Coffee-Powered Car Breaks World Record

Works with coal too by finarfinjge · 2011-09-26 06:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

Note that this gasification technology would work with coal too.

There's a lot more and cheaper coal than "renewable / green" sources (previously called "food").

Just sayin.

Re:Works with coal too by jandrese · 2011-09-26 06:16 · Score: 1

And as an added bonus, it's still a fossil fuel then, so it adds to the net CO2 in the atmosphere!

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Works with coal too by gmuslera · 2011-09-26 06:17 · Score: 1

Not sure how much coffee qualifies as food (even if i can't live without it) compared with i.e. corn. But regarding coal, or even oil, i remember in Pohl's Heechee saga where people in that future used them as food source in the CHON factories.
Re:Works with coal too by finarfinjge · 2011-09-26 06:21 · Score: 1

I suppose we could cut down some rainforest if we don't want to use food. That would still be green wouldn't it?
Re:Works with coal too by jellomizer · 2011-09-26 06:23 · Score: 1

Its Green because in theory when you regrow the plants they will absorb the CO2 that was emitted.
However Humans being as we are, we will probably cut down forests to make room for more of these plants and still end up with a net gain in CO2 in the atmosphere.
If there was a good easy solution we would have come up with it now. The problem is every energy source you will have to make some sort of trade off. The key is trying to at least diversify our energy sources so we are dividing our trade-offs and not become dependent on any particular one. So when one source of energy is giving a trade-off we can no longer tolerate we can ramp up with another one with a more tolerable trade-off.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Works with coal too by jackbird · 2011-09-26 06:36 · Score: 2

Even if you cut down a forest, plant-based fuels are still carbon neutral, since a more or less fixed amount of carbon is available at the surface/in the atmosphere within this geological period. Fossil fuels add carbon to the entire system by releasing carbon formerly trapped deep in rock formations.
Re:Works with coal too by finarfinjge · 2011-09-26 06:48 · Score: 1

Of course prior to becoming sequestered in said rock formations, the CO2 was part of the atmosphere. Must be something in the geological record of the massive runaway global warming that had to have occured before CO2 became coal and oil. Those conglomerate rocks couldn't have come from continental glaciers when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. Or would that too be "consistent with climate models"?
Re:Works with coal too by Pentium100 · 2011-09-26 06:56 · Score: 1

So, bring back steam cars, just this time instead of coal they would be powered by wood.
Re:Works with coal too by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 06:58 · Score: 1

Finally! A good use for all that waste coal that's been piling up in landfills!
Re:Works with coal too by cayenne8 · 2011-09-26 07:02 · Score: 1

So, bring back steam cars, just this time instead of coal they would be powered by wood.
Wouldn't work...unless EVERYONE was mandated to only use these.
This 'record setting' vehicle...set the record with ONLY an avg speed of about 62mph??!?
You trying driving only 62mph on any roads around where I've lived and you will get mowed down. Hell, that's the speeds you see through neighborhoods with children in them....
But seriously...that is not very quick...most people on main artieries through the cities I've lived in, not just the highways mind you...drive much faster than the posted limit, and if you try going even the posted limit, you'll get hit badly.
Unless you get green energy vehicles to where they'll keep up with real cars of today and traffic patterns....they ain't gonna cut it.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Works with coal too by jackbird · 2011-09-26 07:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Um, I think there is, although you might be making some obscure point I don't understand because I don't spend all day on anti AGW sites:
Climate during the Carboniferous Period
from the fine article:

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20 C (68 F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12 C (54 F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
If you're talking about something else I'd sincerely be interested in reading about it.
Re:Works with coal too by wintercolby · 2011-09-26 07:10 · Score: 1

Here on the East Coast we have WAY too many ugly, tree covered mountains that are practically completely filled with this valuable inexpensive resource.

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Re:Works with coal too by Pentium100 · 2011-09-26 07:12 · Score: 1

62mph is almost 100km/h. In my country the maximum speed limit on a highway is 130, some are 100, most inter-city roads are 90 and inside the city/town/village it is 50. Some people go 10km/h over the limit but more than that and you risk getting your photo taken or getting stopped by the police and having to pay a fine.
Still, steam cars in the 1910s managed to get 100km/h, maybe one designed with modern tools and materials in mind could go faster? Steam is good that it can use anything that burns hot enough as a power source, so, wood could be used. Some people use wood to heat their houses (electricity is expensive and natural gas, while better, is not available everywhere).
Re:Works with coal too by sjames · 2011-09-26 07:53 · Score: 2

The back can be fitted with a bulldozer blade with spikes attached. The vehicle will be partially propelled by the force of idiots on cellphones colliding with it. If you drop the remains off at the recycler, driving the car might yield a net profit.
Re:Works with coal too by morgauxo · 2011-09-26 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

It also works with cellulose (the parts of the plant you don't eat). No strip mining, no tailings, no net CO2 (assuming you keep growing the plant, you are just cycling the CO2).

Why would one want to use dirty old coal?
Re:Works with coal too by morgauxo · 2011-09-26 08:21 · Score: 1

Someone else already explained, yes it was and things were hot!

Besides all that though, I wonder how much of the CO2 which is naturally in the atmosphere/surface wasn't there way back when the coal and oil carbon were. Released by volcanoes from even deeper in the Earth perhaps?
Re:Works with coal too by decoy256 · 2011-09-26 08:36 · Score: 1

Here is the chart that shows CO2 levels compared to global temps: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
You'll notice that during the Ordovician period, CO2 was well over 4000ppm, and sometimes upwards of 5000ppm, yet the temperatures near the end of that period were right at modern levels.
Also, if you'll carefully look at the CO2 levels vs. the temps during the Carboniferous period, CO2 had been precipitously dropping for ~50 million years, bottoming out at around 350 ppm... but look carefully at the CO2 line compared to the temp line... CO2 bottoms out and stays there for ~5 million years before you start to see a decrease in global temps... and CO2 was under 1000 ppm for several million years with zero change in global temps.
Also notice that that cooling cycle ended in the mid-Permian period, but the temps rose quickly, but CO2's rise followed this rise in temps, it didn't precede it.
Also notice that CO2 levels were steadily declining throughout the Cretaceous, yet that was coupled with rising global temps. You would think that if CO2 was so closely tied to global temps, that a precipitous drop in CO2 would be accompanied by a precipitous drop in temps and vice versa, but that has rarely been the case.
It seems clear that something else is driving these large scale warming and cooling cycles and no absolute connection can be made between global temperatures and CO2 levels, let alone a causal connection.
And even if we could draw such a connection, we would first have to look at where all this atmospheric CO2 was coming from in the first place... there were no factories, cars, or even humans during the high-CO2/high-temp periods, such as the Cambrian or Devonian. Considering that all the CO2 produced by humans is infinitesimal compared to what Earth naturally produces, it is highly doubtful, even if CO2 does contribute to global warming, that we could produce enough to appreciably affect global temperatures.
And finally, even if we could say that humans are significantly contributing the global warming, there is absolutely no proof that such would endanger life on Earth in any way, shape, or form. During the hottest periods of this Earth's history, life has seen the greatest explosions in diversity and growth. Indeed, hot temperatures are the norm for Earth and we should welcome the rising temperatures and the economic, agricultural, and biological benefits it is sure to bring.
Re:Works with coal too by Genda · 2011-09-26 08:50 · Score: 1

