Turbines are (more/less) efficient than gasoline engines?
83167
I assume you want to compare the gasoline engine to a gas turbine not a steam turbine. If you are talking about shaft power, then the gasoline engine is but it you fully utilize the heat in the exhaust of a gas turbine then the gas turbine with heat recovery is the winner hands down. Now if you recover some of the heat from the exhaust of the gasoline engine then they come closer together.\n\nIf you are talking about a steam turbine then you need to be careful where you draw the envelope to measure efficiency. Do you enclude the efficiency of the boiler, feedwater and condensate system? Like wise what about the systems needed to produce the gasoline for the engine?
727450
i think efficiency is expressed as ratio of power inputed/power outputed\n\nie if the compressor was rated at 800w( uses 800w) and gave out 800w in useable power then its efficiency is said to be 1/1 or 1, but no machine is that efficient, due to heat , vibration and friction etc.\n\nif the compressor was rated at 800w and gave out 200w of usable energy it would be an efficiency of 1/4 or 0.5
300999
Infinite Energy would be Solar, Wind, and Geothermal. Nothing to Invent there, only the Marketing and and Distribution is the Problem. As Long as there is a Great Amount of Profit in Petroleum, nothing will Change Anytime Soon. As far as Global Warming goes, if Gasoline could be Utilized more Efficeintly, Engine Pollution would be Substantially Reduced. I've found a way to Convert Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane, with a very Compact, Safe Low Pressure Unit that Mixes Air with Gasoline to Produce a Thick, Rich Propane Mixture, much better than Regular Propane, Resulting in 100 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. Here's the Problem, all Vehicles from 1996 to the Present are Required by Law to Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. That's the EPA-OBD II Law. Any Change Whatsoever, even if Vehicle Emissions are Lowered, and Fuel Economy is Increased will Result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection. With My Vapor Chamber, even the Largest SUV could get 50 + MPG, and Emit a Fraction of Emissions. But, Again, it's against the Law. If I'm Wrong, then how is it that Engines DO Run with Propane Cylinders? They're Expensive, Cumbersome, and a Real Hassle to Refill. So, it's not Worth It. Hybirds? Great, in Town, but at Highway Speed the Gasoline Engine has to Run, plus, the Heavy, Expensive Batteries have to be Hauled! As to Taking My Device to the US Patent Office, forget it! Every Time this has been done before, it's been Stopped Cold! 14.7 to 1. That's the Law. So, to Sum Up, the Problem is not One of Invention, or Creation. No, the Problem is Legislation. My Device would just about fit in a Shoebox, and can be Built and Installed for less than $1,OOO but it will never get on the Open Market. Inexpensive Hydrogen is the Answer, but as long as there is such a Tremendous Profit in Oil, Nothing will Change. Go to this Website, and You'll See what I mean http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html
170057
The wave generation systems ive seen recently dont use a turbine. These contraptions are shaped like a snake and bob up and down with the waves. The pitching motion move pistons that turn generators.
191652
Very efficient cars as far as I know. German engineering is quite superb.\n\n(PS I do get your question - and I love 'em! :-) )
616877
All engines have a cost.  I suggest that the cost of this form of energy may be the slowing of the rotational period of the Earth.  What would we pay in time
362433
an power plant will consume more input than it will produce in output.  even fusion power plants will not be 100% efficient due to transmission loss and transfer loss.
298246
There are only two. One is that oil is a very concentrated form of energy. Having cars run on gas is far more feasible than powering them by, say, burning wood. You just don't get enough of a return on the use of that type of energy. Second is that it is relatively easy to access, at least thus far. One of the things that will happen as oil becomes more scarce is that we will have to try to drill for oil that is in much less accessible places, such as the north sea, or in much deeper deposits. There used to be a third advantage - that it seemed plentiful, if not inexhaustible. This advantage has been proven to be a myth.
98629
it depends on what it powers and the efficency of the motor.
1138430
Not a good question. Power is related to the volume of fuel/air mixture.
