When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Doesn't matter if water is cheap, you still need an actual fuel source. Coal, fuel oil, wood, gasoline . . something. It's the cost of those fuels that will get ya.
A '24 Dobel got 1500 miles from 24 gallons of kerosene; that's not too bad.
Dono
My concern would be that the increased demand for water (even if they were able to recycle it 100%, manufacturing would require a significant amount) would drive the price of THAT sky-high. If I can't afford to put gas in my truck, I can walk, or stay home. If I can't afford water to drink, and farmers can't afford to irrigate their crops...
Every time energy changes form, it loses some of its energy. Gas engines are only about 30% effiecient (and that's generous). The rest of the energy is lost to heat and friction. So then instead of burning the gasoline directly, you're going to burn a fossil fuel to heat the water, which is then going to move a car. It seems to me that when you add that extra energy conversion (fossil fuel to hot water) you are making a less efficient machine.
The energy required to heat the water up has to come from somewhere. Instead of burning gas, we'd all be burning propane, kerosene, diesel oil, etc. How would we be any better off?
The same problem lies in hydrogen - we'll never have our cars all powered by hydrogen. Where does the energy come from to make the hydrogen?
If steam is more efficient, why did the railroads and then ships all convert to diesel or diesel-electric propulsion in over the last 60 years or so?
Jim
Now I don't claim to be an expert but I know a little about this. Actually, the steam engines made more horsepower than the new ones do. I've heard from a few old railroaders that the old steam engines could make close 8000 horses as opposed to the new A/C locomotives only making roughly 6500. I think the reasons for changing is that while steam may have been a little more efficient, they could run diesel engines longer and harder for roughly the same amount of money. Another reason would be that while you could pull more tons with that stronger engine, the fuel to run that engine weighs much more. Because 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel still weighs less than a huge hopper car full of coal or wood. The other reasons I've heard are that it was a safety issue because on a diesel-electric locomotive there is no boiler to potentially blow up and that since the technology was available the railroads decided to change because they wanted to cut the fireman job off of the crew size. I think they cut that job in the 40's or 50's
Once again I am no expert but that's what little bit I know.
One thing I should add is that while every locomotive I've ever been on has been diesel powered, the diesel engine does not actually turn the wheel. It is merely a generator for an electric motor that turns the axles, which makes me wonder if maybe that setup would work in a truck but that's probably a whole other thread.
I read where testing has been underway on small field corn fired boilers to generate steam to power generators. Already companies manufacture corn fired heat exchangers for hot water home heating systems, so it isn't too big of a stretch to go on to steam (just 212 deg instead of 100+).
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Slideshow: The VelociRaptor Expedition gains a lift, upgraded suspension, Brembo brakes, and trail-ready equipment while retaining the stock 440-horsepower EcoBoost V6.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.