you can split water and get hydrogen. I dont know why they dont just do that.. although you would have to consider the cost of the electricity needed to do so.E85 is worthless. If it wasn't for goverment subsidies, it would cost even more per gallon. I think we are barking up the wrong tree (stalk) with the ethonal fuel. I think the best be for a clean fuel source will be Hydrogen. We can already make cars that run on Hydrogen, we just can produce it in mass quantities economically yet. As soon as someone in Private Industry (Because no gooberment can do it) finds an economical way to produce Hydrogen, we will solve a ton of our "oil" problems. There is current research going on right now to culture a zooplankton in ponds to produce Hydrogen on site at fueling stations, all goes well until the population crashs, and the fact that it currently takes more energy to keep the population alive than they create in hydrogen. If exxon through some money behind the research, I bet we would see a whole lot more hydrogen fueled cars.
That would be nice. Just fill'er up with the old dihydrous oxide (H20).you can split water and get hydrogen. I dont know why they dont just do that.. although you would have to consider the cost of the electricity needed to do so.
Yeah, what he and Nfarra said!:tu: Ethanol is not competitve to traditional fuels until, perhaps, we can import cheap ethanol from South America. The corn lobby has blocked this, but sugar produces more energy from less crop making ethanol cost-competitive even when you take into consideration 35% (or more) less mpg. Even then, it is iffy.E85 - the expensive gasoline alternative! Not only is it hard to find in most states (if available at all), but more expensive, and produces less energy (i.e. reduced mpg). Yes, it produces less hydocarbons than typical gasoline combustion, but produces others that are not currently being tested for or regulated, yet. Ethanol is not going to solve the energy crisis (although may help some farmer's financial crisis), and having a flex-fuel vehicle isn't earth-shattering. A true hybrid with powerful electric motors that will spool the motor up and conserve fuel while at a stop would be a bigger benefit to the truck (IMO).
If you're interested in the entire article, go here:Flex Fuel’s Big Pay-off
With fewer than 600 stations selling E85 fuel in 37 states, why have GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler been cranking out these flex-fuel vehicles by the millions?
The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.
The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.
Calculating backward from our test Tahoe’s window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe’s CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM’s average. What’s that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That’s not chump change, even for the auto giant.
they get the hydrogen from natural gasyou can split water and get hydrogen. I dont know why they dont just do that.. although you would have to consider the cost of the electricity needed to do so.