There are records. Check into the massive deposits of limestone all over the planet. This was the sequestering of CO2 by zooplankton that grew shells, died, became chalk and then were compressed and heating over time into limestone and marble. Think Carbonates. That's were a bunch of the CO2 went.
Today we have a huge opportunity to use carbon for all kinds of interesting purposes. We also have some very promising technologies to sequester it from the atmosphere. A U.S. university wants to be able to create graphene sheets up to a Km wide. Processors build of diamond. Diamond and fullerenes used in construction, mechanical engineering, even whole new technologies built on super hard materials. We just need to get on with it and develop sequestering technology so we can kill both birds with one stone.
Re:Works with coal too by hesaigo999ca · 2011-09-26 08:52 · Score: 1

Yes but coal pollutes more, so the whole concept of being green is gone with that remark.
Re:Works with coal too by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-26 09:12 · Score: 1

This 'record setting' vehicle...set the record with ONLY an avg speed of about 62mph??!?
An average speed of 62mph is extremely fast. People drive for weeks without hitting 60mph if they live in the city. You could hit bursts of 200mph and still have an average speed of 62mph. I know that you know what "average" means, Cayenne8.

and if you try going even the posted limit, you'll get hit badly.
Are you really saying that where you live if you drive the posted limit that other drivers are going to ram your car?

You trying driving only 62mph on any roads around where I've lived and you will get mowed down. Hell, that's the speeds you see through neighborhoods with children in them...
I think you're confusing the world you live in with the world in Mad Max. I've driven in 42 of 50 states (including Alaska and Hawaii) and I have never seen a residential neighborhood "with children" where people were driving over 60, or 50 and rarely over 40.
In real-world studies, it turns out that most people drive within 5 miles of the posted limit. Except assholes, of course. Now even if you live in an area that has a very high asshole-density (say, Texas or Indiana) I doubt that people are commonly driving up and down side streets at more than 10 miles over the limit..
If someone could deliver a reasonably-priced car that got 100 miles/gallon and its top speed was 65, they would sell a lot of them.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Works with coal too by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 09:34 · Score: 1

Brilliant! This could give electric cars practically unlimited highway range!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 09:36 · Score: 1

You'll notice that during the Ordovician period, CO2 was well over 4000ppm, and sometimes upwards of 5000ppm, yet the temperatures near the end of that period were right at modern levels.
Correlation != Causation
That's why the people studying the climate have to build complicated models. CO2 is just one of the many inputs to those models. Stripping away just the CO2 input and trying to devine its effect on the environment through correlation alone would be like (car analogy coming...) monitoring only spark plug current and trying to correlate that with tire temperature.

there is absolutely no proof that such would endanger life on Earth in any way,
Probably not, but humans are awful at change. If people's property goes away or becomes suddenly unproductive or uninhabitable, they will fight each other until a new equilibrium is achieved. I know I just lectured you on correlation, but there is a suspicious correlation between environmental change and human conflict.
That said, I don't think there is much we can do about humans burning everything in sight. I take no issue with people trying to stop this, but ultimately I think we need to invest a lot more in mitigating the consequences. Develop plans to relocate people in low-lying areas, migrate farm land, setup irrigation systems and water plans, etc. Change may come over 100 years or so, and we will probably be fine in the developed world, but I'd still like to see the change come in an orderly fashion.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 09:59 · Score: 1

Are you really saying that where you live if you drive the posted limit that other drivers are going to ram your car?
Depending on where you are and what time of day it is, driving at the speed limit in the US can be extremely dangerous. It might not feel dangerous to the person going that speed, but there is a huge chain reaction of sudden stops and aggressive lane changes going on behind them.
If you think about it, the speed limit doesn't matter at all - only the average speed of the drivers. Being a standard deviation or so outside of the mean is probably a problem either way. There's something called "traffic waves" and all sorts of people have fun experimenting with them.
I agree with your sentiment otherwise, though I would point out that a max speed of 62mph indicates a very underpowered vehicle, and most people would probably not buy such a beast. Even city drivers need some power off of the line or they will get swamped by traffic and cut off at every light.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 10:03 · Score: 1

It also works with cellulose
If cellulose ever became valuable, farmers would grow switchgrass where food formerly was grown - in general, if you have to farm it, it is still competing with food and raising the price of food.

Why would one want to use dirty old coal?
Only economic reasons. It's hard to beat "dig rock out of otherwise fallow ground" for cost.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 10:11 · Score: 1

Oh look another "informed skeptic."
CO2/temperature lag:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Some articles on periods with unusual CO2/temperature differences:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Works with coal too by decoy256 · 2011-09-26 10:11 · Score: 1

Correlation != Causation
Agreed, however I never argued the opposite... in fact, the entire point of my post was to show that we don't even have correlation on CO2 vs. Temperature, let alone causation. All those same "many inputs" you mentioned that affected the Paleozoic and Mesozoic climate are affecting us today and it is grossly premature to suggest that the infinitesimal human contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes the climate of our planet to change in the slightest.
Re:Works with coal too by Internetuser1248 · 2011-09-26 10:13 · Score: 1

The land speed record was held by a steam car until 1909, the record was just over 200km/h (almost 130 mph). Something that few people know however is the date that the first electric car held the land speed record. 1898. That is not a typo, in fact an electric car established the first land speed record. As far as the article is concerned... all we need now is to increase world coffee production by several billion percent and all our energy worries will be gone. What was it they were trying to prove again? Electric cars are not the solution, steam cars are not the solution, hydrogen cars are not the solution, coffee powered cars are not the solution. In fact the reduction in use of the one thing that all those non-solutions have in common is probably one of the easiest and most effective short term solutions.
Re:Works with coal too by scot4875 · 2011-09-26 10:18 · Score: 1

The link you posted was from an AGW site that was last updated in 1998. Here Nineteen-fucking-ninety-eight.
I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your armchair scientist drivel. It's all been responded to and debunked if you'd take the time to read.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 10:35 · Score: 1

Agreed, however I never argued the opposite... in fact, the entire point of my post was to show that we don't even have correlation on CO2 vs. Temperature, let alone causation
Okay then, causation != correlation.
You do not need correlation to have causation. That's the whole point of building the models.

