Water powered car!

[Clawg]

Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SslCpQ26IY

edit:

Upon further research I think that there could be a (high-energy) catalysator involved (like aluminum), but it still would be an improvement to H2-gas stations.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Clawg

[DavidV]

car that runs on nothing but water.

Water is a pretty stable molecule, so it takes a lot of energy to break its bonds. According to Wikipedia:

Decomposition of pure water into hydrogen and oxygen at standard temperature and pressure is not favorable in thermodynamical terms. This is because, E(cell)=E(Oxidation) + E(Reduction). If E(cell) < 0, reaction is not favorable. ... Thus, the standard potential of the water electrolysis cell is 1.23 V at 25 °C.

Thus, the claims in the video are absurd.

energy generator

Energy cannot be "generated" - only changed from form to another.

generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car

Since atomic bonds are pretty strong, electrons cannot be "released" in significant numbers without a massive energy input, such as a nuclear fission/fusion. The heat differential from a nuclear reaction can be made to do work, but this is not electricity, which is a "wave" not a "flow" of electrons. You'd need a (relatively inefficient) steam turbine to convert the heat differential of a nuclear reaction to electric current.

So unless this car runs on plutonium, this is nonsense.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

The major source of hydrogen is water. Alas the energy necessary to dissociate water molecules into O2 and H2 cannot be recovered by oxidation, catalytic processes (as in a fuel cell). The only way to really get lots of energy out of free hydrogen is by fusion and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Hydrogen (except in fusion) is -not- a primary energy source. It is a way of storing energy and inefficiently at that. One can profitable use hydrogen fuel cells in situations where other chemical processes are not feasable such as generating electricity on a space vessel or in a submarine.

The much vaunted Hydrogen Economy is a slogan, a catchword and a hype-dream.

Every time there is a gas crunch (shortage or price rise) schemes for burning water come out of every nook and cranny along with rumors of motors that can get 3000 miles to the gallon. This is a lot of crap.

The only way were are going to have hydrogen powered cars and trucks is if we can generate electricity cheaply and in plentiful amounts. Then we can dissociate water and we can afford the low efficiency of using the molecular hydrogen so generated. We can do it too. Just build a thousand or two thousand fission generating stations. Of course we will have to eliminate the ecology freaks first.

ruveyn

[agrippa1]

The efficiency for an electrolyzer/fuel cell system is about 50%, and the energy density is not much higher than for the latest battery technology (500-1000 W*hr/kg v. 400+W*hr/kg). Transportation of H2 is not economically feasible, so hydrogen is fast being driven out as a fuel option.

I saw the burning water piece a few months ago. Funny they never talk about how much energy is required to generate the RF radiation.

As for the "water car," it's hell of a lot easier to separate money from fools than H2 from H2O. These hacks are claiming the latter to achieve the former.

[Inspector]

the energy density is not much higher than for the latest battery technology (500-1000 W*hr/kg v. 400+W*hr/kg).

And while the energy density of batteries does seem to be on a steady climb, I don't see how they could increase the energy density of hydrogen fuel cells. If that supposition is true, that would make hydrogen fuel cells a complete dead end.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

And while the energy density of batteries does seem to be on a steady climb, I don't see how they could increase the energy density of hydrogen fuel cells. If that supposition is true, that would make hydrogen fuel cells a complete dead end.

Catalytic fuel cells have their use in specialized conditions. Such as power aboard a space vessel or in a place where oxygen is scarce and burning is not feasible.

ruveyn

[Clawg]

Well, without technical specification / additional information it's not possible to determine at which point the additional energy is inserted into the system, after all the car drives.

Maybe they simply found a little more efficient / more safe way to power an electric car.

[Matus1976]

And while the energy density of batteries does seem to be on a steady climb, I don't see how they could increase the energy density of hydrogen fuel cells. If that supposition is true, that would make hydrogen fuel cells a complete dead end.

