Science/Energy Question

[Professor S]

There has been a lot of talk on the forums about energy and science lately, so I thought some of you might be able to enlighten me on a question I've been asking myself for a while.

It seems like every major effort to handle our energy problems tries to eliminate or severely reduce the involvement of fossil fuels. Its either wind,m solar, bio or a hybrid with conventional fuel engines. While I do think that this is a long term answer, I think that in the short run it will be too cost prohibitive for most people to adopt.

Here is my question: Why isn't there more of an effort to reimagine a highly efficient fossil fuel engine? It seems to me that the modern internal combustion engine is pretty much a hog when it comes to energy, so why don't engineers find more efficient ways to burn gas byabandoning the engine currently burning it?

I ask this because:

1) Utilities use fossil fuels and they provide energy at much higher levels per unit of fuel burned. Electric cars cost pennies on the dollar compared to internal combustion, and their power/cost comes from utilities.

2) Steam based car engines, even those built in the early 20th century, had and have a much more efficient use of fuel than internal combustion.

Any ideas or knowledge to share?

[Fox 6]

Then we would use less gas, and instead of spending over $100 to fillup your SUV you dish out less money. So as you can imagine the petrol companies would go bonkers if this came to fruition. Their solution.................... Lobbyists...

[Angrist]

Look at airplanes. They fly on kerosene, which is as you know very expensive and becomes scarcer every day. Those airplane engines are already as efficient as they can be. If they come up with a 1% improvement, it's pretty much world news.

But in the meanwhile the flight sector just keeps growing, especially in countries like China, where more and more people have enough money to go on a holiday.

So the only way for the flight sector to become more environment friendly is to offset their emissions, which is the topic of my bachelor thesis.

But that's not really answering your question is it.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Angrist

Look at airplanes. They fly on kerosene, which is as you know very expensive and becomes scarcer every day. Those airplane engines are already as efficient as they can be. If they come up with a 1% improvement, it's pretty much world news.

But that's more to do with the height the planes fly and the temperature it gets in the storage compartments.

It's no good to have your fuel freeze in your airplane or spaceship mid-flight - so you need something with a low freezing point - which also helps make an efficient amount of energy. And since the Troposphere (which the planes fly in) is really temperate because of adiabatic lapse rate, you really don't want to go too cheap on the "What temperature will this fuel go solid at? Meh, let's wing it." And since it drops about 6 degreec celcius for every kilometer you go up, I'd say that's a good thing.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

Then we would use less gas, and instead of spending over $100 to fillup your SUV you dish out less money. So as you can imagine the petrol companies would go bonkers if this came to fruition. Their solution.................... Lobbyists...

I don't really think that has as much influence as it had, even as recently as 3-4years ago. The days of maintaining a inefficient engine for the sake oif consumption are pretty much leaving us because scientists and even the government are looking past fossil fuels.

It would make more sense for petrol companies to offer more efficient engines so that people will feel better, and save money, in using fossil fuel angines. This way they will be less eager to move on to electric, solar and other forms of energy to get them from point A to point B.

In my mind is is an obvious business decision, so it perplexes me that no one seems to be trying to go in that direction.