Reality check on electric cars

[IBDaMann]

I was actually discussing a video of a water powered motorcycle

Nope. You were discussing a hydrogen-powered motorcycle.

If you take a look at the motorcycle video, ... you'll see that the driver of said motorcycle fills the motorcycle with water, not hydrogen.

Forgive me, but you are gullible. You probably fall for many parlor tricks and bar bets.

Yes, water is being poured. The motorcycle runs on hydrogen. The motorcycle produces water as "exhaust."

Now, the video claims that the water is then broken down into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen,

This is the electolysis that extracts the hydrogen needed by the engine.

... but if he's filling the tank with water, I'd call it a water powered motorcycle.

Water is not a fuel. Hydrogen is a fuel. If an engineer were to connect the tail pipe to where the water is poured, would you fall for the claim that the motorcycle runs on its own exhaust?

I've never been talking about hydrogen cars, but rather water powered cars.

There is no such thing as any water-powered engine. That is the "hype" to which I referred, intended for the consumption of the gullible. I am asking you to not fall for it, as well as to not fall for claims that obviously violate the laws of thermodynamics. If more energy is required to extract the fuel than is provided by the extracted fuel, you don't have a sustainable system.

... there have been others who have certainly claimed to have developed water powered cars.

... and now you know to call booooolsch't when you hear such claims. Hydrogen is a fuel and hydrogen-powered engines exist, but much more development is needed to make them commercially viable.

There was also an inventor who claimed that he'd created a car that ran on gas fumes, making his car much more gas efficient than today's cars,

So did he crush the market and become a multi-trillionaire? Oh wait, let me guess, he was strongarmed by Big Auto and his idea was buried, right?

... as well as an article that the navy developed a sea water fueled model plane.

This is even more dishonest hype for the gullible. The Navy isn't developing any sort of new "sea water" engine. The Navy is making plans for large-scale electrolysis plants that extract limitless hydrogen from sea water and perhaps make hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen fuel could then be used to run standard hydrogen engines placed in all sorts of vehicles ... or at least, that's the idea.

 

[IBDaMann]

Let reality intrude. We have clean cars, EVs.

Let reality intrude. EVs and the EV infrastructure are "dirtier" than ICEs and ICE infrastructure by every measure.

They save money and are fun to drive.

They are far more expensive and aren't any fun to drive when they don't work or are spending the month in the shop.

Hydrogen cars, water cars, and the others you guys pretend are options are not.

Hydrogen cars have potential to one day be on top, but they are currently a long way from commercially viable.

 

[Scott]

I was actually discussing a video of a water powered motorcycle

Nope. You were discussing a hydrogen-powered motorcycle.

Do you believe that the motorcycle is extracting the hydrogen from the water to use as fuel?

If you take a look at the motorcycle video, ...you'll see that the driver of said motorcycle fills the motorcycle with water, not hydrogen.

Forgive me, but you are gullible. You probably fall for many parlor tricks and bar bets.

Yes, water is being poured. The motorcycle runs on hydrogen.

If you agree that the motorcycle is taking the water and extracting the hydrogen from it to use as fuel, then we don't actually disagree on the fundamentals.

The motorcycle produces water as "exhaust."

Yes, that's the end result.

Now, the video claims that the water is then broken down into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen,

This is the electolysis that extracts the hydrogen needed by the engine.

So we agree then. Into the Night seems to be going with the conventional wisdom that this can't be done in a manner efficient enough to be worthwhile.

Water is not a fuel. Hydrogen is a fuel.

You could say that gas is not fuel, the breakdown of its component parts is fuel, but most people are happy to just say that gas is fuel because that's what's poured into the tank.

If an engineer were to connect the tail pipe to where the water is poured, would you fall for the claim that the motorcycle runs on its own exhaust?

Its exhaust would be water vapour, which is a bit different than liquid water, but if it could be converted into liquid in an efficient manner and refill the tank, sure.

I've never been talking about hydrogen cars, but rather water powered cars.

There is no such thing as any water-powered engine. That is the "hype" to which I referred, intended for the consumption of the gullible. I am asking you to not fall for it, as well as to not fall for claims that obviously violate the laws of thermodynamics.

