Death of the gasoline powered car?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drifter7
  • 44 comments
  • 1,505 views
drifter7

drifter7

Messages
725
i have been thinking about this for quite a while, i'm a 14 year old kid and all i see on t.v. now is how hydrogen, electricity, and other fuel sources will be the future. i personally dont like this idea at all, for one i am worried that all the cars will be slow, cheap, stupid looking and will soon make gasoline illegal or something like that. im not talking about in the next 5 years all cars will be non-gasoline but maybe it is something to think about. Although i admire the automotive industry for it's "ground-breaking" developments in the automobile.

let me know what your opinion is about the state of gasoline/diesel cars today and in the future.
 
How will using hydrogen make a car ugly, cheap, and slow?

I don't see hydrogen becoming a viable energy source for cars until all the gasoline in the world has been used up.
 
That would be a moving bomb. . . image the accidents and then the cost to the local government for road repair. . . minus the peons lost in the accident but still, I don't think hydrogen would be a reliable source for powering cars. . . Ever hear of the Hindenburg(i don't care but sp.)???
 
i dont mean all the cars will be ugly but just look at some of the concepts companies are coming. and i dont know about the moving bomb but why would they make them fast? like honda's hybrid? that thing has an under 70hp electric motor .
 
I'm putting my money on Hydrogen replacing gasoline. I don't know where you get that Hydrogen cars have to be slow, Ford has a version of the Mazda 6 motor running on hydrogen that puts out 150 or so hp... once there are engines developed specifially to burn hydrogen we'll see plenty of fast ones.

I don't understand this "moving bomb" B.S., do you think the gasoline tank in your car wont explode? If the tank is punctured, the hydrogen will float away from the accident too, unlike gasoline which will pool around it.

edit: also, on the topic of the hindenberg, it's claimed that nobody died from the actual hydrogen fire, those who did either jumped from the thing or were burned by diesel fire. I can't really confirm this, but I think these fears about hydrogen exploding are a little rediculous.
 
Originally posted by retsmah
I don't understand this "moving bomb" B.S., do you think the gasoline tank in your car wont explode? If the tank is punctured, the hydrogen will float away from the accident too, unlike gasoline which will pool around it.
Click to expand...
I do remember a certain manufacture putting a gas tank external from the frame and having a major recall on that series trucks. . . I believe it was late 80's or early 90's. . . and yes cars do explode sometimes in accidents if the gas tank is punctured. . .

Where is Famine to shed light on this subject???
 
Originally posted by retsmah
My point is that you are no worse off with a hydrogen tank in your car than you are with a gas tank.
Click to expand...
I believe hydrogen is more dangerous then gas. . . Gas will burn and explode, but gas is heavy and falls to the ground. . . Hydrogen being light, will raise as it burns with an upward effect going directly in the passenger and trunk departments. . . burning you to a crispy death. . .
 
http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/h2ch8.htm

Some info on hydrogen fires. One of the points they bring up is that a hydrogen fire wont spread heat around that much. I read one study, although I'm having some difficulty in finding it now, where a hydrogen tank was attatched to a car, punctured and lit on fire... despite the fact that the car's fuel tank was burning, there wasn't any significant rise in the temperature inside the car. I'll see if I can find that one again.
 
I doubt gasoline cars will ever be illegal... I sure would be pissed... I mean if old cars can still be driven limitedly ont eh street then all we have to worry about is the severity of future restrictions on gas cars... not prohibition...
 
Let me start by saying that I love a traditional gasoline engined car. I don't like the idea where upgrading a car is distrubingly similar to adding RAM to my computer. That said....

Alternative fuel sources are not necessarily slow. First, remember that electric motors are capable of huge horsepower. (Modern locomotives actually use a system quite similar to a Hybrid car, where a diesel motor charges batteries, which power the train itself. Those motors can have in excess of 1000HP each.) There are electric cars which can run the 1/4 in under 10 seconds.

Hybrid cars are not necessarily slow, either. Under accelleration, the Prius puts out 152HP. And it only puts out a relative low number like that because of the emphasis on fuel economy. Imagine a hybrid that got the same economy as an average sports car. It could very well have more than 500HP.

Pure electric cars, however, are unlikely to become popular. Limitations in range are too large to overcome without a large leap in battery technology.

Hydrogen is not as dangerous as people think. But those points have already been made. One interesting fact is that the rotary engine is ideally suited for hydrogen power. Mazda has a prototype SE3P (RX-8) running on hydrogen. The conversion required almost no modification to the engine itself.
 
