Talk:Alternative fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Incorrect Link?
Under "Catagorization", then "Gasoline type biofuels", there is a link to the Butanol article. Given the subject nature of the article in discussion, would it not be more relevant to redirect this link the article concerning Butanol as an alternative fuel for use in combustion engines specifically?
The article I propose for the redirection is here: Butanol_fuel
I've refrained from just jumping in straight away and changing it. I felt it was better to get some feedback on this before I did so.
--Zonkbert 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question for Community--Is Natural Gas Really An Alternative Fuel?
Put differently, is an alternative fuel really anything other than oil? The orginal fuel used by hunter/gatherers was non-decomposed biological matter--basically wood and other things like that--just thinking outloud here, but shouldn't an alternative fuel be anything other than wood? Or perhaps wood, oil, natural gas, etc?
Does 'alternative fuel' really tell us anything about the type of fuel, and should it continue to predominate our language?
I'm open to hearing ideas, but I argue that there are renewable types of energy, and non-renewable forms of energy. Petroleum, natural gas, and coal would be non-renewable--there is a finite amount of this in the ground.
Sun, wind, fuel from crops (assuming there are enough nutrients in the ground to grow crops infinitely), and things such as this would be renewable.
Thoughts?
Was Francois P. Cornish and his water engine? Apparently, David Mamet's play (and movie) about Charles Lang is pure fiction.
I have also introduced a category - Alternative propulsion. Some were claiming that the term is vague but its widely used in Europe. So we could put together all three articles? --Gerfriedc 08:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
"Fuel is any material that is capable of releasing energy when its chemical or physical structure is changed or converted" - Fuel Alternative means something not being used at the moment. So that means combustion of coal, natural gas and hydrogen (amongst other things Fossil fuels) as well as nuclear fuel (enriched uranium etc, the sun) and the battery (technically the fuel wouldn't be the cell, it's the contents of the cell such as the zinc and chloride in a zinc-chloride cell). Waves, geothermic activity and wind are not 'fuels', but they are energy sources.
Alternative may be seen as 'alternative to what we use now', which is how most politicians like to see it, so that they're using 'alternative' fuel in their LPG cars, but others see 'alternative' fuels as being non-fossil fuels, non-carbon fuels, or renewable energy sources.
Alternative fuel is really more of a social construct than a scientific term. Most power plants in Australia use coal, so oil is an alternative fuel, but France has a lot of nuclear power so they might consider coal an alternative. Certainly as oil prices rise many people are thinking of coal as an alternative fuel, even though burning coal can be as bad if not worse than burning oil. --everbloom 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternatives to oil
I'm afraid in merging with "Fuel" we have orphaned those uses of oil which do not include "fuel" Oil is a base for petrochemicals as well as plastics and pesticides (a non-fuel petrochemical). These are quite important uses of oil, and I suggest we find a way to embrace them. Perhaps we merge the other way - and make Energy one of several uses for oil which require alternatives? Benjamin Gatti
[edit] Perpetual motion?
What were "perpetual motion machines" doing in the section about Alternatives to oil? Perpetual motion is impossible not just "today", as was written, but is impossible—full stop. Being in space has no influence whatsoever. Unless someone manages to workaround the the second law of thermodynamics (quite unlikely), no such machine can be built. I mean, these things were debunked two centuries ago. --Orzetto 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, this Perpetual motion machines is also so important to know. Sometimes it's so hard for us to know what this is. This is also kind of alternative fuel that we have to know.
-
- Bah. I've removed all references to perpetual motion, free energy, and scams like water fuel cells. They have their own Wikis where their unique problems (like lack of reality) are discussed in full.Sbharris 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs revision
If the article is about alternative "fuels", that is "methods of powering an engine" (as the article states), I don't see why the article should mention nuclear power (fission and/or fusion) which are means to *produce* electricity, hydrogen, and so on ("fuels"). So I think the article needs a complete rewrite: alternatives should be battery-driven cars (using lead, lithium batteries and so on), cell-driven cars (hydrogen), and so on... 213.140.21.231 10:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Electricity isn't "fuel"
The phrase "alternative fuel" applies to the (usually) liquid fuel used in various forms of combustion engines. Electricity is an alternative power source, but is NOT an alternative fuel.