1152081
global oil conglomerates aka the cookie monster, greed at it's most BASIC element.  The internal combustion engine has been obsolete since the 1950s.  Oil companies this year have set record profits, so much so  that the US government is  trying to figure out what to do about it.  Renewable energies equates to no profits these companies will sooner shove oil down our throats(WW III) rather than to allow renewable energies to become main stream.  Look for the US government to lead the world into a global government!!!!!
648031
It's not.\nIf you're thinking only of internal combustion engines, they can be built to run on a number of other fuels...\n\nKerosene/diesel, most of the alcohols, pretty much any volatile liquid or explosive gas -  hydrogen being a favourite...   (If I recall correctly, somebody once built an engine that ran on peanut oil...)\n\nIn practice, petrol/gasoline has been readily available for some time and, until recently, there was little incentive to develop efficient alternatives.  That may change.\n\nThen there's electrical propulsion, steam, direct-heat engines, and a bunch of other ideas waiting to be looked into
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
237029
Several.\n\nGeo-thermal is one of the best.  Basically, this is power derived from the heat of the earth.  Unfortunately, there are few places where this can be used.  Iceland, is a prime location for geothermal energy and they use it most effectively.\n\nWind Power:  quickly gaining in popularity, these are windmill powered turbines.\n\nSolar Power:  The sun is an excellent source of power.  Unfortunately, solar cells have been typically expensive to produce.  \n\nFuel Cells.  President Bush's pet project is to store hydrogen and use that as fuel.  Unfortunately there are some problems not mentioned by the president.  Hydrogen is the simplest element (smallest atom).  This makes it extremely easy to escape whatever container we put it in.  If you fill your cars fuel cell and let it sit for a couple of weeks, you will have an empty cell.  You need a lot of hydrogen to provide power.   You might need a bigger fuel cell than what is commonly suggested.  You might need a hydrogen tank the size of a car in order to go the distance usually provided in a sterotypical gas tank.  Benefits:  hydrogen is common and burns clean.\n\nNuclear power.  The big boogieman power source.  The sad truth is, we will have to expand nuclear power to keep up with demand if we reduce our fossil fuel consumption.  It's a necessary evil.\n\nTidal power:  Using wave action to provide power along coastal regions.  There are several of these types of power plants.\n\nHydroelectric:  using falling water from waterfalls, dams for fast moving rivers to power turbines.  One  of the best loved methods of producing "clean" power.  Drawbacks include altering the environmet and seriously affecting fish spawning.  Salmon populations have dropped enormously.
654418
How about a friggin car you can run on food waste?  I'm tired of paying rich bastards who play price fixing games making money off me.  Ethanol or Methanol sound like a better alternative if we can all start making our own fuel without blowing up a few city blocks.\n\nSaw a news bit about a water-fueled motor the other day...\n\nJust read that answer above.  170 miles on a cell?!?  Are you freakin' kidding me?!?  My 113hp/69ft. lb motorcycle with a 4.5 gal tank does over 200 miles!  AND, it does wheelies!
723232
fuel cell technology provides huge energy.....that's why they use it in power plants and space crafts....now Mercedes have their technology to reduce this power and use it in "Buses" and they were succeed to do that in 1998.  Now they are trying to implement this tech. in small cars. but they are facing some difficulties in using Hydrogen because it is very dangerous element.....they are trying to solve this issue by using some bi-products of the Hydrogen...as a result of that ...the efficiency will be less.\nso the limitations are :\n*the Huge energy that will be produced should be compatable with the engine been used.\n**using suitable Hidrogen bi-products for safety issues.\nI hope that I answered your question .....please try to answer mine.....\nRegards,\nFouad
349291
Most forms of electricity generation involve heating water (burning fossil fuel, solar power, etc) to form steam that turns a turbine.  The excess heat releases a large amount of wasted energy, energy not used to produce electricity.  Hydroelectric power, on the other hand, uses only moving (cool) water to push the turbine, so no heat energy is wasted and no fuel is consumed.  The main problem with hydroelectric power is that rivers end up dammed to collect enough water to move the turbines; dams alter the natural hydrology of their environment by flooding low lying areas, slowing waterflow, and impeeding animal migration.