I haven't seen any claim here that violates the laws of thermodynamics. I -have- seen a claim that it takes just as much energy to extract the hydrogen from water as one gets out of it, but to date, I've seen no hard evidence for this claim.

If more energy is required to extract the fuel than is provided by the extracted fuel, you don't have a sustainable system.

On, this we can agree. The whole issue revolves around the if. Now, I'm not saying that I know for sure that it can be done, but people have been -claiming- that it can be done for some time now. Perhaps the most famous person to have made this claim was Stanley Meyer, who actually got a patent for his water powered car. As you may know, ho died under suspicious circumstances. There's an article about his water powered car and his suspicious death here:

The Mysterious Death of Stanley Meyer and His Water-Powered Car | gaia.com

...there have been others who have certainly claimed to have developed water powered cars.

... and now you know to call booooolsch't when you hear such claims.

To date, I've seen no hard evidence that Stanley Meyer's car didn't run on water. There -is- evidence that he was killed by two alleged Belgian investors. As to the car itself, there's a bit of a story there:

**
Stephen Meyer claimed that one week after Stanley’s death, unidentified people had stolen the Dune Buggy from Stanley’s garage, along with all of the inventor’s instruments, and that the vehicle had subsequently been found, but it is unclear under what circumstances and conditions.

The patent had been registered, and the Dune Buggy was later closed off in a room without doors, so that no one could steal it and destroy it (but according to Meyer’s detractors, so that no one could examine it and discover the weakness of the patent). It seems that in 2014, and therefore some sixteen years after the death of Stanley, the vehicle turned up in Canada (perhaps sold by his brother Stephen), now under ownership of the Holbrook family (claimed to be old associates of Stanley), but nothing is known of it after that date.
**

Source:
The mysterious death of Stanley Meyer and his water powered car | roarington.com

Hydrogen is a fuel and hydrogen-powered engines exist, but much more development is needed to make them commercially viable.

Agreed. The missing link may be in storing the hydrogen in water, as Stanley Meyer had apparently done.

There was also an inventor who claimed that he'd created a car that ran on gas fumes, making his car much more gas efficient than today's cars,

So did he crush the market and become a multi-trillionaire? Oh wait, let me guess, he was strongarmed by Big Auto and his idea was buried, right?

Partially, yes, but only partially. The other part was that he died at the age of 26, which I think we can agree was a rather young age to go. A good article on his story was written in 2022:

Tom Ogle, El Paso Inventor of 'Oglemobile,' dead at age 26 | El Paso Times

...as well as an article that the navy developed a sea water fueled model plane. I bring up articles for all of these claims here:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-check-on-electric-cars&p=5929965#post5929965

This is even more dishonest hype for the gullible. The Navy isn't developing any sort of new "sea water" engine.

I never said that they were. I suspect you didn't go to the post I linked to. Here's the introduction to the article referenced therein:

**
Although no one is saying that aircraft carriers will soon be able to fuel their jet fighters using water from the ocean, such a scenario has recently come a step closer to reality. Scientists from the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have successfully flown a radio-controlled airplane that was running purely on fuel derived from sea water.

The fuel was obtained using NRL's gas-to-liquid technology. This involved running sea water through the group's E-CEM (electrolytic cation exchange module) Carbon Capture Skid, which removed carbon dioxide from the water at 92 percent efficiency while simultaneously producing hydrogen as part of the process. Using a metal catalyst in a separate reactor system, the CO2 and hydrogen gases were then converted into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.
**

Source:
Navy powers model plane using fuel made from sea water | newatlas.com

The Navy is making plans for large-scale electrolysis plants that extract limitless hydrogen from sea water and perhaps make hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen fuel could then be used to run standard hydrogen engines placed in all sorts of vehicles ... or at least, that's the idea.

That's certainly something I hadn't heard, but there remains a large problem there, namely that it's dangerous to store a lot of pure hydrogen in a car, because hydrogen is highly flamable. This is why the possibility that Stanley Meyer's water powered car really worked is so important- storing water and only converting the bit that is needed to run a car in real time is clearly much safer than storing large amounts of hydrogen.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Hertz CEO gone after only 25 months due to the EV debacle.