Well, see, you can find something that you can bind hydrogen to which holds it easily in a much denser form. The best binding medium might be something which pulls hydrogen into a liquid at room temperature. If only we had something like that... hmm... oh wait, we do, its called CARBON =P

I love how everyone is racing to find these great hydrogen binding storage systems, like rare metal sponges or super pressurized tanks. Hey we all ready got a great hydrogen binding medium in the form of carbon, which makes gasoline. In fact there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. And no need to change the infrastructure.

What I think we'll eventually see is a nuclear powered or solar primary infrastructure, and since liquid hydrocarbons are excellent energy storage mediums, with the lightest liquid at room temperature hydrocarbon manufactured synthetically from cheap electricity from nuclear power plants, this would probably be methanol. Running direct methanol fuel cell it would have a longer range than a conventional gasoline engined car, even with the lower energy density of methanol.

We would probably all ready be well on this path if not for the environmentalist whackos which hijacked and derailed the natural technological progression toward nuclear power.

[John McVey]

What I think we'll eventually see is a nuclear powered or solar primary infrastructure

When coal runs out, yes, but that's not happening any time soon. Nuclear does have its place, but coal will remain a major supplier of base load for a long time yet. I don't think much of solar except in niche applications, though saline algae biodiesel might have merit (I can see problems with it).

this would probably be methanol.

Even on the premise that crude oil is running out, an idea whose import is questionable at the moment, it's highly speculative to muse about things like that without paying due attention to the economics of other legitimate alternatives to standard crude oil as a source of transport fuel. These include tar sands (big in Canada at the moment), LPG (common as dirt in Australia), oil shale (pilot plants in the US), coal-to-liquid and coal-to-gas (both of which are viable technologies under many conditions). Biodiesel from corn and other regular plant sources is nothing but subsidy-whoring AFAICT, but biodiesel from saline algae just might be genuinely viable as a use for otherwise waste land. These technologies are also likely to be present in multiple, with the economics varying from region to region (eg ethanol from sugarcane is supposedly genuinely viable for Brazil?). Similarly, depending on the paths of development, I wouldn't be betting on any single technology being the Big Thing because the economics can alter this way and that over time. In short, I wouldn't assign "probably" to any one in particular at all.

We would probably all ready be well on this path if not for the environmentalist whackos which hijacked and derailed the natural technological progression toward nuclear power.

The problems we're seeing with oil supplies are politically generated. If it weren't for the wackos, and also myriad other evils, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because we'd have enough oil at decent prices and what oil we do have would last longer because diesel engines would be more prevalent. Without all that evil, talk of alternative sources of transport fuel would be only a specialised topic almost entirely for academic and/or speculative purposes, and wouldn't become generally topical for a long time. There wouldn't be as much research into them, and they certainly wouldn't be getting government grants and subsidies like biodiesel does. If it weren't for those evils then, until the time oil supplies really do become low, stories like the water-powered car would not receive any enthusiasm from the general editors of reputable media outlets. If the stories were plausible enough not to be dismissed outright by those editors they'd get passed on to the science editors. They and their staff would then quickly sort out the cranks from good ideas, and what good ideas there are might get a little space in the science pages, ignored by all except us scientifically-minded and inquisitive persons.

JJM

[Inspector]

If it weren't for the wackos, and also myriad other evils, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...

So completely true. So much analysis of this topic only looks one or two moves apart from our current situation. Very few look at how fundamentally the greens and government have created this problem and how completely non-existent it would be in their absence.

Think $0.25 per gallon gas or similar. Ah, but then imagine a non-inflated, gold-backed dollar...

Sorry I'm going to have to stop before I start getting angry at just how much has been taken from us.

[D'kian]

I think a part of our current problems stem from the enviros anger that oil hasn't run out. They've been predicting it for decades now, in fact oil should ahve run out by the mid 90s at the latest. Naturally no one really believes them any more. So they did the next best thing, and that is to put considerable oil reserves off limits. if you can't get it out of the earth, it hardly matters whether it is even there.

