A cure for our energy dependence? A car that runs on water?

[Dave M]

I think we've all heard the stories of a car that was invented that ran on water, but the oil companies buried it and kept it from becoming known. It's probably all a myth, but maybe not for much longer.

Check out this video:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=35660&bw=

Here's an article that goes with it, basically just rehashes the video:
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_articl...?storyid=68227


What do you think? The guy already has it powering a small engine/turbine. Future applications? Is it something to get excited about?

[Black97]

I guess the big question is, how much energy is needed to produce those radio waves that cause the salt water to burn? I doubt it can be achieved by a battery to get this thing going.

[DJ Taso]

There's gas out there that probably gives you 100 mpg, but the government would never tell you that or never approve it to the public. The oil companies would go out of business and the economy would fall.

[ConElite]

There's gas out there that probably gives you 100 mpg, but the government would never tell you that or never approve it to the public. The oil companies would go out of business and the economy would fall.

I Second that. I mean the government has their hand in everything yes they cant produce a car that gets better than 60 mpg. I think it was on "Junkyard Wars" where they had to build the most economical Vehicle. They were able to manage 100+ MPG and this was with parts from a junk yard. Yet our government, with Almost unlimited funding cant make something like that?

[Joe 1320]

It will reamain this way until those in government become less invested in oil. They aren't going to hurt their own pocketbook.

[Rhode Island Red]

It will remain this way until those in government become less invested in oil. They aren't going to hurt their own pocketbook.

Hmm Oil barons in the white house and Real Estate brokers as our city council. Life, liberty and the pursuit of Money... tis the american way and average americans can't do much about it, except find a way to get in on the profits

I wonder if it takes more energy to create the radio waves needed for the salt water to burn like that @ 1500 deg. Celcius...maybe that's why it's not economical right now

[brothapig]

This is the first time I've seen this, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that it probably takes more energy to transform the water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back out from burning them together. I wish he would have stated how much power his radio frequency generators and amplifiers require.

It's a good idea, it just goes back to same idea of electric cars: you still need to generate the electricity! And this usually comes from burning coal. (although you could generate it using renewable sources, i.e. solar, wind, hydro, etc)

[Black97]

And this usually comes from burning coal. (although you could generate it using renewable sources, i.e. solar, wind, hydro, etc)

While coal is a major source of power production in the US, there's also Nuclear, Natural gas, oil and Hydro power being used. These plants can be considered for base load supplies while the solar and wind ones only when their "medium" is present.

Power companies are working hard to clean up the coal fired plants and eliminate the CO2. http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/29948

[brothapig]

Yes, I agree that Nuclear and Hydro would be your base power, but I wouldn't put Natural Gas in that same category - that is usually reserved for peak demand power because of cost (at least in my experience - I could be wrong).

I guess my point is, is that there are people out there touting that fuel cells and electric cars are the answer because they are zero polluters, which they aren't (not yet anyway). It still takes energy to create the hydrogen and oxygen, or electricity. And right now that mean burning fossil fuel.

By the way, I'm all for Nuclear!

[Black97]

but I wouldn't put Natural Gas in that same category - that is usually reserved for peak demand power because of cost (at least in my experience - I could be wrong).

By the way, I'm all for Nuclear!

Well it used to be gas turbines for mostly peek but in many cases they have now combined cycle units where you have 2 - 3 gas turbines with heat recovery boilers and with the steam they run a steam turbine. The last one I worked at in SC was almost 1000 MW (the size of one nuke). Some of these units run day in and out. They may reduce some load at night but in most cases it's not efficient to not run full tilt.

Nuclear will the be the power of the future. I just wish there be better storage solutions for the waste.

[Dave M]

Nuclear power technology has come a long way since the first generation of plants were built. Pebble Bed reactors now in development promise to be a much safer, and smaller, plant. There's still the problem of the waste, though. Nulclear right now generates 20% of the country's power. Solar and wind power, combined with new nuclear plants, will have to play a major role in the future, especially in developing countries that are too heavily dependant on coal. China is a good example. Pullution there is atrocious, and most citizens don't even drive cars yet. It comes from industry and power plants.

And remember, this burning saltwater is a very new development. I'm sure in the future ways will be found to do the same thing using less and less power. Increases in efficiency are natural in new technology.

[96FirebirdFormula]

My dad geo got 48mpg