 

[Lionfish]

Aggressive Tesla Price Cuts Pummel the Used EV Market
Used electric cars have dropped 10 times faster than gasoline models over the past year

The average used car price is down 3.6 percent, but used EV prices have fallen 31.8 percent since last year
Used vehicle prices have been consistently 2 to 7 percent lower than they were last year, suggesting inflation isn’t impacting used car pricing
Used EV prices have been plummeting, falling between 17 and 39 percent year-over-year during the last 12 months
Used Tesla prices have fallen 28.9 percent, reflecting the brand’s aggressive new model price cuts while driving values down across the used EV market
Seven electric models lead the used car market in price drops: Chevrolet Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Kia Niro, Hyundai Kona, Tesla Model X, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model S

 

[gfm7175]

But wait, there's more! If you act now, you can reduce your EV's range even further by driving faster than 20 mph. Manufacturer "estimates" are always too high, not surprisingly. All EVs begin to drop drastically in range as speed exceeds 20 mph. We can delude ourselves into trusting manufacturers' estimates by telling ourselves "the manufacturer took all of this into account, I'm certain of it. Why would they lie about something so important?" We could also ask ourselves why people who get conned into buying EVs or solar panels would lie to hide their shame, with those lies taking the form of "This was a great decision on my part; everybody else should do the same so that the silliness of my decision isn't so conspicuous!"

So, the base "advertised range" of 250 miles should actually have been only 220, which is actually only 120 miles if following the aforementioned battery maintenance guidelines, [climate reuse] and that's only under various ideal conditions. For instance, if you wish to turn on your heating or cooling system, that means less range. If you wish to drive in hot or cold conditions (such as 90 degrees or 0 degrees Fahrenheit), that means less range. Same if it's raining outside, if it's dark outside, if it's foggy outside, etc. etc. etc. Thus, it doesn't take very much to reduce that EV's "250 mile" advertised range [/climate reuse] down to 70-80 miles (or less) of realized range.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[gfm7175]

Who would even want to buy a used EV?

Why would you want to put yourself into a scenario in which someone else has squeezed out most of the useful life of the EV's battery pack just so that you, as the new owner, would have to quickly turn around and shell out more money than you paid for your used EV just to keep it drivable?

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrr one could instead spend a fraction of that money on an old rust free truck (from Seattle, for instance), with 130K miles on it, that will be drivable for FAR longer than the much-more-expensive used EV, and which can also perform hauling and towing work unlike the much-more-expensive used EV. Let's just say that using a truck bed for hauling wood is MUUUUCH nicer than using the "makeshift method" of hauling wood in a large sedan's trunk. But hey, an EV isn't even capable of doing THAT.

Yes, my personal view on EV's is: Fuck EV's.

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you believe that the motorcycle is extracting the hydrogen from the water to use as fuel?

That is what is happening. Water is not fuel. Water is the exhaust. Read up on electrolysis. Hydrogen is extracted from water, used as fuel which, when combusts in oxygen, produces water, i.e. H2O.

If you agree that the motorcycle is taking the water and extracting the hydrogen from it to use as fuel, then we don't actually disagree on the fundamentals.

We disagree completely. For some reason, you insist that the engine is water-powered when it clearly is not. No engine runs on its own exhaust.

Into the Night seems to be going with the conventional wisdom that this can't be done in a manner efficient enough to be worthwhile.

Into the Night is correct. The idea of an engine that extracts its fuel from its own exhaust is a type of "perpetual motion machine" which violates thermodynamics, which should send up red flags in your mind.

You could say that gas is not fuel,

Gasoline is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. CO2, is not fuel, however it is great for plants. Hydrogen is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. water, is not fuel, however it is great for plants.

Its exhaust would be water vapour, which is a bit different than liquid water,

Frozen water (ice), liquid water and water vapor are all water. Different states. All water.

I haven't seen any claim here that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

I'll state it for you now. By having the electrolysis unit internal to the closed system in question, the unit has no energy to perform the electrolysis in the first place if the source of that energy is the hydrogen it extracts through the hydrolysis that it cannot perform. The extraction requires more energy than is produced by the resulting hydrogen, thus there isn't enough energy to perform the electrolysis, so you never get any hydrogen in the first place, much less to operate the motorcycle.

This is an attempt to create a perpetual motion machine. This violates thermodynamics.