Originally posted by miata13B
That would be a moving bomb. . . image the accidents and then the cost to the local government for road repair. . . minus the peons lost in the accident but still, *snip*
Click to expand...

How is that any different than what we have now? ;)

I certainly think that alternative fuels that are near infinite would be more desirable. I can see cars in the future being less entertainment and more functional, perhaps even cars on guidance systems....personal subways if you will.
 
I do remember a certain manufacture putting a gas tank external from the frame and having a major recall on that series trucks. . . I believe it was late 80's or early 90's. . . and yes cars do explode sometimes in accidents if the gas tank is punctured. . .
Click to expand...

That would be the S-Trucks. Ever see a early 90's Blazer get hit? Big boom.

But other then that I'm for maybe switching to deisle since you get more mileage outta them.
 
Right now Toyota seems to be pushing the most for converting their cars into hybrids. While this is just a start to alternative fuels it's a good start for them. The thing is it won't just be the death of a gasoline powered car but an industry like American car companies for instance. They are really gonna be up a creek because with gas price going the way they are now (at least in the U.S.). There is already becoming a big demand, for example the Prius. I have to say I was a bit disappointed when I found out that the prius was getting 40mpg rather than the claimed 50-60mpg rating. With the upcoming Highlander and RX330 hybrids they should become even more appealing for the typical "SUV" owner that wants to have their cake and eat it too. :rolleyes:

On another funny note, they interviewed this black guy, here's how the conversation went.

Reporter: So how do you feel about gas prices here in the bayarea?

Black guy: I hate it, I spend $220 a WEEK

Reporter: Have you thought about getting rid of your car?? (his "ride" a black Escalade probably dub style too :rolleyes: )

Black guy: Nah man, I can't get rid of my car, I love this car.

There you have it... :rolleyes:
 
You might see cars being coverted to LP (Propane, Liquid Petrolium). I see vehicles (mostly older trucks with 350's, 351's ect) with propane kits in them. At $.79 per gallon, and getting 20+ mpg, it's a great savings for them.
 
Originally posted by BlazinXtreme
wow thats the most racist thing I've heard all day
Click to expand...

Stereotyping maybe.....but certainly not racist in my opinion.
 
To explain, alternative fuel source cars CAN NOT take over. It's for all extensive reasons impossible. The gov. would have to force people to sell thier cars and buy these new cars, and that's not gonna happen.

Hydrogen cars for the most part look like regular cars. For instence, Mazda has several hydrogen concept cars and they all look like thier gas-powered counterpart, including a Demio, Premacy, even the RX-8. I like the idea of hydrogen power, it's the closest to gas power in terms of how the car would drive and sound.
As for it being a moving "bomb", people who think this are RETARDED.
Into mind comes the Hindenburg. Allow me to explain Hydrogen's roll in this event:
The Hindenburg was coming in for the landing under cloudy/stormy conditions with a lot of electronegativity and static. The Hindenburg's outer shell was made of a, get this, jet fuel coated nylon material, squares of it tied together with strings. As the blimp moved through the air, it collects a load of static electricity which normally wouldn't be a big deal, except on that day, a spark was created between 2 of the jet fuel coated nylon and it cought it on fire. HYDROGEN BURNS CLEARISH. The fire started out orange and red, like a normal fire. In fact, the hydrogen chambers didn't explode untill the fire got so intense and burned through some fixings. The Hindenburg would have burned down REGARDLESS of the hydrogen.

I dislike gas/electic hybrids because they tend to be heavy, don't have much room(due to the storage batteries and charging systems), and you're still using gas.
 
I think it's a valid steretype, but yes maybe leave out the black part because no matter what the person is they all have that same damn black escalade with dub style rims, some with those retarded spinners. I like a suv with the prop on the back though, that's funny. Some older style Escalades try to get in the act to by changing their rims like the new ones too. That's always cool. :rolleyes:
 
In all honesty, the use of hydrogen will do no more than make the car work harder. I've been developing a design in my mind now for over three years involving water and an engine and getting that engine to run off the water. It's pretty cool stuff. If you can get the hydrogen and oxygen in water to split, and then run that into the engine, you have the perfect mixture of hydrogen and oxygen entering the tank providing for optimum expansion and maximum power output. The cool part is that the only exhaust produced is more water (which may or may not be allowed to run back into the gas tank...). Anyway, here's an intersting fact; gasoline when exploding at optimum efficiency only expands 4-6 times, whereas hydrogen is all the way up at 14 (I think, I may have a number or two wrong there), so the fact is that hydrogen would make an engine 3 or more times more powerful than it already is. Also, the thing I've been developing can potentially be a modification to cars already running on gasoline, so you wouldn't have to buy your new one, just pay me about $50 and get a modification that saves the planet and makes your car more powerful. It's all good. :)

Oh yeah, just figure I'd add that water is the most plentiful resource on the planet, and purifying it somewhat isn't all that hard...
 