All those same "many inputs" you mentioned that affected the Paleozoic and Mesozoic climate are affecting us today and it is grossly premature to suggest that the infinitesimal human contribution to atmospheric CO2 causes the climate of our planet to change in the slightest.
Ten or fifteen years ago, I would have straight-up agreed with you. There was way too much error in the models, with some of them almost as likely to predict cooling as warming. It's not premature anymore - the models have improved, and AFAIK, there is not a model in existence which comes to a contrary conclusion. Surely if the human contribution were as infinitesimal as you claim, it would be trivial to build a competing model which showed an alternate prediction? I think if you built a model you'd come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has put in the effort.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-26 11:29 · Score: 1

I agree with your sentiment otherwise, though I would point out that a max speed of 62mph indicates a very underpowered vehicle, and most people would probably not buy such a beast. Even city drivers need some power off of the line or they will get swamped by traffic and cut off at every light.
I can't imagine any city driver needed to get to 65mph coming off a stop light.
For city drivers, a top speed of 65mph would be no problem, especially if it could accelerate to 65 in 2.5 seconds. Fast acceleration is more important for passing and keeping up with traffic than a high top speed. Now, if you're driving Interstate 15 across Nevada a top speed of 65 would mean you'd have to stay to your right.
I have found that the best approach to driving (and to almost everything else) is to not be in a hurry. If others decide they have to hurry, as long as I'm not directly in their way with no way around me then I don't see the problem. We had a national speed limit of 55mph for 20 years, and if memory serves, the world did not come to an end. Average fuel consumption for long-haul truckers declined more than 25 percent during that time.
Libertarians like to point to the fact that highway injuries declined for a couple of years after the 55mph limit was repealed, but that was because of the adoption of air bags and active seat-belt systems as well as stricter automotive safety regulations rather than increased speed limits. In fact, this issue is a textbook example of the willingness of libertarians to accept glaring logical flaws in order to promote their agenda. If you want to see just how far a hard-core libertarian is willing to go to misunderstand cause and effect, a good place to start is to engage them in a discussion of speed limits and highway safety.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Works with coal too by decoy256 · 2011-09-26 11:31 · Score: 1

The condescending attitude does not advance your cause any.
I am familiar with the apologist explanations for these incongruities, but find their explanations lacking. First, it does not address periods of lowering CO2 levels and rising temperatures (see, for example, the entire Cretaceous period).
Additionally, let us take into account that CO2 only partially contributes to global temperatures, one would still think that when CO2 levels plummet from 4000 ppm in the mid-Devonian to just ~350 ppm in the early Carboniferous (BEFORE the Carboniferous glaciation), there would be at least some type of significant climate effect, but such is not the case. CO2 levels were cut by 90% and there was hardly any significant drop in global temperatures until several million years AFTER CO2 levels bottomed out.
And that is the biggest issue with these models... during all of these geological periods, the CO2 levels were fluctuating on a much larger scale (orders of magnitude upwards of 10x) and temperature changes weren't seen sometimes for a million years or more. Yet the apologists insist on attributing the infinitesimal human contribution to atmospheric CO2 as having a much larger effect in a much quicker time scale than the huge CO2 changes that happened during these prehistoric periods. The article you linked to attempted to explain away the 200 to 1,000 year lags in historical (.5 million years ago) figures, but nothing is offered to explain the million year lags, or outright gaps, in CO2-to-Temperature correlation.
If one wants to claim that CO2 is a major (albeit partial) contributor to global warming, then one must account for these problems of scale not otherwise accounted for. Instead, the focus is on the comparatively recent past (.5 million years ago), which is insignificant when talking about a global climate that functions on cycles that typically run several million years. That is akin to taking the temperature in January and again in July and predicting that the temperature in November will be over 200 C. It just doesn't work because you are looking at a time scale that is far too short.
When there is proof that humans pose the threat of raising atmospheric levels over 1,000 ppm, then we can talk, until then there is no reason to think that the infinitesimal of CO2 we contribute will ever significantly impact the climate.
Re:Works with coal too by decoy256 · 2011-09-26 11:56 · Score: 1

Wow... it must be a very well established science if 13 years completely invalidates all figures. Fascinating. Oh, wait... nevermind, that page was updated in 2009 and the source site was updated in 2003, so at worst, 8 years.
It is kind of hard to find a site that shows geologic time scale CO2 levels... I guess it's because it causes people to question the popular AGW models...
but here's a different chart from 2002: http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html (site updated in 2007) It looks mighty similar, though.
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 14:49 · Score: 1

I can't imagine any city driver needed to get to 65mph coming off a stop light.
LOL, sorry I didn't make myself clear.
A car that can only get up to 65MPH probably is very slow getting to even 35MPH.

Fast acceleration is more important for passing and keeping up with traffic than a high top speed.
Exactly.

We had a national speed limit of 55mph for 20 years, and if memory serves, the world did not come to an end.
Did average speeds change much? I feel like I still set cruise control around 70-74MPH, even with the 65MPH speed limits - same as I did at 55MPH (though then I had to tail someone or risk getting a ticket). This study is the one that often gets cited - an oldie but goodie. But then this site lists a bunch of stats to the contrary - so I dunno. All I know is that I'm a lot happier at 74 than I am at 64 :)
My starting ideology is pretty Libertarian, but I accept that the free market can't deal with external costs well and that individuals sometimes act irrationally. So maybe I'm more of a pragmatist. But anyway, when it comes to roads, I'd like to see the roads used to move the most cars in the shortest amount of time possible. Ultimately, they probably need to automate them - cars moving at different speeds is inherently a bad system.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-26 15:28 · Score: 1

I feel like I still set cruise control around 70-74MPH
Me too, but apparently enough of the people who care about their licenses (like truck drivers) drove 55 that the consumption of fuel went down significantly.

Ultimately, they probably need to automate them - cars moving at different speeds is inherently a bad system.
When you've got a powerful political force intent on convincing people that any regulation is bad, I doubt anything like that's gonna happen.
But I sure would love to be able to hook up to an Interstate system and ride in my car from Chicago to New York or Cleveland or Memphis while getting work done and then unhook for local travel. I think that's sort of what you mean by "automate". Just this morning I was sitting on the Dan Ryan expressway crawling in a jam that had slowed for no good reason other than that there were thousands of individual sentient beings trying to go somewhere on a crowded road with each one in control of its own 2000lb vehicle, burning fossil fuel, no less.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Works with coal too by kmoser · 2011-09-26 17:19 · Score: 1

I wonder how it would work with...gasoline.
Re:Works with coal too by blindseer · 2011-09-26 18:46 · Score: 1

It also works with cellulose (the parts of the plant you don't eat). No strip mining, no tailings, no net CO2 (assuming you keep growing the plant, you are just cycling the CO2).

