Fuel Of Tomorrow Here Today
 

Greetings

I would like to introduce Alternative Fuel Sciences (AFS) to the Ecomodder community. AFS has entered the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize Competition with a new patented alternative fuel that could revolutionize the transportation & energy industries.

ZeroFuel has many attributes and applications such as being man made, renewable, zero emissions, sequestration of CO2, while supporting the food supply. Automotive, truck, marine, aviation are just a few of the applications that ZeroFuel could support and advance.

Visit our web site for full details and be sure to download the slide deck "Pathway way to sustainable energy."

We will try to answer any questions on a timely basis.

Best regards,

Team at AFS

Home Page

It's normally not considered "polite" to make an advertisement your first post. I read your website. There's just enough information there to tell us absolutely nothing.

Look around this place, there's a thousand people here sharing information freely and you're advertising your "product". Doesn't that make you feel a little... well... weird?

I'd rather run my car on ground-up unicorns tyvm.

Interesting Fuel you got there...


all those words and you didn't really say any thing?


Care to share some information about it?

Whats it made from?

Sorry you feel that way, & no I don't feel weird. We are very proud of AFS & ZeroFuel as we are trying to make a positive change for our country, the world & the environment. I also got the OK from the forum mod to post this thread.

I just posted this thread a few minutes ago and you had time to read the whole site, digest the download, and look at the caliber of people that are behind this project?

Also, if I am not mistaken this is a forum for fossil free fuels. ZeroFuel fits right into that category & is something brand new. I would think most on this forum would like to know about this new technology.

Hi mtgeekman

ZeroFuel is Carbamide.

I think if you down load the slide deck you will see the technology & the path we are trying to achieve.

From what I can tell from the information from the Patent # in the PDF its an amonia based fuel cell tech?

Urea based composition and system for same - Patent Review 7140187
"Urea based composition and system for same"

Abstract from the patent:

Actually, I did read all the written information on your site. I am however, a little cautious about what I download.

... and, if you really DID get permission to post that thread then never mind me. I am nobody here.

It would still be a good idea to speak a little on it with other posts though. As you see from the other two posts, the whole thing raised more skepticism than interest. I'm not trying to insult you here but the first thing that came to mind was "snake oil"... good for what ails you.

Anyway, if you intend to hang around, welcome to the forum.

Yes, the technology is ammonia (NH3) on demand. It will support any ICE, turbine & hydrogen on demand full cell. (Which we also hold patents on) As ZeroFuel sits in the fuel tank it is non-flammable, non-toxic, etc, as stated on the web-site.

We can control the decomposition to produce any combination of ammonia & hydrogen.

Thank you for an intelligent question.

No problemo. Thanks

I saw your post about self sustaining your farm. I thought that was very cool.

Thanks, but my zero-fuel EV baby just got some new shoes today; so it is zero anything for a while! ;)

So, from the information PDF we can read that Carbamide is currently made from natural gas. So as we speak this is still fossil fuel. But you are trying to change that, making Carbamide from "renewably-produced hydrogen".

How much energy consuming is the Carbamide creation process?

Sometimes what is interesting is not only all the greatness of the technology, but its drawbacks. So does Carbamide only have a bright side?

Isn't this like catching the gas coming off of a puddle of urine:confused:

I do have concerns about any fuel made from fossil fuels, as it can just become a "greenwashed" way of using oil, coal, and similar fuels.

I am generally not pro-hydrogen fuel cells, because they use natural gas to create hydrogen to create electricity. Why not just charge an electric car with electricity? Skips a few steps, and we have lots of renewable electricity sources.

In a conversation I had with a fuel cell guy, he did point out that fuel cells have potential for range far more than a battery electric car.

What kind of range can be expected from a ZeroFuel car? If the hydrogen is renewably generated, and the car has good range, it might be a great system, fitting the same niche as gas-electric hybrids, eco-friendlier, long-range vehicles!