As for the other fossil fuel, coal, there's so much more of it than oil that it's hard to use it all up. The US alone has coal reserves with an energy equivalence bigger than the Saudi oil reserves. So naturally coal fired electric plants make a lot of sense.The enviros answer is to brand them as dirty, which in truth they were. Having cleaned up, though, now they get blamed for destroying the world through "climate change."

[Matus1976]

When coal runs out, yes, but that's not happening any time soon. Nuclear does have its place, but coal will remain a major supplier of base load for a long time yet. I don't think much of solar except in niche applications, though saline algae biodiesel might have merit (I can see problems with it).

True, but really the only reason we are using so much coal is because Nuclear was pushed into the background by environmentalists. Coal power plants require a trainload of coal per day, a typicall fission nuclear plant might require 1 single truck load of uranium per year I hardly see how left to true market competition coal would be cheaper than nuclear. Additionally, this comparison is based on conventional fission plants which throw out most of their fuel as 'waste' (because, again, environmentalists won't let it be processed) Breeder reactors, by some estimates, might be able to produce 100 times as much power as a typical fission plant AND consume their own waste (i.e. accelerate the radioactive decay of 'waste' elements which while not able to sustain a fission chain reaction never the less produce energy when hit by high energy nuetrons, which nuclear plants happen to produce aplenty) Further, a typical coal burning power plant burns more uranium and releases it as ash than a typical nuclear power plants fissions in a year. It might make the most sense, to start, to mine coal and process the uranium out of it, and 'burn' both.

But considering the amount of energy bound up in fissionable heavy elements (roughly 300 milllion times that of chemical reactions) I am hard pressed to see where any chemical source of energy would truly be economically competitive with a nuclear source.

Even on the premise that crude oil is running out, an idea whose import is questionable at the moment, it's highly speculative to muse about things like that without paying due attention to the economics of other legitimate alternatives to standard crude oil as a source of transport fuel. These include tar sands (big in Canada at the moment), LPG (common as dirt in Australia), oil shale (pilot plants in the US), coal-to-liquid and coal-to-gas (both of which are viable technologies under many conditions).

All good points, I was not suggesting as premise that crude oil is running out. My point more so is that with a full blown nuclear infrstructure (especially a breeder reactor one) electricity would be so cheap that the production of synthetic fossil fuels might be economically cheaper than drilled, cracked, refined, etc oil.

[John McVey]

True, but really the only reason we are using so much coal is because Nuclear was pushed into the background by environmentalists. Coal power plants require a trainload of coal per day, a typicall fission nuclear plant might require 1 single truck load of uranium per year I hardly see how left to true market competition coal would be cheaper than nuclear.

The fuel cost is actually fairly low as a proportion of the unit cost of the electricity produced, and the vast majority is accounting and financial charges like depreciation and interest. For example, last I heard the uranium itself was only 16% of the cost of producing electricity in a nuclear plant, and that was after the price hikes in recent times. That number is only about 2 years old.

I have no doubts that nuclear would be more common than it is at present, but I still say coal will still be a major player. Indeed, precisely because power would be much cheaper without the wackos et al, I can easily foresee that the cost of running a coal-fired station would be more than offset by using the same supply and storage infrastructure for a coal to liquid or gas facility. In an integrated fashion the synthetics facility could begin to fire up in the afternoons as demand elsewhere goes down, thereby maintaining a steady total demand for the coal plant and allowing great economies through consistent supply. There's a lot of perfectly good capital invested in the infrastructure for coal, and for so long as the revenues exceed costs you could be surprised just how long an "obsolete" technology can remain viable even in a laissez-faire economy.

Additionally, this comparison is based on conventional fission plants which throw out most of their fuel as 'waste' (because, again, environmentalists won't let it be processed) Breeder reactors, by some estimates, might be able to produce 100 times as much power as a typical fission plant AND consume their own waste (i.e. accelerate the radioactive decay of 'waste' elements which while not able to sustain a fission chain reaction never the less produce energy when hit by high energy nuetrons, which nuclear plants happen to produce aplenty)

Unless I am mistaken, breeders work by turning non-fissionable materials into fissionable materials and then fissioning them as normal, rather than accelerating the decay. I think the burn up of waste by increasing the decay rates via jacking up radioactivity is a separate line of development (being done chiefly in France, as I recall).