You mean that same cellulose left in the fields by farmers to control erosion, reduce fertilizer costs, and control weeds?
Does anyone else see a problem with this logic?
Considering that most synthetic fertilizer uses natural gas as feedstock and/or fuel would it not be simpler and more energy efficient to leave the cellulose in the fields and burn the natural gas in our cars? I've seen what corn ethanol has done to food and fuel prices. I don't want to live through what doubling down on that will do to my cost of living.
I believe we have experimented with bio-fuels enough to know that it cannot be viable beyond some very narrow constraints. Burning our food to power our cars sounds to me like the road to starvation. I suggest we put our effort into building more nuclear power plants before the oil and coal run out so we are not forced to decide between eating and driving to the hospital/work/whatever in the future.

Why would one want to use dirty old coal?
Perhaps because it means we get to eat, stay warm, and travel freely all at the same time. There are ways to burn coal more cleanly. Nuclear, wind, and solar in a nice mix with some energy storage systems like flywheels and pumped hydro could also mean a coal free society without having to resort to burning our food.
Bio-fuels have been a disaster. I believe it's best we abandon it now before too many people get the wrong idea.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Re:Works with coal too by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 18:56 · Score: 1

Time to shake hands, have a big girly kiss and make up.

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Re:Works with coal too by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 19:00 · Score: 1

You do realise that arguing is pointless. AGW proponents are like the Borg only a lot less sexy

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Re:Works with coal too by syockit · 2011-09-26 19:00 · Score: 1

The percentage of CO atmosphere is governed by the rate at which it is released and absorbed. A forest absorbs more CO than a farm. If you cut down a forest for a farm, the equilibrium percentage will shift towards having more CO. Let's say it was 390 ppmv before. After you cut down the forest, it might rise to 395. Then you plant the farm, it may reduce to 394. Harvesting and replanting the farm will cause the CO level to fluctuate between 394 and 395, but never returns to 390 like back when it was still a forest.

--
Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
Re:Works with coal too by syockit · 2011-09-26 19:05 · Score: 1

Slashdot ate all my subscripts! I suppose it doesn't support all kinds of unicodes

--
Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-09-26 23:27 · Score: 1

When you've got a powerful political force intent on convincing people that any regulation is bad, I doubt anything like that's gonna happen.
People will completely ignore the politicians and their ideological madness if DOT saves them 30 seconds on their commute :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by KingBenny · 2011-09-27 23:00 · Score: 1

mhm, i am also convinced that the next version of the same combustion engine is not the solution, i'm also not convinved that plants absorb during their growth exactly the amount of co2 they put out when burned, or gasified (its a term that sounds so much more clean really, you're right)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:Works with coal too by xdor · 2011-10-06 08:25 · Score: 1

A competing model does not need to show an alternate prediction: only that any net warming is not dictated by man-made emissions.
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-10-06 09:25 · Score: 1

I think we agree... I consider changing the inputs but getting the same result to be an alternate prediction. I think I'm comfortable with your statement - the point I was trying to make is that no one who makes the assertion that anthropomorphic warming is not significant seems to have constructed a model at all - they all seem to be searching for correlations statistically or visually analyzing charts for correlations.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Works with coal too by decoy256 · 2011-10-08 19:58 · Score: 1

You do not need correlation to have causation. That's the whole point of building the models.
I'm sorry, but I think you've missed a few classes in basic logic. You cannot determine causation unless there IS correlation... otherwise, you're just making guesses and stabbing in the dark with no idea whether you are getting closer to truth.
Let me give a few examples to illustrate:
1. A gun goes off, the man next to you drops dead. Is the gun the cause of the man's death? Maybe... correlation does not equal causation.
2. The man next to you drops dead with no gun being fired. Is it at all possible that the gun caused the man to die? NO! No gun was fired, therefore a gunshot cannot be the cause of the man's death.
3. A gun goes off. The man next to you is alive and well with no injuries. Is it at all possible that the gun was shot at him? Again, NO!
In the second two examples we have no correlation between the gunshot and the man dying and in both scenarios, there is absolutely no way that there is any causal link between the two incidences.
Correlation is the absolute beginning of ALL scientific understanding. Without correlation, we cannot determine the effect of any action.
Thus, correlation does not equal causation, but causation REQUIRES correlation. In logic terms, it is a condition necessary, but not a condition sufficient.
What you have basically said is that if we increase out carbon output, there won't necessarily be any increase in temperature and in fact, there might be a decrease. Also, if we reduce our carbon ouput, there won't necessarily be any decrease in temperature either and there might even be an increase. Then what is the point in trying to reduce our carbon output?!?
Re:Works with coal too by MightyYar · 2011-10-09 00:25 · Score: 1

What you have basically said is that if we increase out carbon output, there won't necessarily be any increase in temperature and in fact, there might be a decrease
Exactly!
Say we increase carbon output, but decrease other, more powerful greenhouse gas emissions - net effect could very well be a decrease in temperature. Thus, no simple correlation between carbon output and temperature.
Of course, it is in the technical sense "correlated" through a complex set of equations and algorithms - a model. But it's not correlated in any kind of a classic statistical sense. Science does not require a t-test or ANOVA - it only requires the scientific method.

Then what is the point in trying to reduce our carbon output?!?
Well, I happen to think it is pointless, because we are like locusts and will use up all of the cheap energy no matter how it affects our long-term interest as a species. But the "point" of it is that our best science indicates that pumping out stored carbon will warm the atmosphere. The only people saying otherwise haven't built a model, and in fact are not in the field of climate science.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

"Gasification" by jawtheshark · 2011-09-26 06:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Gasification is a process in which any organic fuel is turned into 'syngas,' a mixture of carbon dioxide/monoxide, hydrogen, and methane which can be used in conventional internal combustion engines

Just for those who don't know. This was very popular during and after WW-II in Germany as gas supplies were next to non-existent. In these gasification systems, you could burn pretty much anything combustible. Wood was popular a popular choice. It's a very old technology.

Not 100% related, but the original Diesel engine, ran on peanut oil. Fossil fuels only got used later in Diesel technology.

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)

Re:"Gasification" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-09-26 06:50 · Score: 2

It has also been used in South Africa. Also in both Germany and South Africa coal was actually the preferred feedstock and they would then take the process one step further creating liquid hydrocarbons like diesel, avgas, and gasoline. To complete the process to liquid you need the Fischer-Tropsch Process. You are correct in that this is old technology the Fischer-Tropshc process was first developed in Germany in the 1920 and creating charcoal has been around for a couple thousand years.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:"Gasification" by Technician · 2011-09-26 08:03 · Score: 1

Here is the link to the WWII use of the technology. I was going to post the info, but you beat me to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:"Gasification" by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-26 09:38 · Score: 1

I wonder if it would be possible to set up a dual-fuel (bio)diesel/gasification engine. That would be the ultimate Zombie Apocalypse Vehicle power plant. No diesel available? No problem, just toss in some (re)killed zombie parts!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:"Gasification" by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 19:07 · Score: 1

Na, they just burn the bodies of prisoners.
Sourced from the same place that tells us Gaddafi is a dictator, Kuwaiti babies thrown on hospital floor. and the best one 'Jesus loves you'

Adolph would have been proud.
Why exactly is this?

