPA, DOE, and other government resources provided this info:



Fossil fuel-fired electric power plants constitute the largest source of air pollution in the U.S. Based on real data from DOE sources, here are some striking facts about power plant pollution.

The U.S. uses fossil fuels to generate more than 2/3 of its electricity. 51% is generated with coal, 15% is generated with natural gas, and 3% is generated with petroleum.
In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of nitrogen oxides.
The average coal-fired power plant is only 1/3 efficient, meaning 2/3 of the energy in the fuel is wasted.
The average fossil fuel-fired power plant was built in 1964, long before the Clean Air Act began requiring pollution controls.
Of the largest 1000 fossil fuel-fired power plants in the U.S., 77% are not subject to pollution controls under the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements.The world's power demands are expected to rise 60% by 2030.With the world-wide total of active coal plants over 50,000 and rising, the IEA estimates that fossil fuels will still account for 85% of the energy market by 2030

This also doesn't take into consideration the rather monumental need for fossil fuel consumption just GETTING the fuel to the plants, nor does it take into consideration the fossil fuels burned getting that fuel out of the ground.

I also get a kick out of these new diesels with their exhaust scrubbers that remove particulate emissions. They are still being produced, just caught in a filter so they postpone their impact on the environment for a while until the car is junked. You can filter it, hide it, move it, and cover it with dirt, but the fact still remains that we dug it up from way below the biosphere and introduced it up here where we live.

I wonder what level of technology the chinese are using in their new coal fired power plants?
Mind you they've got some seriously impressive hydro power going on too. Three gorges dam etc.


I also get a kick out of these new diesels with their exhaust scrubbers that remove particulate emissions. They are still being produced, just caught in a filter so they postpone their impact on the environment for a while until the car is junked. You can filter it, hide it, move it, and cover it with dirt, but the fact still remains that we dug it up from way below the biosphere and introduced it up here where we live.

I do a lot of work with underground mines (but not with the machinery itself), they use water scrubbers on the exhaust of their diesel machinery (petrol isn't allowed underground). The systems are total loss and they go through more water than fuel.
Interestingly the rates of lung cancer in underground miners isn't supposed to be any different to the normal population. Given most of the miners smoke that may put a dent in the UCSUSA and such-likes view on cancer-causing diesel particulate.

Articles like this one: EPA article on Dieselnet (http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2008/05epa.php) are very interesting as they show the difference between measured particulates and visible smoke.