Car pollution is constantly being blamed for "Global Warming"?

Question

If the proof is out there that this is so why arent we running cars on water or some other form of non polluting fuel? Surely there is the Knowledge out there to do this.
I know we are using certain types of lower polluting fuels but if this issue is so serious why cant we use non polluting fuels.
Or is this just scaremongering from our governments to earn extra revenue with "Higher" polluting cars being taxed more?

Are the goverments scared to change to water run cars? Are they being blackmailed by the Oil companies?

Answer 1

The short answers are, "there are few non-polluting fuels", and "those that are truly non-polluting are too expensive to manufacture, too dangerous to contain, or cause the same amount of pollution somewhere else along the energy path."

Let's set aside for the moment that the arguments for anthropogenic global warming, particularly due to pollutants from vehicle emissions, are specious at best.

The fact is, from a "global warming" point of view, there are few non-polluting fuels. One of the major by-products of most fuels is carbon dioxide, which has been shown to be increasing in the earth's atmosphere in recent years. If you believe that cars are causing enough CO2 emission to cause the atmospheric changes in recent years (I don't), then you need to reject amost all combustibles as viable fuels, or find a way to scrub CO2 from your car's tailpipe into something more inert.

What few truly non-polluting fuels there are out there are extremely hazardous or expensive to manufacture in mass quantities or both. The only two I'm aware of are hydrogen gas (which forms water when combining with oxygen) and hydrogen peroxide (which breaks down into water and oxygen all by itself), and these are things you don't want to be messing with around your car. But let's suppose you could contain either of these safely. The manufacturing costs for these fuels are prohibitive, and more to the point, we will have to spend more energy manufacturing it than the energy we'll have left in the final product.

What energy, might you ask? Well, electricity of course. Where does the electricity come from? Coal-burning plants, for the most part. Oops. Looks like we have to create our fuel that doesn't generate CO2 by relying on a process that generates CO2. Savor the irony.

Electric cars, contrary to popular opinion, are not appreciably better than combustion engines. The conversion efficiency of chemical to mechanical energy in a regular car is about 25% (upwards of 38% for hybrids). The net conversion efficiency of electrical to mechanical energy in an electric car is 90% (great), but that is offset by the conversion efficiency of power plants into electrical energy (about 33%), and conversion losses from your outlet to your car (90%) so it's a wash for ICE vehicles, and hybrids are better than electric cars.

Solar panels are starting to make gains in collection efficiency, so solar-powered vehicles may have viability in regions of the US that are unencumbered by cloud cover. The sun could be argued to be a non-polluting fuel, if you could harness it on-demand (which you can't, at least not for twelve hours a day average).

I wouldn't concern myself with government scaremongering. They have plenty of ways to take our money while leaving the "arab oil sacred cow" basically untouched.

BTW, I'm not entirely sure where on God's green housegas you're getting the idea in your head that water is a fuel. Water is either a byproduct of burning fuel (such as gasoline or propane), or it's used as part of a mechanical process (steam engine) that uses some other fuel (e.g., coal).

Good luck, work hard, and stay away from drugs.

Answer 2

Because big fuel and auto corporations have invested billions in marketing, bribing politicians and misinforming and confusing the population with false information on global warming and the efficiency of their products. Also because people are to lazy to walk cycle and use the underground and would rather show off with their flashy new cars. Lastly because people are just totally manipulated trough the media and have no idea of how to think for them selves, thus the government uses this to shift public attention from the pollution caused by cars and aeroplanes by encouraging people to recycle and make homes more efficient trough marketing. This way the government is seen to care about the environment, while keeping people in their cars and in the air while still making money of fuel taxes and keeping the corporations happy while they keep their pockets happy.

Answer 3

The current estimate is that auto emission accounts for 25% of the CO2 exhausted into the atmosphere. Coal-fired electric generation is the worst offender, producing about 50% of the CO2 (if I remember correctly). Other major contributors are natural gas and other fuels.

It is not a matter of pollution (although that can contribute), it is the amount of carbon generated, and all combustion of organic materials produces CO2. Some combustion is more efficient than others so some improvement can be made by switching fuels in cars and electric generation. Switching to "clean" auto fuels may not necessarily reduce CO2 generation.

Answer 4

Last summer a "high-up" at GM was quoted as saying "Americans don't want alternatively-fueled cars. They want large SUVs, cars that go fast and make a lot of noise." We need to show auto manufacturers that these vehicles are worth investing in by purchasing them. The govt needs to reinstate Fed tax breaks (some of which recently expired) to offset the higher sticker price. Most of all, we need to stop being a crisis-oriented species and work on solutions before it's too late.

FYI: Autos do a lot of environmental harm, but think about gas lawnmowers: A typical 3.5 horsepower gas mower, for instance, can emit the same amount of VOCs -- key precursors to smog -- in an hour as a new car driven 340 miles

Answer 5

Hydrogen is currently even more expensive than gas or alcohol to produce, this is the problem. Technology has not advanced far enough to make it economical yet. Electric technology is, however advancing rapidly. see http://teslamotors.com for a jolt to your system. Electric roadster that does 0 to 60 in 4 seconds flat! Hydrogen will come along soon as the obvious solution to global warming in burning fuels. It is just a matter of time before the tech. is available. On a planet 2/3 covered in Hydrogen [locked in H20], it is ludicrous to be burning greenhouse gas producing fuels.

Hydrogen is ON ITS WAY HERE. It will just take a little time.

s.g.

Answer 6

Water is not a fuel. It is a product of combustion. You CAN separate out the hydrogen and oxygen, but the process requires more energy than you can get out of burning them again.

Has anyone stopped to consider that if alternate forms of energy were economically viable the money-grubbing oil companies would be money-grubbing alternate source companies?

Methane, propane, and butane burn clean, and have been used as motor vehicle fuels before. The distribution systems for these fuels, though, are not compatible with the distribution system we have in place for gasoline and diesel. They all require pressurized vessels, and the refueling process is both more dangerous and more time-consuming.

Answer 7

More fossilised fuels, more pollution. Go for an Electric car, which is very common in India. With one fully charged battery it can travel 85 - 100 kms.

A car running by water is also been developed here. It may take some time to reach market ( automobile Engineering students have developed the prototype ).

Answer 8

Car pollution is a major cause of global warming, specially American cars as they are fuel guzzlers and if someone has the money to not bother about fuel efficiency then why should that person bother about a little bit of more tax?..And for your information, water is now being used to run car but not in pure form.Hydrogen from water is used as fuel and what comes out from exhaust as byproduct is pure water which is even fit for drinking!.The cost of such technology is still high so they are not yet popular.To bring down the costs and upgrade such technology,we should be ever ready to pay more tax.

Answer 9

Cycles of global warming / cooling are a NATURAL phenomenon that Earth has experienced countless times over millions of years. To blame the current warming cycle *exclusively* on our civilization, particularly Bush and the Republican party, is just plain dumb. It's certainly true, however, that the current cycle is being accelerated and perhaps even intensified by civilization.

Alternative forms of fuel are within our technological reach, but if they're to be developed something will first have to be done about the greed of existing fossil-fuel producing mega-corporations and the tight control they exert on equally greedy, corrupt politicians.

Answer 10

We didn't always have oil or cars and humans lived, so it was a different lifestyle and we survived. Could we live without oil again? OK some people would not be making the money they are at present with oil or have the lifestyle they have at present, so is that what the real panic is about. Can we not adapt to live without oil again?