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.

Holy crap!! Been-go!!! by getkashyap · 2011-09-26 06:03 · Score: 1

Someone's be(a)n working real hard!!!

--
Yeah, whatever!!!

Next step... by tangelogee · 2011-09-26 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Mr. Fusion!

Re:Next step... by bondsbw · 2011-09-26 06:43 · Score: 1

(Score:3, Insightful)
This is where I need a mod (+1, Wish It Were Insightful).

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.

It's not that green... by courteaudotbiz · 2011-09-26 06:08 · Score: 1

Maybe that using coffee beans or fries oil is truly green to use for some proof of concept cars like that, but imagine the whole planet running its cars with coffee beans or wood pellets. How long before coffee gets sold at 500$ per kilo, or wood being sold 50000$ for a dead tree? Using pesticides and faster growing stuff? Using energy at such large scale as we use dead dinosaurs as today cannot really be green, unless we can *FINALLY* get nuclear fusion working, which is 50 years away, isn't it?

Re:It's not that green... by Froeschle · 2011-09-26 06:26 · Score: 1

I often wonder if "environmentalists" have any real appreciation of the laws of thermodynamics or idea of the energy needs of of modern society when they take on endeavors like this. If all of society decided to run their cars off of coffee and/or wood-chips there would soon be no wood or coffee left. What kind of environmental catastrophe would that lead so?
Re:It's not that green... by alop · 2011-09-26 06:35 · Score: 1

The article is not clear on this, but the site it references (coffeecar.org) states the fuel is spent coffee grounds. So, it's maybe a little greener than using whole raw beans. At least it's using something that would otherwise go into the garbage, or my garden.

--
--alop
Re:It's not that green... by element-o.p. · 2011-09-26 06:52 · Score: 1

Not necessarily -- at least for coffee beans and the like. Search Google, and you'll see tutorials on converting your *USED* coffee grounds into fire-starter logs (like the Duraflame logs sold in grocery stores). With coffee, tea, etc., you can use the product as you normally would, then recycle the leftover grounds for your fuel source. Just imagine how much fuel you could produce by recycling the used grounds from every Starbucks and Duncan Donuts in the U.S. :)

--
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Re:It's not that green... by courteaudotbiz · 2011-09-26 07:05 · Score: 1

As any good slashdotter, I didn't RTFA, so if that's true, that it runs on coffee grouns leftovers, that would be a little greener, but how many coffees would I have to drink to get to work everyday? I think I'd never sleep again and would always be at the restroom...
Re:It's not that green... by NatasRevol · 2011-09-26 07:17 · Score: 2

An earth full of tired tree cutters?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:It's not that green... by maxume · 2011-09-26 07:35 · Score: 2

You really think their attitude is more "See, we can run the world on coffee grounds" than it is "See, you can do all sorts of wacky things, like running a car on coffee grounds"?

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:It's not that green... by eyrieowl · 2011-09-26 08:09 · Score: 1

How does thermodynamics come into play? If the earth were a closed system, that would be one thing, but we have this convenient star that periodically gives us some extra energy....
As far as being "green" as pointed out elsewhere, this would, ideally, be "carbon neutral", although in practice it would at best be merely less carbon intensive than fossil fuels. So, it's "green" as in "not as bad as some alternatives".
What it really comes down to is using the biomass as a convenient storage and transport mechanism for solar energy. In the end, that's what we want to use, one way or another, for pretty much every energy technology except nuclear fission/fusion. The trick is just finding the way to use solar energy which maximizes convenience and minimizes the bad side-effects.
I think a more interesting solution for gassification would involve picking the fuel source for maximum efficiency...off the top of my head, it'd be very interesting to see what sort of efficiency could be gotten if they grew algae, say, and created dehydrated pellets from it to use as fuel. Perhaps someone has tried that?
Re:It's not that green... by jellomizer · 2011-09-26 08:41 · Score: 1

No real environmentalists you know the actual scientists who study the environment. Know there are trade offs and a real complex set of problems that happen. What we think of as environmentalists are average person who read the summary of the summary of the articles and gets outraged by the values, and will either spend time complaining about it, or coming up ways of manipulating their ideas so they can market to those who are complaining about it, to make them feel good about being self righteous.
Yes Global warming is a problem, We humans are a major factor. Jumping back and forth on each Green Method that some businessman came up with to make a quick million won't fix the problem.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:It's not that green... by Jason+Levine · 2011-09-26 12:50 · Score: 1

I'd think that, after proof of concept stage, they would look for a good fuel that could be converted at low cost and low environmental impact. One biofuel candidate I've heard of is Kudzu. It's an invasive vine species that's taken over parts of the south. We could harvest it and, given its quick growth rate, it'd grow back rapidly. Even if we wound up depleting the supply, we'd only be cleaning up an invasive species that we introduced into the ecosystem in the first place.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

why coffee? by PJ6 · 2011-09-26 06:08 · Score: 1

What an expensive choice. Is this just a PR stunt, or is there something inherently better (say, volatile oils) that makes coffee beans better than, say, wood?

Re:why coffee? by stillnotelf · 2011-09-26 06:10 · Score: 1

I haven't RTFA, but perhaps it runs on grounds instead of beans? There's certainly lots of those laying around...
Re:why coffee? by Aguazul · 2011-09-26 06:21 · Score: 2

It is a waste product normally thrown away.
Re:why coffee? by alop · 2011-09-26 06:23 · Score: 1

The site coffeecar.org makes reference to using waste from coffee shops. So, I guess that better than wasting perfectly good beans.

--
--alop
Re:why coffee? by jm007 · 2011-09-26 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative

If I had to guess as to why use coffee beans as fuel, I understand that when roasted, they are actually subjected to a process called torrefaction. In this way, moisture and other undesirable compounds in the raw biomass are boiled off. What remains has a Btu content just under that of coal, burns more consistently, and is resistant to moisture. Even if the coffee was first used to make the tasty beverage, I'm sure the used grounds would still have plenty of use as a gasification fuel.

The costs of processing the 'fuel' is actually paid for by the first use of coffee: drinking. To get a ready-to-use gasification fuel as a by-product sounds like a great way to extend its uses.

p.s., sorry, I think I duped this reply

The total cost would be interesting to know... by damn_registrars · 2011-09-26 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

They don't mention how they reach the temperature required for gasification of the beans. That requires some energy input, and they didn't say where that energy came from.