I -have- seen a claim that it takes just as much energy to extract the hydrogen from water as one gets out of it, but to date, I've seen no hard evidence for this claim.

You should study a little physics. You don't need any "evidence." Any time energy changes form in a closed system, there is less usable energy. It will always require more energy to extract hydrogen from water than the usable energy garnered by the extracted hydrogen. Thermodynamics. Find a way around it and the Nobel Prize in physics is yours.

Stanley Meyer, who actually got a patent for his water powered car.

If you had performed a little independent research instead of clinging to the hype, you would have found that Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud for using standard electrolysis to extract hydrogen to fuel his dune buggy. Meyer defrauded investors by telling them that his engine actually used water as fuel, and not telling them that he was selling an impossible "perpetual motion machine" that could never perform as advertised.

To date, I've seen no hard evidence that Stanley Meyer's car didn't run on water.

Because you didn't look, and you are gullible in that way. No engine runs on water; water is not fuel. Hydrogen is fuel.

There -is- evidence that he was killed by two alleged Belgian investors.

Are they two of the investors Stanley Moore defrauded?

"End of Road for Car That Ran on Water," London Sunday Times, 1 Dec. 1996.

An Ohio court ruled against inventor Stanley Meyer, in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors recently.

Meyer had sold "dealerships" and licensing rights in his Water Fuel Cell technology to interested investors, in anticipation of the day when it would power electric vehicles or even aircraft.

That dream was shattered as Meyer was found guilty of fraud when his Water Fuel Cell failed to impress three "expert witnesses" who decided there was nothing revolutionary about it, rather that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.

The Sunday Times article also stated that when one of the court experts went to examine the Water Fuel Cell driven car, it was impossible to evaluate because it was not working.

... but there remains a large problem there, namely that it's dangerous to store a lot of pure hydrogen in a car,

... or in a zeppelin.

... because hydrogen is highly flamable.

... and fusing hydrogen into helium yields a lot of energy which tends to brighten my day.

 

[Kamala Trump]

That is what is happening. Water is not fuel. Water is the exhaust. Read up on electrolysis. Hydrogen is extracted from water, used as fuel which, when combusts in oxygen, produces water, i.e. H2O.


We disagree completely. For some reason, you insist that the engine is water-powered when it clearly is not. No engine runs on its own exhaust.


Into the Night is correct. The idea of an engine that extracts its fuel from its own exhaust is a type of "perpetual motion machine" which violates thermodynamics, which should send up red flags in your mind.


Gasoline is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. CO2, is not fuel, however it is great for plants. Hydrogen is fuel; the resulting exhaust, i.e. water, is not fuel, however it is great for plants.


Frozen water (ice), liquid water and water vapor are all water. Different states. All water.


I'll state it for you now. By having the electrolysis unit internal to the closed system in question, the unit has no energy to perform the electrolysis in the first place if the source of that energy is the hydrogen it extracts through the hydrolysis that it cannot perform. The extraction requires more energy than is produced by the resulting hydrogen, thus there isn't enough energy to perform the electrolysis, so you never get any hydrogen in the first place, much less to operate the motorcycle.

This is an attempt to create a perpetual motion machine. This violates thermodynamics.


You should study a little physics. You don't need any "evidence." Any time energy changes form in a closed system, there is less usable energy. It will always require more energy to extract hydrogen from water than the usable energy garnered by the extracted hydrogen. Thermodynamics. Find a way around it and the Nobel Prize in physics is yours.


If you had performed a little independent research instead of clinging to the hype, you would have found that Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud for using standard electrolysis to extract hydrogen to fuel his dune buggy. Meyer defrauded investors by telling them that his engine actually used water as fuel, and not telling them that he was selling an impossible "perpetual motion machine" that could never perform as advertised.


Because you didn't look, and you are gullible in that way. No engine runs on water; water is not fuel. Hydrogen is fuel.


Are they two of the investors Stanley Moore defrauded?





... or in a zeppelin.


... and fusing hydrogen into helium yields a lot of energy which tends to brighten my day.

you fucked that dumb whore up real good.

 

[Nordberg]

The answer is nuclear powered cars. You ICE jerks missed that permutation.

 

[Into the Night]

Does he claim that?

Yes.

My take is that it takes water and then converts it into its component parts, thereafter using the hydrogen to fuel the motorcycle. In other words, a water powered motorcycle.

