We did it back then... why can't we still do it now? Just get rid of gasoline!!
2007-03-25 05:15:24 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Other - Cars & Transportation
What fuel would you use to heat the steam?
In the old days the choices were wood and coal. These fuels are dirtier than gasoline or diesel
2007-03-25 05:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, you can get a steam engine to "burn" anything, including nuclear or solar fired steam engines. However, the only fuel that's both semi-reasonable to use in a car that doesn't give off carbon dioxide when it burns is hydrogen, and of course you need energy to make that.
Personally, if I wanted to use an unconventional engine for a car and make it one that could burn almost anything, I'd go for a Stirling engine or a gas turbine. Since those don't have to lug around a large water tank, they can be made much lighter.
2007-03-25 08:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by Mad Scientist Matt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why hell yes! Then we only need wood or coal to fire up the high pressure boiler (Oops! Coal and wood cause more crap in the air.) and just take off. Then you have to pull over to get a couple of gallons of water to make the steam since you forgot to fill up from the kitchen sink that morning. (Oops, you cut someone off. They hit you. Boilers explode like shrapnel taking out not only drivers but also anyone else standing around. If the flying metal don't kill you, the burns from the steam do!)
As an aside, who the hell wants to get up a half hour early to "start" the car. You don't get that steam right away you know! You have to prime the heat source and fire up the boiler to get steam. Let's leave the steam where it's most useful. To make the teapot whistle when the water is hot.
2007-03-25 05:34:31 · answer #3 · answered by rifleman01@verizon.net 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What would you use as a heat source that wouldn't add to gobal warming? Also steam is dangerous and hard to control. Think about high pressure steam in an accident. cycles or mass transit would probably be a more realistic solution.
2007-03-25 05:22:04 · answer #4 · answered by renpen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wood and Coal are probably the two DIRTIEST fuels available. Boilers are EXTREMELY dangerous... and we need to work towards a renewable VIABLE energy source and not take 4 steps backwards into the past. I'll gladly omit any sarcasm from my answer as it seems that eveyone else has gone out of their way to drive the point home already.
Nuclear power is obviously out of the question.... and the final point is the weight of the vehicle would be enormous compared to today's standard vehicle and what people are used to handling.
2007-03-25 06:18:04 · answer #5 · answered by Porterhouse 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So just exactly "WHAT" are you going to BURN for fuel to heat the water to steam? Would you use wood or coal and pollute? Or are you going to go back to using gas or oil for fuel.
Just exactly "WHY" do you think they got rid of the polluting coal and wood burning locomotives for deisel locomotives.
YOU REALLY DID'NT THINK THIS OUT AT ALL WELL .....DID YOU?
2007-03-25 05:33:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Global Warming is just a myth...
Tax the poor !!!
2007-03-25 05:24:08 · answer #7 · answered by Scorpius 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And resort to better things like coal........no not a better solution but thanks for trying!
2007-03-25 05:20:32 · answer #8 · answered by Andrew B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