Alternative "fuel" I see being perfected in the future.

Take a look at the Furd Nucleon. Sounds like a great idea, until you get a fender bender and scram your car out. (Yes, my job is to operate a nuclear reactor.)

Wait a minute...Everytime I spell F*O*R*D on here, it comes up as Furd.

IndyG3 wrote:Screw it. Someone get to work on Flux capacitors. They convert trash into energy. Watch BttF 2.

But I just wanna go to the store, not 1955....

Roadcaptain S3 wrote:


But I just wanna go to the store, not 1955....

Well then go back in time to when you had all of your groceries, grab them, then head home. Now you won't need groceries!

No easy answers to the fuel situation. Cars in Europe get good mileage I'm told. Small engines? At 6 or 7 bucks a gallon, I can see why they have to get good mileage.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Hydrogen powered Honda already on the market:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Personally I don't think deconstructing the fabric of the water molucule is a good idea for energy. Yes, It would work, but the water we have has been on the planet since it's formation, and by 'deconstructing' the molecule we eliminate the water. It would be the situation that we have with oil. (We will never run out, we have soo much). I don't want that to be an area my generation and the next have to worry about.

Also, The Furd Nucleon was a great idea, but they never even worked on a reactor for it, they just had the idea and the design team came up with a body shell.

Also, The supposed Ethanol really is worse for the environment then petrol. I have read many an article about this. Ethanol was a way created (sorry for this) by the Western farmers who needed a market for their corn. the actual process of turn corn into ethanol actually uses more fossil fuels to create it then it actually produces. Ethanol doesn't carry as much energy as gasoline(which is bad for engines.
see- http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13652

It is also undesirable due to the fact that the world is increasing in food consumption, an increase which might not be met.
see- http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/science_magazine_ethanol_bad_f.html

Sorry to crush your blossoming ideas, but being a 16 year old, and thinking of this out right for a real while makes me have to inform.

lars wrote:Personally I don't think deconstructing the fabric of the water molucule is a good idea for energy. Yes, It would work, but the water we have has been on the planet since it's formation, and by 'deconstructing' the molecule we eliminate the water. It would be the situation that we have with oil. (We will never run out, we have soo much). I don't want that to be an area my generation and the next have to worry about.

Also, The Furd Nucleon was a great idea, but they never even worked on a reactor for it, they just had the idea and the design team came up with a body shell.

Actually, you aren't using up water at all. It actually emits water as it exits the engine by combining with oxygen (H20). Think of it as rain. When it rains, the water eventually evaporates & re-enters the atmosphere creating clouds until they eventually fill up & it rains again. The only real problem that I foresee is a possible increase in precipitation throughout the year. Is this good or bad? You decide.

I'm not huge on ethanol, but if you read through everything that has been posted here including articles, you will see a lot of good ideas have been mentioned. Sure they none are perfect or scientists would have already found a solution, but then again this is the reason for this debate topic.