True. Water is indeed one of the most plentiful resources. But then, where does the energy required to split the water come from?

A feasible way of splitting water quickly is through the use of electrolysis (if there's a faster way, I don't know about it. I'm only in Chem 11). Yet, we still require electricity to start the process of electrolysis. Where does that energy come from? Power plants. Of course, this would not play that big of an effect, as the electricity required to start the process would be equivalent of the car battery required to start the normal everyday gasoline engine we have today.

Personally, I think hydrogen powered cars would be great! As jpec already mentioned, the expansion of hydrogen is a few times larger than the expansion of gasoline. Automakers just need more time to test out new prototypes and see what the optimum way to use the energy is.

As for the government forcing everyone to switch to electric/hydrogen cars, I don't see a problem. The government could possibly introduce a clean-air tax, where the owner of a hydrogen/electric car would not have to pay, compared to the owner of a gasoline powered car who would have to pay. But the introduction of this new tax should be announced 4 years ahead, as people need time to change. As well, during those 4 years before the actual tax comes into play, car dealers all switch to hydrogen/electric powered cars. If one insists on buying a gasoline powered car, they would have to pay the tax.
 
You say where will the energy come from to split the atoms. Well it's already there. At night there is tons and tons of energy wasted away because plants are putting out just as much as they do during the day. All this excess energy could be used during this time. Particularly I'm talking about nuclear power simply because you can't just turn off a nuclear plant like maybe you can with coal burning. It makes since cause Nuclear plants are near water and water is what you need to make hydrogen.

Now I'm not saying that I am the biggest fan of this technology. Environmental issues are no long relivant since we have witnessed to Ozone rebuilding itself. But here in California gas is a *****. I personally would not like to rely on foriegn oil anymore. I don't know how much hydrogen would cost but it sure beats feeding money to people outside this country.
 
Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Anyone want to take a stab as to when we'll use all of the oil in the world?

I'm placing my bets on 2027.
Click to expand...

january 24 2039 sounds good to me...

I believe i have read about another theoretical method used to obtain hydrogen atoms. I will ask my dad about it... he has more free time than i...
 
Originally posted by halfracedrift
True. Water is indeed one of the most plentiful resources. But then, where does the energy required to split the water come from?

A feasible way of splitting water quickly is through the use of electrolysis (if there's a faster way, I don't know about it. I'm only in Chem 11). Yet, we still require electricity to start the process of electrolysis. Where does that energy come from? Power plants. Of course, this would not play that big of an effect, as the electricity required to start the process would be equivalent of the car battery required to start the normal everyday gasoline engine we have today.
Click to expand...

You think I would post this without having thought about all this? Yes, electrolysis would be the best way to separate the water into the two base elements, and yes, it does require a bit of charge. However, my idea is really complex. I learned through a set of experiments that I ran that above 12V the voltage really has no effect on the electrolysis that is happening. However, when you increase the surface area of the electrodes, the amount of water being split goes up exponentially. Well, naturally humongous electrodes in the gas tank=good electrolysis happening. But how does the electrolysis start? Well, I have a few theories for this (including capacitors, rechargeable batteries, and even hand cranks). I'm actually going to work on making an engine run off hydrogen for my science experiment this year, and prove that it's more efficient than gasoline (or disprove it; either way I win). In a year or so, I'll post back and link to this thread...
 
Electrolysis is not a process you "start" with electricity, it has to be run with electricity, meaning that if you want electrolysis to happen you have to keep pumping in electricity.

In addition to that, in practice you will probably get out a bit less energy then you put in, you certainly won't get out more engery than you put in. If you put in 1000 joules of energy, you get maybe 990 or something back. That's really the only problem with hydrogen, is that to make enough to power all the cars you need an insane amount of electricty, and if you really want the car's to be 'clean' that electricity has to come from clean power sources, which don't really exist yet.

So, to get away from fossil fuel use we have to build a whole new set of power plants and a whole lot of new infrastructure. It's not easy or cheap... but that's really the only option.

In practice a hydrogen car would almost certainly not generate it's own hydrogen, instead it would be generated at a central location and pumped into cars. I've heard a few people say they believe that the technology is available to make a car run on water, but that isn't true at all.
 

Latest Posts

Back