Talk:Alternative fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high importance within energy. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[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)
As if this issue wasn't tricky enough, I dare you to consider batteries. Batteries hold chemical energy that is released through oxidation reactions. It seems that the main difference between this and a fuel is that the oxidized waste products are solids contained within the battery, while a conventional fuel releases gaseous oxides into the air. This argument is fundamentally trivial, arbitrary and pointless. We're wasting good resources on trying to define the vague, arbitrary terminology that is the title of this article. Mikiemike 20:37, 25 May 2007 (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. HHO has not been debunked, it is a reality. Industry has already put it to use. An engine running on HHO would require small refills, of ordinary water. The alternator was invented to recharge car batteries. Water is the easiest renewable source of HHO. The battery's electricity splits the H2O compound into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen provides combustion inside the engine, which makes the car run. The motion of the car turns the alternator, which recharges the battery. The battery continues to split H2O into HHO, and the process repeats itself... cleanly and efficiently. The oxygen runs out of the car in the form of clean water, pure H2O. Combustion engines can run, cleanly and efficiently, on HHO. Unfortunately, government makes too much money off of oil and war. HHO cars would 'debunk' our dependence on the fuel industry. Which is a scary thing for Bush and Iran. i'd like to know what's being done to develope this revolution in science. any takers? (by an anon contributor from IP 71.230.184.71)
- No personal attacks. There's fuel for welding torches and then there's perpetual motion machines. The "scary" thing is that free-energy researchers never adequately explain how they get an exemption from the law of conservation of energy. Observe that automobile engines have big radiators and that even car alternators need cooling air. Where does the energy radiating off as heat come from? And can you make yourself rich by depositing cheques written on your own bank account? --Wtshymanski 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's the second law of thermodynamics, not the first, that prevents perpetual motion devices. It's a common misconception. Because energy is conserved (the first law) that means energy can't get "used up" either. It still exists; it's just changed form. So perpetual motion does actually exist in quantized energy states (for example, left on its own, electrons never stop spinning around an atom), but the second law means you can't make perpetual motion do any useful work (like running your car).
75.169.141.84 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[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)
I believe SBHarris is correct. Mikiemike 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality vs. Article Bias
I dispute the neutrality of this article. According to the Wikipedia definition, "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight". This article is heavily biased toward fossil fuels and nuclear energy, which are not even considered "alternative fuels" by a large fraction of the population. What's worse, many "alternative fuels" are barely mentioned, if at all.
More quotes from the Wikipedia neutrality policy: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
Please add your comments below, and help make this article unbiased and neutral. thanks, Mikiemike 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I read somewhere that every editor brings their own set of biases to every article they edit. I note that, in the edits you've done recently, you've added a probability statement on the likelihood that global warming has anthropogenic origin. It is important for balance to remember that both anthropogenic global warming and peak oil are theories, not absolute fact. This part of your edits is indeed good. However, you've also incorrectly altered the article to change methane to natural gas, then claim that it is not only not an alternative fuel but that it is, with absolute certainty, a greenhouse gas that will contribute to global warming. This contradicts the probability statement. Methane is one specific chemical compound while natural gas is a variable mixture of various gases. In automotive applications, natural gas is most certainly an alternative fuel. That is, it is an alternative to petrol and diesel just like autogas is. Also, methane can be produced from biological sources such as biodigestion and is hence not only a alternate fuel but also potentially a renewable fuel. Alternative fuels are not necessarily specifically renewable fuels, they are simply alternatives to the existing mainstream fuels, so fossil fuels can indeed be alternative fuels. I haven't done much with this article, and I agree that it needs work but I am a little concerned that you are introducing common misconceptions into the article. --Athol Mullen 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Athol Mullen,
Fine. So if all editors are biased, then according to your "theory", all biases should be equally represented right? If it's impossible to get "truth", then the best standard we can obtain is "justice". If you want to get right down to the heart of the issue, all information is just someone's theory, and there are no "facts" because everything is based on "perception", therefore there is no "absolute truth" which seems to be how you've defined "fact". Peer reviewed science is about as close as we can get to a "fact", or at least a theory that is 99% accurate or more. Einstein's "theory of relativity" has been validated in experiments, so to many scientists it is simply known as "relativity" (implying that it's a proven or at least an accepted theory). If you searched around, you could probably find people who don't believe in it, and they would call it a "theory" at best. If a belief does not prove a theory, then neither does a disbelief disprove a theory. There is a "flat earth society" that may be trying to revise the "earth" article as we speak, and they would argue that a spherical earth is just a theory. Good luck to them, I hope they get a footnote.