- This is a matter of definition. The current article's opening definition "Alternative fuel is any method of powering an engine that does not involve petroleum (oil)" does include electricity, since electricity IS a method of powering an engine that does not (necessarily) involve petroleum. In addition, according to the American Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=11dp3p8snumsq?tname=fuel&method=6&sbid=lc04 a fuel is "something consumed to produce energy", so electricity is a fuel according to this definition too. I would also object to considering electricity a "power source". It is an energy vector, not a source, since you must use another energy source to create it (hydro, solar, nuclear, wind, petroleum...). So I would say that electricity IS a fuel and ISN'T a power source. 213.140.21.231 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ya'll are in danger of going around in perpetual circles here. Look up electricity in Wiktionary: #1 definition: "Electricity is a form of energy". Machines convert one form of energy into another. For example, burning gasoline in a car engine converts chemical energy (by burning) into heat energy (expanding gasses) into mechanical energy (piston turns crankshaft), into kinetic energy (drivetrain causes motion of vehicle).
- The usual meaning of the word fuel is a substance which can be burned to release energy in the form of heat (in a sense this includes nuclear fuel). See Fuel; line #1 says "Fuel is a material ...." Electricity is not a substance, and cannot be burned. It's good to be clear on these definitions, but in the meantime, the PROBLEM is NOT abstract.
- I've added a possible opening line which probably *shouldn't* be specific about powering an engine (an alternative fuel might power my cigarette lighter, my iPod, my bicycle ...) but I left that for someone else to worry about.
- Twang 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've defined this as fuel for mobile engines, which leaves out your computer. Perhaps this is inapppropriate, but I have the idea that replacements for transportation fuels are what are to be discussed in this article. For mobile electrically-connected engines (electric trolleys, etc) then electricity serves as a sort of "fuel."Sbharris 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need information on HHO gas
I saw a web cast of a new fuel called HHO made from water through electrolysis. It is currently being used in industry for use in torches that can weld anything from plastic to jewelry. As a self oxidizing fuel, it is not suitable for rocket engines (non-air-breathing) because it has a lower power to weight then liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel. However, when used in an air-breathing engine, it can create a significant effect of thermal expansion and shockwave making it far more efficient. Electrolysis consumes as much energy as burning H2 and O2 gas can create. Burning HHO in an air breathing engine however produces significantly more energy (need source for how much more). It has been proven that a Ford Taurus with very few modifications can run for 100 miles (160 Km.) on only 4 ounces (113.4g) of HHO fuel. Though electrolysis consumes energy, the HHO fuel itself is completely non-polluting.
Auto makers are already looking into HHO as an alternative fuel. It is not known at this time if HHO can be used in gas turbine engines, but could have dramatic effects on air travel if it were possible. It is far more stable than petroleum fuel or pure H2 making it safer. It weighs a little more but a little goes a long way.
If anybody can find more information on HHO, please add it here and/or write an article about it.
That has been debunked. It would be some kind of perpetual motion machine, if it were true.
[edit] bio diesel
i make bio diesel for a living so im badass
[edit] Should we?
Should we switch to the alternative fuels ASAP or should we wait until we run out of all the other sources? Post a comment or e-mail me at Pez5600@AOL.com Vex
[edit] Technical Issues, facts of methane hydrate, oil sands
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe methane hydrate is derived from true "fossil" sources (i.e., previously living matter).
I believe oil sands are essentially proven as a reserve, am I wrong?
Mikiemike 04:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vandalization
Deleting this section as its inappropriatte, like the spelling of this word. XYZ CrVo 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of Alternative Fuels
- A fuel that is not commonly(not in the majority) used to supply energy. XYZ CrVo 03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A new external link that would contribute more info
I agree JensC 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)JensC I believe it would be quite useful to many and quite informative to add an external link to www.alternatefuelsworld.com because it is one of the most complete sites available on the subject on the web. Disclaimer: This is not my site but I do know Dan Sweeney. Paul1943Paul1943 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Natural Gas
It says natural gas is a conventional and an alternative fuel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.99.22 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste.
"Electricity produced in a typical fusion facility would create radioactive waste, thus there are some safety concerns."
..sorry - new to this whole wiki editing thing. Just wanted to point out that this line is totally wrong. Fission reactions creates radioactive waste. Fusion reactions don't. I'll leave it to one of you to make the edit. 68.44.133.62 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)apierion
-
- Wiki is a place to learn new things! Actually, very many fusion designs produce radioactive waste. Particularly designs which tap power off the fusion reaction by using a reaction which produces most of the energy in fast neutrons, end up having to stop the neutrons to use the kinetic energy, and there's no way to stop a lot of fast neutrons without the whole works becoming radioactive over time, via neutron activation. The only good thing to be said about such activity is that it's not transuranic activity, so the half-lives are usually comparitively short, and thus the storage time for wastes tend to be short by comparison to those for fission fuel rods, etc. Which means tens or hundreds of years, instead of milennia. Alas, the "waste" is sometimes the whole powerplant. We won't know for sure until we make one and use it, but present designs look like things you might just have "Chernobilize" in concrete at the ends of their useful lives.SBHarris 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
