building cars that run on coal

[TRUTHisnotfacts]

How come the government will not build cars that run on fuels that are not oil ?

could the government start to build cars 100 years from now that run on a liquids from a source of coal underground ?

[R.A.F.]

How come the government will not build cars that run on coal ?

Because we are trying to cut down on pollution, not increase it.??

[slang]

How come the government will not build cars that run on coal ?

Governments are not in the car-building business. (Well, except the bailout stuff of course, but that's politics and as such a forbidden topic here.)

[sarongsong]

...I think coal could take cars into a future of speed...

How?

[TRUTHisnotfacts]

The world needs to start thinking about 100 and even more years into the future for power and ways to travel .


what if one day they could make a car that could run off fuels that was not from oil sources ?

Liquid fuels from a coal source or something ?

will the governments build future cars 100 or more years from today that could run on liquids produced from liquid technologies from coal that is underground ?

[R.A.F.]

...a recharge in the flux drive...

Say what??

If America could build cars that run off Coal fuels that would be cool .

If you just wanted to monologue on how "cool" your idea was, then you need not have posted it to a discussion forum.

[raptorthang]

Coal is the pricipal generator of electricity in the world and the percent will increase in the next 50 years. That coal-generated electricity is and will continue to be the primary source of power for fuel cells and other vehicle innovations.

So one need not put a lump of coal into the vehicle but to plug into an electrical outlet or fill with a fuel manufactured using coal power.

[sarongsong]

It's been looked at:

June 11, 2007
Energy researchers at Carnegie Mellon University...ran the numbers...the government...should focus on developing plug-in hybrids rather than turning coal into gasoline...while you can certainly run cars on liquid coal, it takes a lot of energy to turn coal into something that’ll flow out of a gas pump, and it’s dirty, dirty, dirty along the way...driving a coal-powered car for a year would lead to total emissions of 14,200 pounds, or about 6.5 tonnes. A plug-in hybrid driven the same way would lead to total emissions of 2,800 pounds, or about 1.25 tonnes...a traditional car would need to get 69 miles to the gallon before catching up in efficiency to a plug-in hybrid...
ecolibertarian.com

[R.A.F.]

...one need not put a lump of coal into the vehicle but to plug into an electrical outlet or fill with a fuel manufactured using coal power.

With all respect, do you really believe that is what TRUTHisnotfacts meant in his OP?

[kleindoofy]

Cars that run on coal?

Sure. Let conspiracy theorists build them so that internet trolls can buy them.

[Nick Theodorakis]

There is nothing new about using coal to power internal combustion engines. The Germans converted coal into liquid fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process during WWII because they had not enough access to petroleum. Going even further back, in 1859 Jean Joseph Étienne Lenoir built an internal combustion engine that ran on coal gas.

Although there are abundant reserves of coal in the US, developing (or re-developing, as the case may be) these into an alternative fuel to power cars is a step backward, IMO. Coal is likely to have even worse environmental cost to burning and processing relative to oil, it does nothing to reduce carbon emissions, and in terms of mining and extraction, is horrendously hard on the environment and human cost. The coal mining industry makes the oil drilling industry seem like Greenpeace by comparison.

Nick

[raptorthang]

There is some confusion between the coal industry and coal as a direct fuel. The coal mining industry can be either environmentally better or worse than the oil industry depending on a whole host of variable. it can be better or worse than natural gas, hydro etc., again depending on many variables.

The bottom line is that coal is the principal generator of electricity in the world and will remain so for decades. Here in Alberta we have huge reserves of both coal and oil...coal is used for electricity production as it is more efficient and cost effective than using oil..oil that can be sold into the US market at a greater return.

[TRUTHisnotfacts]

so there will never be any cars made that can run off anything but oil ?

I heard of something about making a car run on water ? is that true

I was just asking if maybe in the future 100 or more years the government could make liquids from liquids extracted from coals deep underground not coal its self
but coal liquids that could power energy ?

Maybe that stuff is 100s of years in the future to get a liquid coal base production ands turning it into a fuel and then the hard part would be building a car that could run off of that stuff .

cars today run on gas and batteries ..


but maybe in 100 years the government will make cars run on liquids extracted from coals ? maybe not just a question

[kleindoofy]

Ignoring the rest for the meantime, why "the government"?

[JustAFriend]

Both the Germans and the Japanese ran vehicles on synthetic fuel from coal and wood in WWII.