Not that gasoline as we know and use it today comes with no cost, but if efficiency and cleanliness is what they are after, a little more disclosure would be useful.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:The total cost would be interesting to know... by GuldKalle · 2011-09-26 14:30 · Score: 1

Good point. But gasification has the clever side-effect of letting you use otherwise wasted heat from exhaust and cooling systems to at least partially power it. Maybe you can also burn some of the coffee grounds directly to start up the process.

--
What?
Re:The total cost would be interesting to know... by antifoidulus · 2011-09-26 18:36 · Score: 1

Thats pretty simple. You just hook up some generators to a bunch of caffeine addicts and then start waving the beans in front of them. The energy that can be harnessed from the sheer amount of twitching is more than enough to convert those beans into fuel. Just don't let those people know what you did with the beans or there will be trouble.

--
Monstar L

What's the energy density of stored fuel? by Enleth · 2011-09-26 06:12 · Score: 2

If it's sensible, this could be useful in some areas, for some vehicles. Looks like the whole gassification assembly is not exactly a work of precision engineering and could be built in somewhat sub-standard conditions. I'd expect that many third-world plantations of easily gassified produce have lots of leftovers and not all of those have sensible uses to date - some might be just dumped somewhere to rot.

On a different note, if I were the CEO of Starbucks, I'd get such a car as a publicity and marketing stunt, and power it with dried left-overs from brewing.

--
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.

Re:What's the energy density of stored fuel? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-09-26 06:29 · Score: 1

I would love to see this installed up in an area like International Falls where they have literally tons of old sawdust sitting in piles and every once and a while the set them ablaze to get rid of them. The smell of wood smoke is nice is small amounts but the amount when it fills an entire town you get really sick of it quickly when driving through.

--
Time to offend someone

Well, I think we knew it was POSSIBLE by elrous0 · 2011-09-26 06:12 · Score: 1

The Coffee Car was created with the sole intention of proving that renewable/green energy sources can power cars.

Yeah, but that's not the trick. The trick is proving that it can be done affordably (i.e., in a way that doesn't make it ten times as expensive as conventional fossil fuels).

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Well, I think we knew it was POSSIBLE by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-09-26 06:41 · Score: 2

I have been around on some of the green energy vehicle forums (trying to figure out how to properly convert an engine to run on alcohol) and I have seen similar setups in the back of a pickups. There they had a wood fired gassification chamber that was filled with wood. I have built a similar setup that uses the syngas as fuel to make charcoal. Granted this is a very simple setup, one metal bucket with some legs on the bottom and a smaller bucket (needs to fit in the larger one) with a metal tube coming out and under to fire the larger one. Stoke a fire under it and about 30 - 45 minutes you have a self sustaining reaction. When the fire finally burns out you have a fair amount of natural charcoal. This is how I dispose of my brush and also keep in charcoal so I can barbeque every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday when the weather is good enough (less than a foot of snow on the ground and not 90+F with oppressive Minnesota humidity)

--
Time to offend someone

Starbucks saw this coming. by FauxReal · 2011-09-26 06:15 · Score: 1

Well, now we know why Starbucks has been opening franchises on every street corner possible, they apparently saw this tech coming. Next item on the agenda... sponsor NASCAR & Rally cars.

--
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)

Re:Starbucks saw this coming. by roman_mir · 2011-09-26 06:26 · Score: 1

Well, at least if Homer had a coffee car and not an alcohol vehicle, his gas station stop wouldn't put him into DUI classification.
One for me (quad Venti Latte), one for you (a bag of used up coffee grounds.)

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Starbucks saw this coming. by Imrik · 2011-09-26 07:22 · Score: 1

Now you can spend $5 on a cup of fuel instead of a gallon. :P

Renewable and ecological are two different things by Hentes · 2011-09-26 06:16 · Score: 1

This is why nuclear power is ecologycal but biofuel is not. That aside, this design could have potential in rarely inhabited regions where you can't get gas easily if you run out of it. If fuel efficiency would be made high enough, you could run a car on grass and leaves.

Was this submitted by Billy Madison? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Coffee Car was created with the sole intention of proving that renewable/green energy sources can power cars ...

Because everyone knows that wood pellets - you know, the fuel source used by the previous record holder? - aren't a renewable resource. I mean, it's not like they freaking grow on trees or anything, amirite?

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Was this submitted by Billy Madison? by _0xd0ad · 2011-09-26 06:56 · Score: 1

The previous record holder only went 47 MPH. While you might call that a "car", I wouldn't recommend taking it on the highway.
Re:Was this submitted by Billy Madison? by quacking+duck · 2011-09-26 11:34 · Score: 1

Trees, coffee, corn/ethanol... both expensive in resources and take long to grow. I'm curious if anyone's tried using common weeds as fuel? Or even bamboo, which can grow up to 100 cm a day...

The exhaust by roman_mir · 2011-09-26 06:18 · Score: 1

The exhaust must smell wonderful, I imagine any coffee fanatic would want one of these. You can save on gas and you can have more coffee scented air all around you while you drive...... winning. Just rock stars from Mars.

HOWEVER.

What's with the AOL etc. license plate?
Also this does have some 'Mad Max' feel about it.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:The exhaust by Gordonjcp · 2011-09-26 07:51 · Score: 2

What's with the AOL etc. license plate?
UK number plates have the area the car was registered in, a serial number, and the year of registration.
So, AOL 183T means it was registered in Oxfordshire some time in late 1978 - "OL" was Oxfordshire, "A" and "183" is fairly early in the sequence, and "T" means August 1978 to July 1979.

Pfft by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-26 06:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Everybody knows you dont use Java for speed.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:Pfft by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-09-26 07:36 · Score: 1

George disagree. javajavajavajavajava...

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Pfft by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 19:12 · Score: 1

Everybody knows you dont use Java for speed.
It makes your nose bleed

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.

I can just hope this technology flops... by gwolf · 2011-09-26 06:30 · Score: 1

We would all surely hate to see coffee prices go up as it becomes the new super-biodiesel. Maybe we would have to fall back to drinking gasoline?

Myth by 0100010001010011 · 2011-09-26 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Diesel designed his engine around coal dust.

Someone else ran it on peanut oil for exhibition in Paris.

