5 Responses

1. Water
   this is forreal check this out

2. deffanatly….hydrogen will cost less also

3. hydrogen is too cumbustible, ethanol is the more reliable. As far as gas disappearing, that’s not gonna happen. There’s enough crude oil just in Canada alone to replace the World’s oil usage for the next 100 years. Gas shortage rumors are just that, rumors and scare tactics.

4. Well i don’t know how ether can be used as fuel but I know ether when oxidized can be become explosive.So i think hydrogen fuel cells are much better. But we need further technological advancement to make non conventional fuel sources cost effective.

5. Your question is much more complicated than that. For one thing, you can’t buy a hydrogen or ether car. I don’t know what ether is, but I’m assuming you mean some kind of alcohol. The problem with all liquid fuels that they give off carbon dioxide as their primary combustion byproduct. Since excess carbon dioxide may be linked with global warming, one problem (among many others) is that performing any kind of BURNING in order to power your automobile results in the production of carbon dioxide. That rules out ‘ether’ – it’s barely better than gasoline. If you are looking to the future, we need to move towards all-electric cars, since CONSUMING electricity produces no pollution at all, AND no carbon dioxide either. However, here’s where the problem becomes more complex, since generating hydrogen and/or electricity is another story entirely: Currently, most of our hydrogen is produced via – you guessed it – the burning of fuel, which produces huge amounts of carbon dioxide at the power plant. That simply relocates the problem from one place to another. While we do produce some of our electricity from hydroelectric plants, nuclear plants, and wind farms, those sources combined still do not provide all the energy we currently consume.- and the risks of nuclear electric production are well known, including acts of terror. But it gets worse: even if we produced all our energy via non-polluting methods, there is no battery technology extant which can store enough energy to adequately power a car. In other words, all-electric battery powered cars currently have a very limited range (barely 100 miles in most cases), excess weight due to the mass of the batteries (weight reduces energy efficiency), and very slow recharging times (on the order of hours).

   The bottom line? We need new inventions. We need to invent lighter, higher storage capacity batteries. We need to invent new ways to produce and distribute electricity that do not pollute the air and water, and which produce no carbon dioxide as a by-product, meaning they cannot BURN any sort of fuel at all. I am looking forward to this future, but it may take decades or lifetimes, although I am always hopeful that a ‘miracle’ invention could be right around the corner.

   Meanwhile, hydrogen is a losing proposition, because the plants that produce it emit tons of carbon dioxide, and consume more energy in the process than can be extracted from the hydrogen produced. The best pracitcable solutions are to increase auto and plant efficiencies (using less fuel produces less pollution), while the US government and business cooperate by investing in research to discover new battery technology, and new electricity production technology. As a long-time opponent of nuclear energy, I am gradually changing my position, and now support nuclear power, but only if we can invent new technologies that are safe (i.e., where meltdowns are not possible – this technology does exist), and invent new technologies for disposing of the radioactive waste.

   In the meantime, don’t donate you old Buick just yet.