Not possible.

Usually, it does take more.

Always. You can never just aside any theory of science. They operate all the time, everywhere in the known universe. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

In this case, as well as in the case of Stanley Meyer's water powered car,

Not possible and never built.

the claim is that they have found a way to extract more energy out of it than they put in.

TANSTAAFL. Not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

I didn't work on the project, so I don't know how it was apparently done, but I certainly think it deserves more study.

No study can just set aside the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Apparently, Toyota's working on a water powered car.

No, they aren't. Not possible. They are working on a hydrogen powered car.

I'm interested to see what happens there.

Not possible.

Agreed. No one's claiming that energy was created out of nothing here.

YOU are!

It seems you believe that video is fraudulent. Do you think you can prove it?

Already have. RQAA.

Somehow, I doubt you can prove your assertion, but by all means, you can try to if you like.

RQAA.

I don't claim to understand how this apparently water powered motorcycle works.

It doesn't.

But you claiming that it can't be real because you think it's hiding things doesn't prove anything.

Yes it does. It falsifies the claim.

 

[Into the Night]

No creation of hydrogen is involved, water has plenty of it. You haven't shown any evidence that extracting hydrogen from water -has- to take more energy than the energy gained from using hydrogen as a fuel. Now, I grant you that few seem to have managed to do it, but just because how to do something isn't readily apparent doesn't mean it's impossible.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. That's the evidence. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Electrolyzing water to burn hydrogen to produce water is no different than a water wheel that powers itself.

 

[Into the Night]

I think you're being overly harsh with Nordberg, but based on the study from Emission Analytics, it does appear that the best we can do for the planet is to stop making EVs and look for better alternatives.

A study is not a proof.

EV's use almost twice the energy of a gasoline car to move the same distance. Most of this is loss is in waste heat.
EV's do NOT save the planet. The planet doesn't NEED saving. It's quite big enough to take care of itself.

 

[Into the Night]

The article you link to is over 20 years old and there's evidence that even -then- water powered cars had already been around, such as Stanley Meyer's car that apparently ran on water. Anyone can make claims, such as the one in your article: "It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell."

The hard thing is to actually -prove- one's claim. I have seen no such proof of this one. Which means that Stanley Meyer and others who have shown evidence that water powered cars can work are still in the running for potentially true.

I actually met a man who claimed to have made a water powered car, opened up the hood of his car and showed me a bunch of stuff under there that clearly wasn't standard. Now, I'm no mechanic, so I can't vouch for whether it was real or not. But until I see proof that water powered cars can't work, I'll continue to look into it. Considering how important it is to have environmentally friendly cars, I think a lot more people should be doing the same.

See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are still ignoring. Perpetual motion machines are not possible.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The answer is nuclear powered cars. You ICE jerks missed that permutation.

That'd be cool! A plutonium battery maybe?

At least it wouldn't explode and burn periodically... (pun included)

 

[Into the Night]

I was actually discussing a video of a water powered motorcycle with Into the Night in the post you quoted above. I imagine you got confused because I also posted a video in a subsequent post claiming that Toyota was working on a water powered car, a post which Into the Night also responded to.

Neither a water powered car nor a water powered motorcycle is possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you take a look at the motorcycle video, which can be seen in the nested quotes above, you'll see that the driver of said motorcycle fills the motorcycle with water, not hydrogen. Now, the video claims that the water is then broken down into its component parts of hydrogen and oxygen, but if he's filling the tank with water, I'd call it a water powered motorcycle.

It isn't. It's a fake. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Alright, now you're talking about the Toyota video I posted here. I admit that I'd never heard that Toyota was developing such a car before I started seeing videos of it on youtube, so I admit that the claim that Toyota is developing a water powered car may not be true.

It isn't. It's not possible.

I've never been talking about hydrogen cars, but rather water powered cars.

Not possible.

While I certainly admit that I'm not sure if Toyota is truly developing a water powered car, there have been others who have certainly claimed to have developed water powered cars.

There have been such nuts through the years. The usually do it for fame or money.

There was also an inventor who claimed that he'd created a car that ran on gas fumes,

I've seen that fake carburetor also. It's a fake. Today's cars do not even have carburetors, since FADEC is much more efficient.

making his car much more gas efficient than today's cars,

No, it was never built.

as well as an article that the navy developed a sea water fueled model plane.