Re:Myth by jawtheshark · 2011-09-26 06:48 · Score: 1

Well thanks for clearing that up. I knew it would run on coal dust, but I wasn't aware it was designed to do that. I'm pretty sure it could run on anything "dust" as long as the dust was burnable (flour for example?). Modern day Diesels probably wouldn't like that though ;-)

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Re:Myth by uninformedLuddite · 2011-09-26 19:10 · Score: 1

Diesel designed his engine around coal dust.
Really? Please do give us a source for this gem. I know that they worked on the whole coal dust idea but 'designed his engine around coal dust' is stretching it a bit

Someone else ran it on peanut oil for exhibition in Paris.
Who was it exactly that demonstrated the engine in Paris? The uninformed need to know

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Re:Myth by CodeBuster · 2011-09-26 20:24 · Score: 1

Diesel designed his engine around coal dust.
That's incorrect. From the wikipedia article:
"It is often reported that Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut oil. Diesel stated in his published papers, "at the Paris Exhibition in 1900 (Exposition Universelle) there was shown by the Otto Company a small diesel engine, which, at the request of the French Government ran on Arachide (earth-nut or pea-nut) oil (see biodiesel), and worked so smoothly that only a few people were aware of it. The engine was constructed for using mineral oil, and was then worked on vegetable oil without any alterations being made. The French Government at the time thought of testing the applicability to power production of the Arachide, or earth-nut, which grows in considerable quantities in their African colonies, and can easily be cultivated there." Diesel himself later conducted related tests and appeared supportive of the idea."
Besides, it's very difficult to construct an internal combustion engine that will run on flammable dust. I know that GM experimented with a turbine powered 1979 Cadillac Eldorado that ran on coal dust, at least after ignition. In Episode 63: Air Cylinder Rocket, Gunpowder Engine the Mythbusters attempted to run an internal combustion engine on gunpowder (a turbine wasn't tested), which is both a flammable powdery substance and more brisant than coal dust, and it was busted.
The diesel engine was clearly designed by diesel to run on flammable liquids; namely mineral oil.
Re:Myth by 0100010001010011 · 2011-09-26 23:47 · Score: 1

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=52&i=9773
The first experimental engine was built in 1893 and used high pressure air to blast the coal dust into the combustion chamber. While the prototype blew its cylinder head off but, four years later, Diesel produced a reasonably reliable engine. His ideas for an engine where the combustion would be carried out within the cylinder were published in 1893, one year after he applied for his first patent.
Further developments using coal dust as fuel failed. A compression ignition engine that used oil as fuel was successful and a number of manufacturers were licensed to build similar engines.
His first designs were designed around coal dust.
Re:Myth by CodeBuster · 2011-09-27 03:12 · Score: 1

What exactly is meant by "reasonably reliable"? I think perhaps that it didn't actually work or it wasn't practical since he very quickly turned to liquid fuels instead. It would seem that the primary sources are somewhat vague on this point; either omitting it entirely or mentioning it only briefly. In any case, the coal dust experiments, while perhaps important in development of Diesel's engine designs, did not lead to a line of practical coal dust engines that are still in use today.

*crosses fingers* by TheSpoom · 2011-09-26 06:31 · Score: 1

Mr. Fusion by 2015!

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Grounds not Beans! by alop · 2011-09-26 06:38 · Score: 4, Informative

The BBC article is not clear on the fuel at all, the site coffeecar.org, states the car uses spent coffee grounds for fuel. So, this isn't as asinine as it originally sounds, just turning waste into syngas, not a useable (valuable, tasty) commodity for syngas.

--
--alop

Re:Because we all know... by Yetihehe · 2011-09-26 06:38 · Score: 1

Used coffee is cheaper than oil. Essentially free as it's waste product. But if this holds on, not for long.

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers

Desert by sourcerror · 2011-09-26 06:45 · Score: 2

"Even if you cut down a forest, ..."
Or it will simply become a desert ... oops ...
You don't want to cut down a whole forest.

Re:Not renewable or green by w_dragon · 2011-09-26 06:57 · Score: 1

They're using used coffee grounds. It is a waste product.

What about a junk mail powered car? by istartedi · 2011-09-26 06:58 · Score: 2

I'd like to see a practical version of this that runs on junk mail. Unfortunately, burning the inks in glossy coupon flyers probably doesn't smell so good. It might be toxic too.

And yes, it wouldn't really be green. It's just that as long as the postman keeps delivering free fuel to me, I'd like a way to use it.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:What about a junk mail powered car? by cashman73 · 2011-09-26 08:16 · Score: 1

Great idea! That might solve the USPS's budget issues as well!
Re:What about a junk mail powered car? by Bob9113 · 2011-09-26 10:47 · Score: 1

runs on junk mail.
I did some testing of fueling a biochar maker with junk mail. I had problems with creosote buildup on the spark arrestor, but I definitely think it could be fixed. Ultimately, though, I suspect low-therm processes, such as vermiculture, would be more efficient both in terms of sequestration rate and ultimately in fuel generation (by using the fertilizer to increase the growth rate of crops that are more suited to biofuel processing).
Don't know if my post really adds much to the conversation, except to say, "Yeah, I've thought about that too!" :)

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:Renewable and ecological are two different thin by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-09-26 06:59 · Score: 2

No what is really needed is to have the process be taken all the way to liquid fuels. This is a solved problem as the Germans did it in WWII using the Fischer-Tropsch process. With the same inputs we could probably get massively more useable energy from the resources we are currently diverting to corn ethanol, that and it wouldn't even be dependent on corn we could use input like switch grass, animal crap, animal processing waste, road kill, bamboo, yard waste, garbage, lumbar waste, or any other carbon based item we wish to dispose of.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:Not renewable or green by NiteShaed · 2011-09-26 07:15 · Score: 2

Gasification using a waste product would be more renewable and green. But coffee requires significant water, pesticides, and human intervention to grow. This is probably no better than corn ethanol fueling a vehicle.

Except that they're using coffee grounds. To compare it to ethanol, you'd have to somehow be able to eat the corn first, and then make the ethanol from the husks/leaves that remain.
All that aside, coffee grounds were just a whim, not a necessity. The rig they built should work just as well with any other plant-based left-overs (sawdust, leaves, lawn-clippings). Just compress them to have similar density and away you go...

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Re:Hmmm... by h4rr4r · 2011-09-26 07:21 · Score: 2

So do you realize they are using spent coffee grounds?

What is next commentators that have no fucking idea what they are talking about? How about a commentator that then makes a bunch of stupid comparisons based on his total lack of knowledge about the situation.

Re:Because we all know... by roc97007 · 2011-09-26 07:23 · Score: 1

Right, but do you understand the orders of magnitude difference between the waste product from coffee consumption and the amount of oil we use? The last time this subject came up, someone calculated that fuel from all the waste biomass in the country would still be a tiny fraction of oil consumption.

Also in that thread, there was speculation that techniques like this might be useful on farms for fuel used at the farm, and for self-sufficiency hobbyists (and survivalist fanatics). So I guess the effort isn't entirely wasted. And I'd like to personally thank the Brits for funding the research.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Because we all know... by Yetihehe · 2011-09-26 07:32 · Score: 1

Yep, I understand. Hence "But if this holds on, not for long.". Sorry for not being clear enough.

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers

Re:Hmmm... by Stan92057 · 2011-09-26 07:54 · Score: 1

not according to the vid. i didnt see any thing coffee go in as fuel except the wood.Why would they omit the fuel being loaded?