Yes, the current art of producing carbamide is with natural gas. With all the stranded gas that is available around the world we could set up skid factories at the drilling sites & produce carbamide in large quantities. Shipping will be inexpensive & safe. We can do this in conjunction with our renewable program with the later being the final art.

The energy penalty for carbamide is similar to other petroleum products, 10-15%.

Looking at the other technologies that are on the horizon, we feel carbamide can take the first real step in helping relieve oil dependence while being environmentally friendly.

Thanks for the questions.

EV's will have a place on the future landscape, but as you state they do not have the range & there are other issues. Plus, when you plug them in your most likely dirty.

Millennium Cell did have the NJ Genesis make a world record fuel cell run, but that is another story. With a hydrogen on demand fuel cell you have safety & long range, far superior to any EV.

A ZeroFuel vehicle will have the same range as current gas powered vehicles, if not more. One of the attributes of ZeroFuel is the 130+ octane. There have been tests with ammonia powered engines that supported a 60:1 compression ratio. New vehicle production for ZeroFuel will have compression ratios of 25-30:1. With this higher compression the engine is a lot more efficient & powerful. Motors can be built smaller there by getting even greater MPG. For the performance & motorsports markets expect huge HP gains. Retrofit of existing fleet is similar to CNG, but not with all the weight penalties & safety issues associated with CNG.

Thanks for your questions.

That's why we don't use the term urea in the public arena.

It's hydrogen, nitrogen & carbon dioxide. It is a solid when first produced.

Hope this helps.

Though being able to power my car on pee does sound tempting one should note (I call dibs on the vanity plate that reads "peepwr":

----Wikipedia

Is a fuel fossil free if it's produced with fossil fuels. And lets not even get into the CO2 released from the process. Or has your company found a silver bullet to nix the CO2Hazards

This kind of reminds me of my Grandfather in law. To put it bluntly he was basically a snake oil sales man. But he did "invent" a few cleaners and what not. One of which was a mastic remover. Anyway, he had a stroke and while cleaning his house I given his experiment journals, recipes, and the patent info for a few of them. He always claimed that his mastic remover (for those not aware mastic is basically a glue that was heavily used for asbestos installation) was organic and you could drink it.

The hype in family was that it was a million dollar idea since it basically would speed up the the safe removal of asbestos. It was a liquid so it'd keep the dust in place and it basically would make the mastic peel off. I poured over his journals and what not searching for the recipe and alas there it was. Apparently my grandfather in law had a different idea of organic than most of us. One of the major components has strict laws and regulations on its use in products, and is pretty toxic stuff.

It did make me wonder the cause of his stroke.


Well that was more than I intended to type, and I'm not trying to belittle you or your company or your efforts. But your site leaves little to go on, and typically anything of this scope wouldn't come to a message board to get the word out. They usually like CNN, FOX, Car and Driver etc. What news station could pass up on a car that runs on pee, come on.

All new technologies have a starting point that will then proceed to new stages. As stated before, we can take advantage of the current art until the renewable can take over. So, do we just keep letting the stranded gas burn off, or do we use it to make a true alternative fuel? You have to start some where if you want to make a change.

You did omit this part of the description:

Synthetic production

Urea is a nitrogen-containing chemical product that is produced on a scale of some 100,000,000 tons per year worldwide.

For use in industry, urea is produced from synthetic ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea can be produced as prills, granules, flakes, pellets, crystals, and solutions.

More than 90% of world production is destined for use as a fertilizer. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use (46.7%). Therefore, it has the lowest transportation costs per unit of nitrogen nutrient.

Urea is highly soluble in water and is, therefore, also very suitable for use in fertilizer solutions (in combination with ammonium nitrate: UAN), e.g., in 'foliar feed' fertilizers.

Solid urea is marketed as prills or granules. The advantage of prills is that, in general, they can be produced more cheaply than granules, which, because of their narrower particle size distribution, have an advantage over prills if applied mechanically to the soil. Properties such as impact strength, crushing strength, and free-flowing behaviour are, in particular, important in product handling, storage, and bulk transportation.


