Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
5 of the World's Weirdest Alternative Fuel Sources [w/Pics]
ecoble.com — Remember that amazing device from Back to the Future that converted garbage into fuel? Nowadays that isn ’t as far-fetched as it once was. Everything from liquor and saltwater to diapers and landfill waste are being used to generate alternative sources of power that, in turn, run equipment, vehicles and buildings around the world!
suxmonkey- 668 diggs
- digg it
- handturkee, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7I recently saw that PG&E commercial promoting "cow power." Takes cow manure and turns it into energy. They're soming up with some pretty interesting stuff.
- Dradis, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Master Blaster run Bartertown..
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1You made me chuckle on that one..
- mon11uk, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Cow manure as an energy source has been around for a long time. For example, villagers in India have been relying on this source for ages for their basic needs.
- Dradis, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Master Blaster run Bartertown..
- chummel, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5the alcoholic biogas makes me sad.
- agentsully, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2no more disposable diaper guilt. But, hey, what about those poor homeless who get their alcohol confiscated? Does that help or hurt them?
- suxmonkey, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1It's just smugglers who are getting it confiscated, not the homeless ;)
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Although it would be a good start to help the homeless...
- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1It was in Sweden. They don't have homeless people, it's a welfare state.
- ogore, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I don't know about homeless people but you really should check where your biofuel's coming from. Most palm oil plantations cut down existing forest while you believe your getting a "green" fuel.
- suxmonkey, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1It's just smugglers who are getting it confiscated, not the homeless ;)
- rabeidoh, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9At least they are coming up with something to decrease pollution and prepare for fuel shortages.
- directedition, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Well, a couple decrease pollution. But burning alcohol? Dirty diapers? Gases from garbage dumps? Those all contribute to CO2 levels in the same way as gasoline.
- SpaceDreamer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1no
because they are produced from plants that absorb CO2 in the first place, which balances the effects, making it "carbon neutral",
As opposed to gasoline, which makes a one-way CO2 emission.
- SpaceDreamer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1no
- directedition, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Well, a couple decrease pollution. But burning alcohol? Dirty diapers? Gases from garbage dumps? Those all contribute to CO2 levels in the same way as gasoline.
- dsully215, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Back to the Future rules.
- KKKamikaze, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Lame
- MrSlumberjack, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Your username is a bunch of *****
- Lax32, on 12/03/2007, -2/+11Im still waiting for cars that run off puppy blood and get 250 miles to the gallon.
The hippies wont know what to do... either they are killing the environment or they are killing puppies...- CrackyJSquirrel, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Better yet, make those puppies from cloned puppy stem cells and we can start to get everyone involved..
- jjb123, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1And abort 50% of them
- MrSlumberjack, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1That's why we need someone to invent a puppy blood factory
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Better yet, make those puppies from cloned puppy stem cells and we can start to get everyone involved..
- MrCali626, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5My 1 year old daughter is going to be a billionaire!
- Graemebru, on 12/03/2007, -1/+12When this baby hits 88 mph you're gonna see some serious *****.
- slayerab, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Cow ***** that is. And Biff hates manure, HA!
- faizal5k, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Not without the needed 1.21 gigawatts, it ain't
- allywilson, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2The only problem I have with these ideas is that I won't be able to afford any. I mean, the majority of people won't save to then buy something which will save them in the long, long run. They'll want to buy when the price is reasonable. This makes me sad :-(
- john2kx, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8Ron Paul's farts aren't on the list. Buried.
- MrSlumberjack, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2lo-*****-l
- bdurkin, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4That's alcohol abuse.
- josh3184, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2It annoys me every time I see the saltwater energy video that everyone goes "look how much energy you get from water" instead of "look how much energy the giant radio waves machine is using"
- vdog, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1It's a valid question: is the energy is is required to power the transmitter greater than the energy produced by the fire?
If so, it's worthless.- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2And, if not, it violates the basic laws of physics.
