"meeting" modern safety requirements and scoring comparably well on the safety test to MY2007 vehicles is a WORLD of difference.

The Chevy Aveo "meets" modern safety requirements but it is no where even close to the Honda Civic in the test results.

Why can't we all just quit the bickering and run our autos on water to fuel. H2O is a great source of fuel, either as a supplement or full on with no other fuel.
For starters, reference;
http://waterpoweredcar.com/index.html
http://pesn.com/2006/04/16/9600261_Joe_Cell_instructions/
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/
http://www.chechfi.ca/sohfitech.htm

Water powered car? The principle of electrolysis is simple. You take power in the form of electricity and use it to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. The problem remains ... you still have to get the electricity from somewhere to start with.

Hydrogen does present itself as an interesting fuel source though.... in that sense you're correct. Just remember you never get something for nothing. The energy has to come from somewhere.

Believe it or not, the process of splitting the water molecule has been improved through several different methods which use a fraction of the energy that the 'old' electrolysis does. A little research will prove that point.
In addition to that, the benefits of hydrogen in the combustion chamber causes a much more complete and clean burn. Therefore, if one must use dino fuel, then they can burn it lean and clean for better mileage and emmisions.

Great idea! The power from the engine drives the electrolysis. The electrolysis creates hydrogen which is burned to power the engine. Kinda like plugging an extension cord into itself to get power. Just out curiosity, how far above 100% efficiency is your system?

WaterPower-

You're kidding, right?

MODERATOR ALERT, MODERATOR ALERT!!!
PERPETUAL MOTION SCAMS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON THESE FORUMS!!!

Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if you arrived at this forum to argue the merits of a Hydrogen-powered anything, there are simple laws that cannot be broken.

To put it simply, running anything on hydrogen is like using the world's worst battery (a really, really, really, really bad battery). You consume far more energy to access the Hydrogen than could possibly be released during its combustion.

Actually I think Waterpower is refering to a system that ADDS hydrogen to the normal fuel mix.
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/
Hydrogen burns real quick so it improves the flame speed of lean fuel mixtures and prevents knocking. Of course I'd like to see the system get its energy from something other than the engine - maybe recover it from the exhaust gasses or split the water using roof mounted PV cells or even just have a small secondary tank.

You can even mix hydrogen with other fuels, the idea works on diesels and CNG. A local company sells conversions for diesel trucks so they burn a mix of hydrogen and natural gas. Very clean. Just a minute while I check my bookmarks again;
http://www.westport.com/index.php
http://www.hythane.com/
http://www.hy-drive.com/main/default.asp

Wait ... I just wanted to point out that you're not going to get a miracle car that runs on water. Using hydrogen as a fuel source (in terms of energy density) isn't a bad idea.

You have two basic methods for Hydrogen ... an internal combustion engine or using a fuel cell. Remember there was a recent article here reguarding GM calling for local testers for its new fuel cell truck.

Thanks for the link (Planck) and the analysis (Rafael and everyone else). I love the commments section of this site. Really helps to put this kind of press release into perspective. Its hard to know what to make of such claims otherwise.

As I read this, the additional 20g cuts from 2009-2012 are only half the responsibility of the auto manufacturers (accommodating biofuel is no big deal), so 10g or 7.1%. The full schedule is thus:

Year    g/km    Down    Per Yr    Note
1995    196                       Historical
2004    170     13.2%   1.5%      Historical
2009    140     17.6%   3.5%      Promised
2012    130      7.1%   2.4%      On Table

The 1995-2004 period was driven by cheap gas days, so progress was slow. The just-recommitted target is a 3.5% annual rate, which is good. But extending the target out 3 more years at a 2.4% rate is impossible, says the manufacturer's association.

It seems what they mean is impossible, without having to do anything that they don't want to do because they expect it to materially impact profits, like sell fewer rolling castles. Of course, they are assuming that the market will not also be changed, by such things as higher fuel prices (courtesy OPEC or Brussels) or other policies. They're really acting at the indirect behest of politicians, who they are sure will continue to put forth policies that are pro-oil, relative to the need (though not to the extent you see in the US).

Raising these standards should be good for the auto manufacturers, despite the temptation they create by making oversized vehicles a hotter item when you can sell them. If you can't, then the standard basically just takes business away from Big Oil and gives it to automakers, who will have to make more expensive cars to achieve that. Except in the very short run, as people keep their old cars longer. But Japan is known for thinking longer term than that, and they lead on efficiency. I'd say they'd be best off taking a Brer Rabbit approach (reverse psychology) on this. Maybe that's what they're doing already.

Does your electric car's CO2 emissions include that CO2 produced by your local electric utility's coal-burning generators? And does it then meet the 120g CO2/km when that is included? Didn't think so.

Oh yeah, and if you live in an area served by a nuke plant, you're essentially driving a nuclear powered car. My gasoline powered car may be producing CO2, but it sure as heck doesn't produce any nuclear waste. Can you say the same about your electric car? Didn't think so.

The government and environmentalists say it's easy to do. Let's see them do it. Nancy Pelosi and Greenpeace should start up a car company that meets their goals, sells adequate numbers and stays viable.

Yes, while Pelosi prances about the globe in her tax-payer funded Boeing 767 jet (because the original jet she was given wasn't big enough). So much for reform.

For daily updated news on biofuels, ethanol and climate change issues, please visit:

http://www.ethanol-news.de