I assume you read the slide deck that shows the path we are trying to achieve.
Sequestration of carbon dioxide is one of the key elements for the sustainable path.

With the growing demands for energy & transportation fuel we feel this is the only true alternative fuel that can meet the growing demands without disrupting the food supply. Carbamide supports it.

Ecomodder is one of the best green sites on the web for transportation, that is why we posted here. Once our prototype is up & running we will be doing real world tests & inviting the news media to witness. Our main goal is to be ready for the X Prize in 09' which will have world wide coverage.

I did read that part of wiki. It just didn't have any bearing to the topic, and I'm a bit surprised that you'd point that all out since in an offhand way it exposes another eco-hazard (one that I did pick out right away, but didn't really want to get into).

And thats got to do with what happens when it's spilled? That much fertilizer spilled into a river or lake could be devastating to that body of water. Not only would directly kill higher organisms, it would also feed the algae (which already really like this stuff) which could choke out nearly all other lifeforms. Sure the other plants in the lake would love it, but they being a more complex organism process the nutrients slower than the algae can and slower than the algae can reporduce.

As it now in the ocean we have what are called green tides and dead zones where nothing lives. It was a mystery that has been recently was figured out, and it is algae and other smaller organisms for some unknown reason undergoing a massive population growth and choking out all the fish that didn't escape the cloud. If this happens in a system as big as the pacific ocean imagine the results in a smaller body of water.

This is also one of the goals of "green" soaps and detergents. They try to remove the fertilizer elements of soap so that it wont go down the drain into the water table. Just for this reason.

Let me cut off the oil spill retort to this. Oil floats and though it's messy and ugly is is containable, your product is water soluble there would be impossible to clean it up, and in fact would dramatically change the chemical composition of the body of water.

My last point is I didn't read the side bar. I'm one of many that wont. I'm not going to risk it on a thread that someone posts after creating a new account from left field promising in vague language to have solved the fossil fuel problem. And personally I'm not sure I'm all that excited about something that doesn't even have running prototype yet.

Now after all this I do wish you good luck, and I can appreciate people efforts into looking for solutions. After all science is the process of getting it wrong a thousand times hoping to get it right once. But I don't see how any product is going to compete with electricity, the distribution aspects are already in place and it's getting "greener" everyday.

I guess I am not that afraid of spills - we already know how damaging spills of various fossil fuels can be, so we are very careful to avoid having that happen.

I am interested in learning more about this technology as a "long range" fuel.

Electric can be amazingly clean. I usually get a bit frustrated when people talk about dirty electricity from coal. The truth is, you can get completely renewable wind/solar/tide/biogas, etc electricity anywhere in this country, or even make it yourself. My electric vehicles charge from renewable energy sources bought through the grid.

It's interesting that the X-Prize requirements have a very specific range minimum per fueling, which pretty much eliminates traditional battery electric vehicles from participating.

If it weren't for that one requirement, two vehicles I have built in my garage would both qualify for the X-Prize.

The ZeroFuel meets the range requirements.

Good luck on the X-Prize competition! Keep some good positive information coming. There are a lot of snake-oilers out there, and they always try to keep things all secret-y.

On this forum, we love DIY, positive, friendly shared knowledge and discussion.

I learned a long time ago that you can't please everyone. So that being said I will answer you, but have no expectations.

After reading your first post I had assumed that you had not looked at the slide deck. Coming onto this thread without having at least some aspect of the process & relying on a wikipedia site, I find intellectually dishonest. There is more then enough info on our site to show viewers that this is a novel approach, to a serious problem, by people who have been involved with energy since the 1970's. Being afraid of a pdf download is a pretty lame excuse.

I brought up the synthetic process just to prove the point that you do not understand the technology.

OK, you have painted this dooms day effect of a ZeroFuel spill, which is now highly diluted with water. Lets say two tanker trucks crash into your lake, what would be the end result. ZeroFuel would have less of an impact then fossil fuel.