- Beowulf2112, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Exactly, sure your getting a nice Hydrogen/Oxygen flame but how much energy are you using to break the bond of the H and O in the water molecules? And besides, the byproduct of the Hydrogen/oxygen flame is water... and since we started with water and ended with water, in an ideal situation we could only hope to gain as much energy as we put into the system... frankly I don't see that happening, let alone producing an 'infinite energy' machine that people are hoping for
- vdog, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1It's a valid question: is the energy is is required to power the transmitter greater than the energy produced by the fire?
- joessandwich, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7They've already shown that the burning saltwater doesn't actually create energy since so much energy goes to power the machine. Buried.
- floorman56, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Here is a Mr fusion for Bio-Diesel
http://www.greenfuels.co.uk/news.htm - BigCheezy, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2I wonder what the power requirements for the radio wave is and whether he is getting more work out than in...
- sugablonde, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Cool! So will we be able to make fuel out of our own ***** some day?!
- MrSlumberjack, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I think the question is WHEN will we be able to harness the doodle energy
- proliance, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Mr. Fusion FTW.
- SpaceDreamer, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3the one with salt water is pure *****.
It costs more energy than it generates.- MrSlumberjack, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Thats true; it does use more energy to create the radio waves than the flame makes. But its definitely something that we should be studying. I'm sure we can find something useful in this system.
- adventflux, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Two words. Cow poop.
- maeon3, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1About the Salt Water Fuel:
The human body is mostly water. If John Kanzius' device really does use a specific radio frequency to create some sort of electrolysis and separate the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water, why isn't John himself effected? He seems to be standing awfully close to that burning test tube to NOT be effected.
Number 2: Pyrex is often used in what are called "boiling tubes" - test tubes which are used for (you guessed it) boiling liquids, or (more generally) exposing them to extreme temperatures for long periods of time. Problem is that Pyrex melts at about 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (821 degrees Celsius), and Kanzius claims that his device has created flames which were around 3000 degrees and can maintain that temperature for about two minutes - the video doesn't suggest units for this temperature measurement, but in either case it is well in excess of the melting point of Pyrex, glass, and pretty much everything else.
Number 3: Hydrogen - when in the presence of Oxygen - burns with a bluish, almost clear flame - you can see an example in this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z79t7Gkp09Y of a "hot test" of a Space Shuttle Main Engine, a rocket engine which burns liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. These are exactly the two elements Kanzius claims to be burning in the video, but his flame is - quite clearly - orange.- stuman77, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0In regards to Salt Water Fuel: the human body is also made up of many other elements, which absorb the energy from the electromagnetic radiation. Basically the same reason that people don't evaporate when sea water does.
In regards to number 3, the conditions of burning (and ergo energy output) of these 2 situations is different, although I would need to reference some thermo tables, etc. to find an exact explanation.
Regardless, the whole radio frequency thing is more of a method of separating hydrogen as an energy storage medium. You won't get out more energy than you put in, so it's not a feasible means of energy production.
- stuman77, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0In regards to Salt Water Fuel: the human body is also made up of many other elements, which absorb the energy from the electromagnetic radiation. Basically the same reason that people don't evaporate when sea water does.
- buzmcg, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1So, there are no emissions when one uses old diapers for fuel. How ironic!
- vorsicht, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1One day hippies might learn that a fuel source is something where you get more energy out then you put in. 1 for 5, FAIL.
- Sinudeity, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Awesome. Green scientists of the world...
Keep the ideas rolling. - MrPlug, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I got an Ad at the bottom of the article from http://www.woodgasalternativeenergyfuel.com/ Run your car by chopping down trees, ummm interesting yes, saving environment no
- lolo2007, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0One day hippies might learn that a fuel source is something where you get more energy out then you put in. 1 for 5, FAIL. http://www.paramegsoft.com/sitemap/
http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/3/3
http://girls.paramegsoft.com/category/6/6
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by