Sure, possible, but not feasible due to economics. Just the lithium requirements for batteries will undo this scheme. Internal combustion will win out over steam piston generators or thermoelectric.
Need to be careful not to ascribe uses for cold fusion that are too expensive - it tempts govts to use tax credits and subsidies (as in Volt/Leaf.) There is Plenty of work for cold fusion, but light transportation is not it, too expensive supporting tech. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: maybe steam engine, but seems not to be turbine. Sure. This was 1925. ICE cars were primitive and difficult to drive back then. This car was as fast as any ICE car. Leno is shown driving at 60 mph. He says you can go all day at that speed, whereas a Stanley Steamer would lose pressure. This car as a condenser in the front. Leno says it is not effective in summer. You lose all the water after ~80 miles. Leno says this makes steam and is ready to drive after a minute or two. The Stanley Steamer sometimes took 10 minutes. Naturally, a modern version would be far better. My point is that Caplan is wrong. It is possible to make an effective small steam powered vehicle with a condenser. A thermoelectric hybrid vehicle would be better. It would be a lot more expensive at present, but I expect the cost of themoelectric chips will fall rapidly. Steam is a first-generation, interim solution, like a floppy disk. (Back in the 1980s it was clear that floppy disks would soon be replaced with writable CDs and removable hard disks. There were large cartridge-style 5 MB removable hard disks in the 1970s.) - Jed