Lets raise the stakes (because you like electricity) how about a nuclear accident, say at Indian Point. We are pro nuclear, but your argument of a carbamide disaster has many holes.

The DOT rates Carbamide at the safest standard they can issue. 0-0-0-0. Flammability, corrosion, toxic, and overall environmental rating. one of the reasons the fuel got its name. Even in it's solid state before we water it down. (We can use salt water also, just in case you had a problem with that.) Take a look at some of the fossil fuel ratings & compare.

You have no idea at what stage the project is in except it has not been installed on a vehicle. We have bench tested a unit that is ready to be produced for vehicles. Quick history lesson. Back in WWII (the big one) when the Germans invaded Belgium they confiscated all the fossil fuel. The Belgium's had a supply of ammonia & retrofitted their public transportation system. Pretty good idea. Zerofuel is ammonia on demand, a big step forward.

OK, your a big fan of electricity. We like it also, but It has it's pro & cons like all fuels. But right now on the big scale there are more cons. Lets start with range. We don't have it & until technology can store 100kwh, long range is out of the question. Cost of replacing batteries are high. Can we meet the new demand of an electric fleet? Not to mention the dead of winter in Detroit or the Heat of summer in Dallas, your range has been dropped dramatically by outside temperature, heat, A/C, wipers, etc.

The ICE generates free heat & we do have a patent pending on free A/C.

Making hydrogen from natural gas is still cleaner then electricity from coal, there for a plus for ZeroFuel.

I see you edited your post from what was shown in my email. I got to tell you I'm glad you changed it because I was going to rip you a new one on your opinion of patent holders.

Thanks Ben

It's nice to here from someone who understands the potential of our fuel. Win, lose, or draw at the X Prixe we will know we did our best to advance mankind.

I would encourage you to contact the X Prize, they are very nice people. The final rules are coming out soon & if I am not mistaken they are going to allow electric vehicles to change out batteries. So that may make the difference in your effort. But don't wait the cut off for all applications is 1/1/09.

Pm me if you want any advice or contacts at the X Prize.

Keep it low & slow

Nice to hear about the potential changes in the final rules on the X-Prize.

I have been kinda ranting about that in another thread....

I wasn't trying to compare your fuel to other fuels. I was pointing out basic things that are missing in your sales pitch. Your posts and "sidebar" are soooo heavily laden with with lollipops and pink bunnies. Totally clean, totally safe, totally renewable. Yet it's made from natural gas, your side bar mentions it's imported, and it does have potential risks. I'm not saying it's not valid or wont work or even that it's better or worse. I'm just cleaning off the rose colored paint your covering everyones glasses with. You don't even like it being called synthetic pee, which it is. If it sounds too good to be true than it isn't. And if it wasn't me it'd be someone else.

Now what I said originally about patents is true. Any moron can have one. It only takes a description, some money, and filling out a form. Most the stuff with patents never makes the markets and is of little to no use. For every good idea with a patent, there are 100 patents that aren't good ideas. I edited it cause I felt it was being too condesending.

Yes, you have filled my expectations, & you still don't get it. We are not trying to hide anything, it is all out there in the open. And again, it is not urine.

There is an abundance of stranded gas, that is gas that is flared off at the drilling sites. Totally wasted. So do we use the current art to make hydrogen till the renewable is contributing, or just let it burn? The US has plenty of natural gas, we can use it for the production of hydrogen & our fuel.

The US already has a large Carbamide production output. To ramp up would be quick & economically viable so that importing could be reduced to 0 without the same consequences of fossil fuels being restricted.

You also do not understand or want to acknowledged our fuel sequesters CO2. We can capture CO2 from thousands of factories around the world to produce our fuel while cleaning up the environment.

Do you understand that our fuel supports food supply? We won't need gov't subsides as other bio fuels, it won't effect food prices, but more important it helps put food back into mouths of starving people around the world.

As far as your opinion of patent holders, that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You have no idea or concept of the time, energy & money involved in the process. The thousands of people over the years that have contributed to this world you condemn to a single sentence. We hold over 40 patents, many more pending, publications, etc. This shows a big flaw in your character that "any moron can have a patent."

