Why can't we use Steam-Power Engines in vehicles?

Question

I had reviewed information which showed how technology made it easier to use electricity to quickly heat water-even if frozen solid. Frozen water was an issue for the North in Winter. Steam out sold electric and gas cars for a while, but with gas being so cheap in the day, and the wait time for the steam to generate, the Gas car won out. Today the technology is here to use various liquids for steam. Recycle/return exhaust systems to make steam vehicles more economical. With less maintenance and materials needed- no Transmission- braking and throttle are all reliant upon the steam power. The vehicle would be much safer from the redundant exhaust systems...No Fires from accidents...
Steam cars were around back in the 1790's and the land speed record set in the late 19th Century was 225mph.
The Steam engine is listed as the most efficient engine.
the engine can use generators and make electricity for other power-systems and perhaps be steam/electric hybrid. I need more insight.

Answer 1

Power stations (both nuclear and coal fired) use steam power. Steam is a very efficient way to generate electricity.
Steam is not used in vehicles mostly because of the power to weight ratio. You have to carry a lot of weight and build a chassis to hold it. You have to accelerate the weight and you have to be able to stop it.

While it is a very efficient way to produce usable energy. The boiler and associated plant is heavy.

Of course using electricity produced from steam is a viable option. Things like electric trains run on this sort of energy. They are very efficient because they do not carry batteries and can carry heaps of payload (people).

Perhaps a similar pickup system could be used on our road systems allowing people to drive a very light (aerodynamic)vehicle. This would use heaps less energy than the current transport system.

250 watts (0.25 hp) can propel a light vehicle @ 54km/h (32 mph). 1.2 Kw (1.6 hp) @ 100km/h 62 (mph).

Example m5 recumbent (full fairing)
http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/site/EN/Models/Carbon_Low_Racer

Answer 2

I have been a mech. for over thirty years, jet engines, gas engines. I think the one danger I see is the pressure build up of steam. If a person did not maintain there power plant, it could possible explode or burst. Also in an accident steam pressure would be a factor. I think also of the amount of electricity that would be required to operate such an engine. These are just my first thoughts, I have not researched any info on this as you might have done. Would like to hear more. Dan

Answer 3

Yes, steam vehicles were used. But they are inherently dangerous and not practical. You need a heat source, electricity isn't practicle because you would have to have numerouse batteries and equipment to recharge it in addition to the steam needs. Secondly, the boiler is large and heavy, you need to carry a source of water on board and would have to replenish it quite often. In addition, boilers, while much safer now, can still explode, can release hot steam into the vehicle or around it causing horrible burns or death. It still takes time for water to heat to become steam, most people don't have that kind of time, The vehicle would not be efficient in cold weather, well, you can see that there are a ton of obsticles to overcome. My personal belief, for now, is that hydrogen is the way to go. The by product would be water, and while the hydrogen itself is more flammable than gasoline, the main difference is that gas fumes are heavier than air, so if you have a gas leak, the resulting explosion and fire would be a ground level, Hydrogen is lighter than air, so if you had a leak, the likely hood of an explosion is remote, and if it did, it would be up in the air and away from the people. But at any rate, until we can stop electing "politicians" and get some people elected who aren't getting their pockest lined by the oil companies, we are screwed.

Answer 4

Actually, the steam car set a record of 127.66mph in 1906. But that's still damn fast when ICE cars could only do 40 or 50.

Steam is actually a very practical source of energy. in 1925, when most ICE cars were anemic and could only do 60 or so MPH tops, Doble was making steam cars that:

Topped out at 125mph
Accellerated from 0-75 in about 6 seconds
got 15MPG despite weighing 5,000lbs
Were remarkably smooth and quiet
Could be key-started from dead cold in about 40 seconds
Needed no transmission, just a reversing gear

Now, Doble went out of business because their cars were extremely expensive due to Doble's perfectionism.

Steam holds the following inherent advantages over Internal Combustion:

70-90% thermal efficiency, as opposed to the Gas engine's 25-30% thermal efficiency.

Does not need to keep running. Steam car engines could stay stopped entirely at red lights.

Steam engines make 100% torque from a dead stop, meaning they don't need to be geared for starting.

Steam engines don't burn fuel under compression. Most of the greenhouse gases produced by an ICE are produced because the gasoline is compressed when ignited. A steam car burning gasoline would produce fewer emissions than a SULEV.

The only problems with steam engines is that keeping them lubricated can be tricky. "Boiler Explosions" aren't really an issue in Doble-style steam cars....a pipe would crack or safety valve would pop before the boiler blew up. Steam doesn't need to be bulky either...steam engines that power motorcycles have been developed and used successfully.

I believe a steam-powered car that could run on Hydrogen (as a combustible), LPG, LNG, Gas, Diesel, Cooking Oil, and Ethanol interchangeably, recycle its water supply and get approx 50 mpg is entirely doable with today's tech. People just regard steam engines as "Old Fashioned" and don't bother investigating it.

Answer 5

Well it looks like some of our answerers are still asleep. Why would a steam car be so heavy? Might want to research this one. Electric power making steam? Interesting loss of power. The mechanic with 30 years experience needs another 30. Looks like with todays high demand we'll need to go nuke. Sorry but its true. Radioactive waste is a problem. Anybody got an electromagnetic radioactive waste barrel rail gun? To the moon Alice. To the moon. Well space anyway.

Answer 6

Steam is NOT a source of energy unless you are getting steam from a vent in the earth (the real source there would really be geo-thermal). Some form of energy was used to make the steam. So if you burn something to make the steam, that is the source.

Steam leaks from the valves and connections are actually rather common, and you'd have to fix them. Not to mention the insulation in order to keep it steam if you didn't have a way to keep it hot.

Answer 7

In the 1790's we burned wood to generate steam. Today, what would we use? Wood? No, because everyone would complain about deforestation. Coal? No, because of the pollution. Oil? No, for the same reasons we don't want to use gasoline.

Answer 8

Because you have to burn something to make steam.