On a purely geeky technical note, I'm rootin' for thorium

But anyway...

It might make the most sense, to start, to mine coal and process the uranium out of it, and 'burn' both.

Possibly, I don't know the details of this offhand, but I do know that you're correct to state coal stations do release lots more radioactivity than nuclear stations. However, IMSM the main culprits are the likes of polonium and radium.

But considering the amount of energy bound up in fissionable heavy elements (roughly 300 milllion times that of chemical reactions) I am hard pressed to see where any chemical source of energy would truly be economically competitive with a nuclear source.

It's in the capital costs, not the fuel costs.

My point more so is that with a full blown nuclear infrstructure (especially a breeder reactor one) electricity would be so cheap that the production of synthetic fossil fuels might be economically cheaper than drilled, cracked, refined, etc oil.

Fair enough. Off the top of my head I doubt it for the immediate future, but it would still be an idea in the back of the minds of people interested in the energy sector for when the easiest of the easiest sources starts running out and oil prices climb for legitimate supply reasons. When that would be I can't say.

On another side note, research in that field may not come from want of new supplies for consumption here on earth, but of the generation of synthetics for use in the space program. For instance, Zubrin's Mars project includes a vehicle that generates its own fuel to power a return flight to Earth by synthesising it from Martian CO2 and either locally sourced hydrogen or supplies brought with it. Entirely earthly spin-offs from space-related technologies abound today, so this is not to be scoffed at, even if the Mars mission itself turns out to be a bust.

JJM

[Mammon]

So unless this car runs on plutonium, this is nonsense.

Okay, let me play DA and say that if it's nonsense then what exactly did these guys make? I saw the car on T.V. the other day running just fine.

[D'kian]

Okay, let me play DA and say that if it's nonsense then what exactly did these guys make? I saw the car on T.V. the other day running just fine.

A car, even a subcompact European one, is a pretty big machine. You can hide lots of things within it. Therefore it would be simple to pour water down the tank and claim it makes it run, while the real fuel resides in a smaller tank under the front passenger seat, for instance.

If you see a video examination of the car by a third party, that would settle that.

[Matus1976]

Okay, let me play DA and say that if it's nonsense then what exactly did these guys make?

They made a scam - something that plays into every perfect whim of the feeling guilty for their own existence environmentalist in order to bamboozle people out of their money for something could not possibly work, but happens to be exactly what everyone could possibly want.

[DavidOdden]

Okay, let me play DA and say that if it's nonsense then what exactly did these guys make?

So what kind of stuff reacts with water and releases energy? Sodium is an example (it's cool to lob bricks of sodium into a lake).

[John McVey]

So unless this car runs on plutonium, this is nonsense.

So what kind of stuff reacts with water and releases energy? Sodium is an example (it's cool to lob bricks of sodium into a lake).

So perhaps the car is run on a plutonium-based breeder reactor using sodium-potassium alloy as the coolant?

JJM

[ruveyn ben yosef]

So what kind of stuff reacts with water and releases energy? Sodium is an example (it's cool to lob bricks of sodium into a lake).

Now compute how much it costs to get sodium or lithium in pure metallic form (and storing it) so it can react with water. I don't expect to see the Sodium-Mobile rolling on our roads anytime soon.

ruveyn

[Mammon]

They made a scam - something that plays into every perfect whim of the feeling guilty for their own existence environmentalist in order to bamboozle people out of their money for something could not possibly work, but happens to be exactly what everyone could possibly want.

So, if I got one of these cars and looked under the hood I'd find it didn't run on water, and they were lying? They are willing to start this huge marketing campaign to sell this thing too. Was it worth it for them? You're 100% sure it's a scam?