Your the kind of person that wants perfection. The only way you will find it here on this earth is to invent a time machine & patent it (no wait that would make you a moron) and go back to the Garden of Eden.

This will be the last time I respond to you, say what you will, us morons have better things to do.

I like the idea - the general concept, but I'm worried over the theory of wanting manufacturers to design engines to run on your fuel - i'm struggling to see that as viable in short or medium term when most will be ditching for EV/FC in the next whole generation. Granted you'll be able to supply FCs. How much do you think it will cost to convert you average family sedan ( I'm guessing you'll have put this in a business model somewhere) as this will have a Large effect on people willingness to convert.

also from you slide bar your H2 route is quite short - How big is the infrastruct required in this? I mean could it be carried out behind a gas station thus solving the difficulties in a Hydrogen infrastructure becoming a reality??

Hey Rob

The ICE is here to stay for a long time. The SAE world congress just showed many new technologies that will fit nicely with ZeroFuel. Remember, how ever cool EV's may be, they will most likely not fit all consumer segments & needs. Even the urbanite (the EV's most potential consumer) who can not plug in, will have issues with an EV. I just did an interview with an editor who lives in a city & would not be able to plug in. He is getting a hybrid that could be supported by ZF.

Our business plan is primarily for the OE's to build vehicles to run on ZeroFuel. The engineering changes are fairly straightforward to run an ICE on NH3 & H2. With the 130+ octane of NH3, the compression ratio can be much higher, more efficient then today's ICE's. No emissions equipment will be required such as catalytic converters & particulate filters, thereby saving the OE's substantial money per vehicle while also simplifying the vehicle. NH3 & H2 only emit N & H2O.

On the retrofit market, it will be best for the Licensed OE's to make kits for their dealers to install, thereby protecting the consumers warranty & helping to bring $$$ back to the dealer & OE networks. AFS projects retrofit cost to be 1K per cylinder. This price could drop as volume increases.

H2 & NH3 fuel cell vehicles will be viable options with the safe storage of NH3 & H2 provided by ZeroFuel. This is the break through needed for clean efficient vehicles so that R&D will shift to supper efficient ICE's & the ultimate EV, fuel cells.

As far as infrastructure, carbamide (urea) is already available at any mass market retailer. (Fertilizer 46-0-0) The EPA has mandated all new trucks to have urea srubbing systems installed by 2010. All truck stops & dealers nationwide will have urea (ZeroFuel) available.

ZeroFuel is made from H2, N, & CO2. It is a solid when produced.

H2 is produced primarily from steam reformation of natural gas, a fairly clean & cheap art. H2 can be produced from renewable also. One of our goals is to have the current art & the renewable producing side by side with the renewable eventually making all or most of the H2 for ZF. At that level ZF's GHG emissions is "0".

Another form of making H2 & using a valuable resource that is being totally wasted is stranded/associated gas. Part of our business plan is to setup skid pad factories at the drilling sites that have stranded gas. Steam reformation can be performed & the N & CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere. You get solid carbamide (ZF), cheap & safe to ship.

Factories will give AFS continues N & CO2 feedstock to produce ZF. The CO2 is sequestered and only emitted upon combustion, producing a net "0" CO2 emissions.

The 2 fuels produced by the ZF on board decomposition process is NH3 & H2. NH3 emits N & H20, H2 emits H20.

Here is what ZeroFuel has solved:

Safety: non-toxic, non-flammable or explosive

Storage: "0" PSI, easy & safe to transport, 0-0-0-0 DOT rated

Range: vehicle only limited by size of fuel tank

Emissions: "0", N & H2O

Sustainable: endless feedstock, does not interrupt food supply

Performance: can fit any & all consumer segments with NH3 130+ octane

Lowest cost per mile of any other fuel: with the above arts, & home filling stations able to buy in quantities.

I hope this has answered your questions.