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Re:Because we all know... by Gordonjcp · 2011-09-26 07:55 · Score: 1

The last time this subject came up, someone calculated that fuel from all the waste biomass in the country would still be a tiny fraction of oil consumption.

Yup. But gasification doesn't have to scale up to power *every* car, it just has to power *my* car. If you make a gasifier, it has to scale to power yours, too.

Oh, you can't weld? Well, tell you what, how about I give you a lift in my wood gas-powered car to the stables, and I'll teach you how to ride a horse instead?

Re:Not renewable or green by WrecklessSandwich · 2011-09-26 07:57 · Score: 1

Gasification using a waste product would be more renewable and green. But coffee requires significant water, pesticides, and human intervention to grow. This is probably no better than corn ethanol fueling a vehicle. Ho hum. I could power a car by burning diamonds, too...interesting, yes...efficient, no.

They're using old coffee grounds. As in the coffee was already brewed and made into a cup of coffee. It's like the people that run their cars on old grease from restaurants, you could swing by the local Starbucks and get their old waste grounds to fill up your car.

Coffee powered car by PortHaven · 2011-09-26 08:08 · Score: 1

"The car that never sleeps!"

Mind you, if I recall correctly, the 2nd biggest commodity after oil is coffee. If true, we could find ourselves bound by "BIG COFFEE"

Re:Not renewable or green by knarf · 2011-09-26 08:08 · Score: 1

To compare it to ethanol, you'd have to somehow be able to eat the corn first, and then make the ethanol from the husks/leaves that remain.

Which is just the way ethanol is made in cellulosic ethanol plants. The food, you get to eat. The waste, you get to drink. Or drive. Not at the same time, please.

--
--frank[at]unternet.org

Coffee is just the first step by cvtan · 2011-09-26 08:11 · Score: 1

When the lobster and truffle powered car hits the street, mankind will be saved!

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

To the contrary by SuperKendall · 2011-09-26 08:17 · Score: 1

The previous record holder only went 47 MPH. While you might call that a "car", I wouldn't recommend taking it on the highway.

I would argue that any conveyance that requires heaps of material such as coffee grounds, or wood pellets should not be taken on the highway even if it can go fast enough - because you can too quickly get beyond your piles of fuel. These things seem much better suited to in-city driving (though the ability to go at least 55 would be desirable even for that).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:To the contrary by _0xd0ad · 2011-09-26 08:35 · Score: 1

How far does a pile of fuel get you? There's always a Starbucks closer than that...

Re:Hmmm... by Mister+Whirly · 2011-09-26 08:26 · Score: 1

Well, welcome to Slashdot, you must be new here.

No, I didn't read the article, because I am a typical Slashdotter. I took the tiny information that I had, extrapolated it any way I wanted, and came to a conclusion that suited my opinion.

What is next, people reading the articles and making insightful, informed comments based on actual knowledge? If you are hanging out here you may want to consider lowering your standards a bit. Oh, and lighten up Francis, it was a joke. Sorry you didn't get it, but I am not going to lose much sleep over that fact.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

The real problem with coffee powered cars is... by MrMatto · 2011-09-26 08:37 · Score: 2

they run really fast for a few hours and then crash!

Starbucks new green energy Distribution by SpiesInOrbit · 2011-09-26 08:40 · Score: 1

We have enough Starbucks to meet the demand worldwide...

"syngas" is simply a fart by goffster · 2011-09-26 08:40 · Score: 1

No wonder I let loose so much after drinking coffee.

"Looks like they succeeded?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-26 09:19 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? Can you imagine the price of a full tank at Starbuck's?

Re:Because we all know... by roc97007 · 2011-09-26 09:58 · Score: 1

Yes, later in the same article I quoted, I said that the value would be in local generation for local usage. And yes, I had the same thought -- I don't care if it's commercially viable, if I could finagle it for the truck.

Wood gas power (the way I've seen it implemented) has quite high point source emissions, (non-geek translation: emits lots of black smoke) so your vehicle may not be hugely popular with the neighbors, but there might be a point where consumer vehicles like it are the only ones on the road. Parenthetically, we should probably hope this technique doesn't get *too* popular, or cities will start to look like London in the 1890's.

And yes, I can weld.

And I can already ride a horse, thanks. Although I don't currently own enough land to support one.

Incidentally, I have a friend who takes seriously Alice's solution (from Dilbert) to survivalist strategy: Don't bother with supplies or alternate energy sources, just pack enough firepower to take what you need from people who *have* prepared. It's a little chilling, but I have to admit I can see the logic.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

History of wood gas by GPS+Pilot · 2011-09-26 10:44 · Score: 1

This was very popular during and after WW-II in Germany as gas supplies were next to non-existent. In these gasification systems, you could burn pretty much anything combustible. Wood was popular a popular choice. It's a very old technology.

You are correct... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas_generator#History. Wood gas was also used to fuel vehicles in WWII Japan.

"The Coffee Car was created with the sole intention of proving that renewable/green energy sources can power cars — and it looks like it succeeded!"

No, it's not possible to succeed at that, because the concept had already been proven and utilized 70 years ago.

--
That that is is that that that that is not is not.

Scale by SuperKendall · 2011-09-26 11:06 · Score: 1

Oh, you can't weld? Well, tell you what, how about I give you a lift in my wood gas-powered car to the stables, and I'll teach you how to ride a horse instead?

If you think wood-gas does not scale well, just figure out the costs associated with owning a horse.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Scale by roc97007 · 2011-09-27 06:15 · Score: 1

> If you think wood-gas does not scale well, just figure out the costs associated with owning a horse.
More true if you live in the city...

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Not renewable or green by blindseer · 2011-09-26 19:15 · Score: 1

This can be done by putting the cattle or pig dung in the gasifier. This would be after feeding the corn to the animals of course. It would have to be dried first, same as the coffee grounds. I recall seeing videos of people using dried dung for cooking and heating so there seems to be enough energy density in the dung to make it comparable to wood. Probably a better solution than the coffee beans since they needed to start the process with wood to get the coffee to burn.

--
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.

Re:Not renewable or green by NiteShaed · 2011-09-27 00:11 · Score: 1

Exactly right, now that you mention it there was an episode of "Apocalypse Pa" where they set up a pickup truck to do exactly that, using waste from their livestock (horses IIRC). The second I hit "submit" I realized I shouldn't have specified "plant-based left-overs", but I guess that's just what was really in my mind given the coffee bean vs corn talk....

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Re:Not renewable or green by NiteShaed · 2011-09-27 00:13 · Score: 1

That's a good point. I didn't think anyone was really doing that (separating the edible/non-edible parts) considering all the talk of "taking food from people to use as fuel". I knew it *could* be done, just didn't realize anyone was actually doing it...

--
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.

Slashdot Mirror

Coffee-Powered Car Breaks World Record

128 of 174 comments (clear)