As everyone else has said, the government is not in the car R&D business, but they ARE stepping down hard on the use of coal.

[pzkpfw]

TRUTHisnotfacts, there are several instances in this thread of you being quoted and asked a question. Yet the text quoted does not appear in your post. That's confusing.

Just in case you have not noticed it, please check out rule 11 here: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules...ing-board.html

It's not a biggie (e.g. you did not break the 24 hour limit), and a little bit of editing of your posts is fine, but doing it after someone has quoted it and asked you about it is getting a bit close to the line.

Thanks,



Edit to add: Try this google search: http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en...meta=&aq=f&oq=

I have an idea that in wartime Germany they had cars running on coal or wood gas. I'll try to search it out for you later today.

[novaderrik]

does biodiesel count as "not oil"? how about ethanol?
how about plug in electrics with owners that live in an area that gets most or all of their power from a hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant?

[R.A.F.]

I heard of something about making a car run on water ?

Oh, for Pete's sake...do you believe everything you hear??

[R.A.F.]

...a little bit of editing of your posts is fine, but doing it after someone has quoted it and asked you about it is getting a bit close to the line.

I had not even noticed that...it makes my post (that quoted him) look like I'm just "making up" arguments.

I do not appreciate that TRUTHisnotfacts...please do not do that again.

[robross]

We already invented cars that run on coal. They are called "trains", and they were very popular 100-200 years ago. The only downside is they had to run on these things called "tracks", that didn't always go in the direction you wanted to go.

Rob

[AndrewJ]

Swapping one finite pollutant for another would strain the standard of living and international security of future generations.

[Gillianren]

so there will never be any cars made that can run off anything but oil ?

Do you not see a difference between "there is no real reason to believe that there will be cars running on coal" and "there is no real reason to believe that there will be cars running on not-petroleum"?

[mugaliens]

Coal is the pricipal generator of electricity in the world and the percent will increase in the next 50 years. That coal-generated electricity is and will continue to be the primary source of power for fuel cells and other vehicle innovations.

So one need not put a lump of coal into the vehicle but to plug into an electrical outlet or fill with a fuel manufactured using coal power.

Bingo.

Although I would prefer to see cleaner energy sources than coal spring up to supply the ergs...

nuclear/wind/solar

[djellison]

The world needs to start thinking about 100 and even more years into the future for power and ways to travel .

Because we will be almost out of coal in 100 years - you don't shift transport from one finite resource onto another.

There are cars, NOW, that run on Bioethanol, Biodiesel, Hydrogen and Electricity. So it is not true to suggest that cars all run on fossil fuels.

Again, I'm left wondering - what's your point?

[Hornblower]

If it is concluded that a large amount of carbon dioxide emission is a climate-change hazard, then we need to sequester the stuff before the exhaust meets the air. That would be much more practical in a large, stationary power plant than in an individual motor vehicle. If we can make a coal-fired installation clean, then we can use it to generate electricity and perhaps some hydrogen for our cars.

[DrRocket]

How come the government will not build cars that run on fuels that are not oil ?

could the government start to build cars 100 years from now that run on a liquids from a source of coal underground ?

The government buys cars (lots of them) but doesn't build them.

Cars that run on coal and wood were once very popular, as noted in this Wiki article.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer



Also I think someone mentioned and was looking for more detail on production of synthetic fuels from coal. Here is some information (also Wiki) on the Fischer-Tropsch process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch

[Ara Pacis]

Yes, cars can use water... if it's a steam engine, but it needs a separate fuel source of heat. Or you could electrolize water into hydrogen and oxygen and burn it or use it in a fuel cell.

[Paul Beardsley]

Didn't Noddy have a clockwork car?

Or was it someone else in Slade?

[DrRocket]

Yes, cars can use water... if it's a steam engine, but it needs a separate fuel source of heat. Or you could electrolize water into hydrogen and oxygen and burn it or use it in a fuel cell.

OF COURSE a steam engine needs a source of heat. Water is just a working fluid.

A steam engine no more uses water as a source of energy than does a water-cooled internal combustion engine.

Electrolyis of water is a net energy loser, and likely will remain completely impractical unless and until controlled fusion becomes feasible on a large commercial scale.

Thermodynamics has been around and a well-established piece of physics for quite some time. Violating the second law is a losing proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

[captain swoop]

Didn't Noddy have a clockwork car?

Or was it someone else in Slade?

lol!