Not possible. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I bring up articles for all of these claims here:

A repetition fallacy is just chanting, like you are doing now.

 

[Into the Night]

Let reality intrude. We have clean cars, EVs. They exist, and they have dealerships. They save money and are fun to drive. Hydrogen cars, water cars, and the others you guys pretend are options are not.

EV's are not 'clean cars'. They are natural gas or coal fired cars. They do NOT save any money. EV's use almost twice the energy of a gasoline car going the same distance.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you believe that the motorcycle is extracting the hydrogen from the water to use as fuel?

Hydrogen is not water.
It takes work to get hydrogen out of water. Burning the hydrogen (producing water as exhaust) is insufficient to power electrolysis to feed that engine with enough hydrogen.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you agree that the motorcycle is taking the water and extracting the hydrogen from it to use as fuel, then we don't actually disagree on the fundamentals.

Not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

So we agree then. Into the Night seems to be going with the conventional wisdom that this can't be done in a manner efficient enough to be worthwhile.

The 1st law of thermodynamics that you are ignoring is a THEORY OF SCIENCE, dude.

You could say that gas is not fuel,

Gasoline is a fuel.

the breakdown of its component parts is fuel,

Gasoline does not need to be broken down.

but most people are happy to just say that gas is fuel because that's what's poured into the tank.

Gasoline is a fuel.

Its exhaust would be water vapour, which is a bit different than liquid water, but if it could be converted into liquid in an efficient manner and refill the tank, sure.

Burning gasoline produces CO2 and water (in a stoichiometric reaction). You cannot burn water.

I haven't seen any claim here that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

YOU are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. Perpetual motion machines aren't possible.

I -have- seen a claim that it takes just as much energy to extract the hydrogen from water as one gets out of it, but to date, I've seen no hard evidence for this claim.

The 1st law of thermodynamics.

On, this we can agree. The whole issue revolves around the if.

No 'if'. You cannot set aside the 1st law of thermodynamics for ANY length of time. You cannot burn water.

Now, I'm not saying that I know for sure that it can be done, but people have been -claiming- that it can be done for some time now. Perhaps the most famous person to have made this claim was Stanley Meyer, who actually got a patent for his water powered car.

The patent office is no proof the invention actually works.

To date, I've seen no hard evidence that Stanley Meyer's car didn't run on water.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. I have shown you the 1st law of thermodynamics. That is the 'hard evidence'.

Agreed. The missing link may be in storing the hydrogen in water, as Stanley Meyer had apparently done.

Hydrogen is not water.

Although no one is saying that aircraft carriers will soon be able to fuel their jet fighters using water from the ocean, such a scenario has recently come a step closer to reality. Scientists from the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have successfully flown a radio-controlled airplane that was running purely on fuel derived from sea water.

Not possible. You cannot burn water.

The fuel was obtained using NRL's gas-to-liquid technology. This involved running sea water through the group's E-CEM (electrolytic cation exchange module) Carbon Capture Skid, which removed carbon dioxide from the water at 92 percent efficiency while simultaneously producing hydrogen as part of the process. Using a metal catalyst in a separate reactor system, the CO2 and hydrogen gases were then converted into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

Argument from randU fallacy. There is no 'efficiency' rating of the Fischer-Tropsche process. It takes energy to run that process. It's an endothermic reaction. Burning the fuel is not sufficient to power making the fuel.

That's certainly something I hadn't heard, but there remains a large problem there, namely that it's dangerous to store a lot of pure hydrogen in a car, because hydrogen is highly flamable. This is why the possibility that Stanley Meyer's water powered car really worked is so important- storing water and only converting the bit that is needed to run a car in real time is clearly much safer than storing large amounts of hydrogen.

Water is not hydrogen.
It takes more energy to make hydrogen from water than you get by burning it (or using it in a fuel cell). You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

The answer is nuclear powered cars. You ICE jerks missed that permutation.

The shielding and reactor is too big and heavy, Sock, and the refueling is too dangerous to untrained personnel. Also, fission destroys the fuel and it is not a renewable form of energy. Oil products (including gasoline) ARE a renewable form of energy.