Osaka University’s Cold Fusion or Bad Science?  Courtesy of Engadget

JAPAN – Speak the words “Cold Fusion”, and for good or bad images of the late 1980’s come to mind when our hopes were brought up only to come crashing down.

A little background for those too young to remember. In 1989, two scientists from Utah, Pons and Fleishmann, reported that they were able to produce a fusion reaction that was significantly cooler and less costly than had ever been obtained before. Termed “Cold Fusion” it brought the hopes of the nation up. The end of fossil fuel dependence.

Then reality reared it ugly head. For something to be “science” it needs to be duplicable. When other scientists tried to repeat the experiment, it failed or energy that was put in was similar that came out. Cold Fusion became the coin term for bad science in the western world.

Now Osaka University forced deuterium (heavy hydrogen – containing one neutron) gas under pressure into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide, which caused the deuterium to be absorbed by the palladium sample, resulting in a denser, or “pynco” deuterium, with deuterium nuclei that are close enough together to fuse. That process also supposedly resulted in a rise in temperature to about 70° Celsius (158° Fahrenheit).

Supposedly they are going to increase the amount of palladium/zirconium oxide to see if the amount energy released increases. Even if they report that it does, don’t jump up and down. Remember to be good science it needs to be duplicable. Also, they don’t report of any harmful byproduct of the reaction. Whenever you mention “Nuclear” it needs to be tested thoroughly to the extreme.

Afterall, you don’t want your own mini Three Mile Island in your house.

Cause that is what we are talking about. Mini nuclear reactors in our homes, our cars, our work, and etc. If it is truly a cold fusion reaction, it would be as safe as a furnace or a hot water heater. Supposedly the reaction core stayed “hot” for 50 hours on only 7 grams of “fuel”.

We’ll keep a skeptical eye out on this one.

Have gas prices risen enough for alternative fuel usage?

As odd as it seems, up to this point global warming and rising fuel prices have not been enough to take alternative fuels seriously. With gasoline prices over $4.00, has the tide turned with consumers?

“. . . we came to the conclusion (back in the 1980s) that fossil fuel had such an economic advantage (over alternative fuels), and the ease of use that it was going to be very difficult to displace them . . .” Lee Raymond on “Charlie Rose” November 8, 2005

It’s hard to believe the CEO of ExxonMobil back then, and it’s even harder today that they spent the equivalent of two billion dollars on research back in the 70s and 80s just to throw up their arms in defeat. It would be quick to say that it wasn’t in their best interest as an oil company to find an alternative. That viewpoint is true, but its also true that even if we stopped using personal cars, trucks, SUV’s and Vans, oil as an industry would continue.

Don’t believe it? Diesel runs the trains, trucks, and cargo ships. Try running them on ANY alternative fuel. Look at your jar of Vaseline, it is petroleum jelly. Most plastics are petroleum based. Moving parts need lubrication, petroleum products are some of the best lubricants. Kerosene is made at the same time as gasoline and diesel. So there will be always be a need for petroleum, just hopefully a diminished need.

Mr. Raymond also points out “economic advantage and ease of use”. Well until Huricane Katrina hit, this is a correct statement. Let’s look at hydrogen a moment. A great alternative with fuel cells powering our vehicles. The exhaust is water. 1 kilogram of hydrogen is the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline, and current prices range from $5/kg to $10/kg. An increase in demand would push the average to the higher end of the scale. To add insult to injury, most of the methods to produce hydrogen involve using hydrocarbons, and therefore release carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Electric cars have the benefit of NO emissions, but also have its limitations. One is that eventually you must plug the car into an electrical outlet. Cost of a recharge depends on the cost of electricity, and now manufacturers are saying about three dollars. Cool? Well if true that is actually a lot, for example my electric is under ten cents a kilowatt hour. Multiply that on the grid by the number of vehicles latching on at the sametime. That would be a hell of a load. The load can be minimized through solar and wind through a cost to the consumer. The batteries are a problem too. They are still heavy, still die, still have a problem with cold environments, and still are environmentally unsafe (after dying).

I could run through the alternatives even my future compressed air car. The point is this: the cheapest fuel available is still fossil fuels. The reason is the public NEVER demanded alternatives. I’m not talking about individual groups, ecologists, futurists, scientists and such. I’m talking everyone that looks in a mirror, everyone that drives a car, everone that has a pulse . . . everyone.