Maybe the best policy for an editor is to be completely transparent, i.e. strictly a reporter, with no hidden agendas (only forthright agendas :-). Opinions, and the validity of theories or so called facts will always depend upon whom you ask. So perhaps we should report this and say that among climatologists, anthropogenic global warming is considered a scientific "fact" (with greater than 99% certainty), while among the united states population, about half believe in anthropogenic global warming, and half do not. IIRC, in Europe, a majority of people believe in anthropogenic global warming. Nobody else has computers so they don't matter (just kidding, some of them have computers).
None of these philosophical and semantical arguments stops encyclopedia articles from being written with factual language and tone. Perhaps the situation on Wikipedia is different, because there are many more editors with diverse backgrounds, and not necessarily with a "scholarly" or scientific background as would be expected from a traditional encyclopedia. It's the policy of Wikipedia that the best that can be done is to include references, which is why I cited the IPCC report.
Here are some facts: Natural gas is almost entirely methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that will contribute to global warming. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. The article defines an alternative fuel as being a non-fossil fuel. You wrote that "methane can be produced from biological sources such as biodigestion", and that's a fact.
You wrote that "alternative fuels are...simply alternatives to the existing mainstream fuels" How would you define "mainstream fuel"? Would you define it as a fuel accounting for 10% or more of a given market sector? If so, then nuclear fuel is not an alternative fuel, at least not in the developed world. Also compressed natural gas is used as a fuel for city buses, so is that alternative or not? IMO, it's borderline. Oil from tar sands is not an alternative fuel, it's an alternative source for the same fuel. The same is true for methane hydrate.
The problem here is that the term "alternative fuel" is inherently vague. It either needs to be explicitly and carefully defined, or abandoned so that the article can be redirected.
It was not my intent to introduce misconceptions. I believe I may have just stirred the pot a little, and uncovered some preexisting misconceptions and fundamental contradictions within the article. If we explain some of these issues in the article it will probably clarify the issues for the reader, and also for the editors, which is especially important since many readers are editors. Mikiemike 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I just made some additions and revisions to the article in an attempt to address and resolve the disputed issues. Let me know what you think. thanks, Mikiemike 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good, let me get the tag. I'm going to remove the merge, too. James S. 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All tags removed
If there was a reason that the globalize tag was on, please replace it and say exactly why. James S. 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ripped Off
Part of this article is not cited when it is VERY clear that it was just copied and pasted from answers.com. I found this out when searching Google. The entries match exactly.
129.120.194.7 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's the other way around. Answers.com pulls information from a variety of sources including most especially Wikipedia. Look up any other Wikipedia article title on Answers.com, and you'll probably find the entries match.
- Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not even a reverse-rip off becasue Wikipedia specifically releases content under the GFDL 75.169.141.84 (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What is this about?
If this article is about alternative energy, then what's the point, there is an alternative energy page already. If it is about direct replacements to petroleum for use in vehicles, this is covered in some detail on the alternative fuel vehicle page. At the moment it tries to do both and has become a cumbersome article which does not (in my opinion) answer the questions of people who would be looking at it.
I suggest: 1). All information in this article regarding alternative energy be moved to the alternative energy page (and links therein) (if it is not already covered there) and a link to that page be placed at the start of this article.
2). The information in this article should be updated with reference to the alternative fuel vehicle article which includes many other possible options.
Opinions? --Peter Logstone (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