Personally - working for an OE thats part of a bigger group (I'm not speaking for them and my view may not be theirs- disclaimer) but I doubt that they'll want to produce a car that runs on a one market fuel. Thinking of the effort that has gone into R&D purely on one engine for flex-fuel, where if the is no supply of one fuel you can still use another its hard to imagine them creating pretty much a new class of engine in addition to the Gas and diesel in current model ranges, not to mention the changes in car infrastructure for the different fuelling set-ups / heat dissapation / cooling, all of which would need to be tested and certified for multiple markets. I think you'd have to be looking 5-10 years down the line by which time alot of OEs are looking to have already start in model cycle development of alternates. That would leave you with the aftersales markets and I doubt you'll see many bar most hardcore paying $4k ($1k per cylinder) to convert 5k family run-a-round.

Sorry to sound like I' having a downer there

Also a couple of things from the bullet point above:

'Range: vehicle only limited by size of fuel tank' can't you say that of any fuel in any vehicle?

'Emissions: "0", N & H2O' have any toxicology studies been done into the affects on the body of high N environments - just if all the cars in a rush hour jam are running ZF we could have health risk of the quantity of the smog issue we have now.

If this is the fuel of the future, then the all-important question is: Will it be able to power my flying car?

You have to start somewhere if you want to make a change. No transportation fuel is perfect, but we feel we have the best answer to get off of imported oil, sending USD overseas & the emissions it produces.

5-10 year time line for ZF acceptance is OK when you consider CNG has been around for 20 years with very little acceptance. Pickens has it wrong, CNG is a terrible transportation fuel. Lets use it to make H2 & ZeroFuel.

As far as flex fuel, E85 is not accepted for many reasons, and our engine tech is straightforward. NH3 vehicles have been around since the 30's.

Our 1K per cylinder retrofit is much cheaper then others that offer battery hybrid retrofits or CNG conversions. I wouldn't expect many 5-10K vehicles being retrofit, as we plan to market vehicles in all segments, including as cheap as the Nano running on ZF.

Infrastructure will be much cheaper & quicker to setup. Being ZF is non-flammable, non-explosive, or toxic there is no need for fire systems, blow proof pumps or vapor recovery systems. Early adapters & those who want to buy or mix themselves in large quantities can have inexpensive home filling stations

As far as range, BEV's are limited compared to ICE's.

I would rather breath N then NOX.

Don't have a good answer for you.

I would assume if a flying car was designed around our fuel that it could be done.

More important we can support, truck, marine, train, farming, mining, motorsports applications.

It may be me missing how this whole thing works but in your slide bar the chain it say the ZF has to be decomposed before used as fuel - are you saying that happens in the car's gas tank or at the gas station or at a refinery? Also I'm intrigued as to what parts need to be added, removed or modified in a retrofit generically speaking like fuel pump, fuel lines, filters, ecu, intake control ecu, intake manifold, exhaust.

You say E85 is not accepted but I can think of at least 6 OEs that have cars in the mass market right now running it and that produces a great reduction in well-to-wheel 'interference'. Granted CNG is non-sustainable but it can be used as a stop gap till other renewables are found - much in the way you're using Stranded NG.

You're also stating EV have there hang-ups - again the pace of development is such that I can name OEs that have EV ready or in final trials for market that have practical ability and range.

As this is the only place I have seen your fuel mentioned how are you planning to capture the publics attention for you fuel? or will this be left to the OEs once they've took it on board?