Ask yourselves these questions: Between 1989 and 2000, did I only buy vehicles that got 30+mpg? How many vehicles did I own that got less than 30? Less than 20 . . . 10? Did I own an SUV, Truck, or Van even though you had less than four kids (or no kids or even a spouse), no business purpose, never went camping or off-roading, or never put anything in the back of my truck except a wide screen TV. Did you use that SUV, Truck, or Van as your work commute vehicle? Did I buy a sports car cause it made me look good (or sexy), and/or it was fast as lightening (even though you never broke the speed limit and those cars are less efficent at lower speeds)?

Am I saying the public is at fault? No, we just never gave the auto companies incentive. The auto companies were willing to create public demand for these gas guzzlers, cause it was cheaper for them to produce them and not to find ways of making 70 mpg vehicles before 2000.  Even today look at auto TV ads. Does the VW Polo ad with the Singing Dog even mention its gas mileage? It should . . .  it reaches 46 mpg, but they know that is NOT what sells . . . the cute singing dog does.

So ask yourself, “Is gas prices high enough for me to switch vehicles and the way I drive? Or can I afford $10 per gallon?”

Three-Wheeled Triac  Green Vehicles

autobloggreen.com — The wait for an all-electric highway commuter just got a whole lot shorter. Green Vehicles is accepting reservations (with a 10 percent fully refundable reservation fee) for July delivery of their new Triac (pictured above). That’s only 60 days away!

You want to try before you buy? The three wheeler will be available for test drives around the middle of July and, according to Green Vehicles president Ehab Youssef, they anticipate leasing as well as selling the vehicle. They can ship cars throughout the U.S. (though Ohio could pose a licensing problem) and Canada, not to mention most other countries as well. The missive sent out by the company also gives reassurances about the quality and safety of their product. What kind of reassurances? Join us on the other side of the break to find out.

The lithium ion batteries that supply the power are said to be good for 2000 cycles (about 5 years) and, as they are “monitored by the world’s most advanced battery management system,” you will be notified if there is a problem with any particular battery or if there is a charging or discharging issue.

Their website is being upgraded as we speak with even more details appearing over the next few days. You should soon be able to check out all the specs as well as see if there will be a dealership appearing sometime in your neck of the woods. So, come on: Triac, you’ll like it.

Not my favorite choice of vehicles, that would be the ZPM CityCAT, but its a very close second. I live in Michigan, so the thought of batteries in cold weather . . . well leaves me cold. Here is a vid of the Triac – Proxima

read more | digg story

Volta G/T – Can it reach 175mph?  autobloggreen

autobloggreen.com — We have heard some interesting claims about upcoming electric vehicles before but 175 mph for the Volta G/T definitely raises some eyebrows.

While being interviewed by CBS4 at his offices in Boulder, CO, we heard Electric Vehicle Company (EVC) president Bill Kent state that, “Performance wise, this bike will do zero to 50 in about 4.5 seconds”. Ok, that’s pretty quick and, for all we know, it’s entirely possible. He then went on to say, “In the series you have top ends that range from about 120 to 175 miles per hour.” Whoa! Now that’s fast! But is it true?

According to the specs listed (PDF) on the EVC website, the fastest bike in their 3 deep line-up is the EVC-21. The top speed listed for this lithium ion battery powered machine is 110 mph.

Ok, another thing I can’t purchase just yet. This would be awesome to drive to work . . . except dodging the Michigan potholes. – Proxima

read more | digg story

Poulsen Hybrid Conversion kit  Autobloggreen.com

autobloggreen.com – Following up on the post the other day about Popular Mechanics’ attempt to rank the top ten Automotive X Prize teams, reader and tipster Manu wrote, “My bet for #1 is Poulsen Hybrid. It’s not on the list and it’s never been mentioned on ABG”

Actually, we already missed the beginning. Poulsen hybrid plan started (I think, based on the website) last year, and the general idea is to take an existing ICE car and convert it to a plug-in electric hybrid with mileage in the 100 mpge range.

The device costs $3,300, with another $600 for professional installation. Poulsen Hybrid, Inc. is a company based in Shelton, Connecticut and is connected to Alpha-Core, a division of Bridgeport Magnetics, Inc.

Great idea for existing cars.  But here is the real question – are you willing to pay $4,000 on your 25mpg vehicle – in effect making $4.00/gallon into $1.00/gallon. Also, where are you going to put the 6 batteries? = Proxima

read more