If you're not expecting 5-10k vehicles to be retorfitted can I ask what you're target market is? because like CNG/LPG/BIO/E-XX I believe you need to prove the fuel has a mass market ability prior to OEs seriously considering it. Because it is one HUGE sell you're aiming for as far as I can see (please correct me if I've got this wrong) but you want OEs, most of which are coughing there last to take an existing engine within there range, restructure the fuelling system for your fuel, the internals for High compression, the materials for reliability in high octane explosions, test, evaluate and make production viable even though there are no companies on-board as far as can see from the other side of the pond, to sell the fuel to motorists. You also therefore have to sell it to fuel companies or some one with an infrastructure who can supply a need for the fuel. Depending on modifications I'm guessing it may have to be admissable to the car owner's insurer, so they will have to know and understand the technology otherwise they may refuse to insure/charge huge fees on retro fitted cars. You are asking all of this plus stuff I probably haven't even mentioned on the back of a website, a pdf and without a working prototype?
yes I know the Dutch, Flemish and Germans used it in the war era but it has been dropped since, if I remember correctly due to the lack of burn lubrication causing reliability issues??? can't remember fully, but i'm sure that'll show up in testing if its a real problem.

I'm sorry this sounds hugely negative, but as an engineer I'm naturally sceptical until I have sufficient info to hand! Don't get me wrong I love the idea of an enert fuel that can power existing engines and make them practically ZE

No problem Rob asking good questions.

Let me first say that ZeroFuel & it's tech is proprietary, so I can only revel so much. Also, we have NDA's with the X prize competition & a major OE, so again I am limited to what I can say about the tech & our marketing.

ZeroFuel as it sits in the fuel tank is non-flammable, non-explosive, non-toxic, being a urea water based solution. Huge safety & environmentally advancement.

ZF is pumped through an on board reformer (this is our tech) which is activated by exhaust heat (in an ice, voltage in a FC) producing NH3 & H2 on demand, to small buffer tanks for each gas, then injected into the engine.

The whole process & components are very similar to current tech. ZF eliminates all emissions equipment except an O2 sensor & uses a dual rail fuel system, one for each fuel. ECU is remapped for this use. High compression components are common to diesel applications & add less then we can save in eliminating emissions equipment. We can save the OE cost in building an ICE vehicle now, while fitting every consumer segment.

E85 & most ethanol products are expensive (subsidized), dirty, disrupt food supply, uses tremendous amounts of water (50:1 to grow corn). I'm in the NE & know of only 1 E85 station that is 75 miles from me.

Affordable EV's, with acceptable range, for the masses are years off. I do not see many consumers spending 30-50k on 2 passenger city cars. Tesla is trying to build a nice EV, but I'm sure by the time it hits the market it will be 50K+. Look at his roadster price hikes. Not for the average consumer.

Our team is entered into the X prize competition. We will be the only 3 car team, with the worlds only privately owned fuel cell vehicle, & a true viable alternative fuel. The press is starting to build on the X prize & the 110 teams from around the world that are entered. A big mag just picked the 10 teams they like & Alternative Fuel Sciences & ZeroFuel were 1 of the 10. We're excited about that.

Urea is already a 130 million ton a year commodity, to ramp up for more by using stranded gas, etc will be easy & economic to scale.

As far as mass market appeal, testing etc. With ZeroFuel you have a sustainable zero emission fuel that will cost less then gasoline, support all market segments, help keep USD in the US (Euro's in Europe) not disrupt food supply & support many other industries, we feel it is a win win for all.

FYI I'm on vaca from 7/12-7/26, so I will not be posting.

PM'd

Gain or loss in efficiency?
 

All other things being equal, which they never are, I would expect a passenger car with your fuel/reformer/engine to provide better well/wheel efficiency compared to gasoline. Duh. The mere presence of your team in the X-competition tells us this. Of course, there are about 27 steps that have to be accounted for before we get a hard number for how fuel efficient your fuel/engine system really is.

But if I put a gun to your head, and just made you pick a number as your best guess, what is the overall change in efficiency with your ideal product, compared to a conventional diesel in the same vehicle. Just for fun.

And of course, due to various non-disclosure agreements, you probably can't just show me the math for a typical example of stranded NG ----> fuel in tank, and miles traveled, but it would be fun to see it.

Finest regards,

troy

Dude I'm aware that this would be a miniscule W2W fuel as it would have a -ve value for the C02 capture and techinally it wouldn't have a well :p. I was one about the W2W reduction from Gasoline down to E85 may be I didn't explain myself properly - sorry