Talk:Alternative fuel vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment / Green vehicle  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon


This article contains the following observation :

The term "'Alternative Fuel Cars' refers to cars that run on Alternative fuel; any method of powering an engine that does not involve petroleum. The term car may be used for different types of vehicles, starting from light three wheeled vehicles to road trains".

There is no method of fueling an (internal combustion) engine which does not somewhere along the line involve petroleum. The only question is that of degree. Often this involvement is behind the scene and must be dug into persistently rather than simply seen immediatley or off-hand.

Other types of alternatively fueled engines exist which in a similar fashion obscure their dependence -- to one degree or another -- on petroleum.

That's an odd statement. I guess if you look far enough back along the chain, you'll find something that wouldn't have happened without petroleum - but it's a bit of a stretch. If I fuel my car with propane gas (as my father did for many years) - I'd be using an alternative fuel in a regular internal combustion engine. The propane might have been made as a byproduct of petroleum distillation - but a lot of propane is extracted from natural gas - which is totally unrelated to petroleum - there are plenty of natural gas wells that produce no oil whatever. So if my local source of propane happens to come from natural gas then no petroleum was directly involved.
I guess you are going to argue that the truck that delivered the propane to the dealer was fuelled by petroleum products - or that the man who runs the propane extraction stage at the natural gas well drove to work in a petroleum vehicle or that the paint on the propane storage tank was made from oil. Therefore (you will probably argue) petroleum was involved somehow in the process. But that's a ludicrous argument - you might as well say that there are no alternative fuels that don't rely on cheese because the guy who runs the propane production plant eats cheese sandwiches for his lunch. Everything on the entire planet has some connection (however tenuous) to everything else on the planet. So if you are arguing for a really indirect connection then this is a true-ism - it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.
So let's assume you aren't talking about really indirect contributions from petroleum. In that case, you are definitely wrong. There are hydrogen-fuelled cars that get their hydrogen by the electrolysis of water using electricity that comes from nuclear power which in turn is fuelled by uranium isotopes that are obtained by refining naturally occurring uranium using gas-centrifuges that are powered by electricity that comes from other nuclear power stations. This would be an example of an alternative fuel (Hydrogen) which is burned in an internal combustion engine - where no petroleum whatever was directly involved in the production process. Of course you could argue that the bearings on the gas centrifuge were lubricated with oil that was refined from petroleum...but as I said, if you are looking at such indirect sources then you might equally argue that all cars are run on fuels that are ultimately derived from cheese - which is not something worth mentioning.
SteveBaker 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo locations[edit]

I moved some of the photos around, and cleaned up a couple of the links. I don't think that all the photos needed to be on the right-hand side. I think this makes the article a little more visually interesting. Bry9000 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Brazilianethanolposter.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Electric not a "fuel"[edit]

electric vehicles do not use a alternative fuel. Its merely electrical storage, it does not involve burning of a energetic substance.

Therefore, the article should be made in line with the green vehicle article and electric-section should be moved to there. Alternative fuel vehicle should be linked at this page aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article needs improvement, but "alternative fuel vehicle" includes many types of vehicles, including advance technology vehicles. Also is truth that "alternative fuel" is more limited in scope. However, remember that at Wiki common use prevails over more technical terms. See Wiki definition of fuel: it is any material that is burned or altered in order to obtain energy and to heat or to move an object..--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think fuel is or should be read so narrowly. Certainly electric vehicles are commonly considered alternatively fueled vehicles in the literature and in popular use. Shadowjams (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Automobile propulsion technologies[edit]

These cover the same material, and I don't see any distinction between the two, nor is there any support in reliable sources that there is a difference between the two titles. The content fork makes it hard to keep the information accurate, produces possible contradictions, and makes it confusing to readers.

This is a classic example of the merge criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but merte TO Automobile propulsion technologies (better name imho).--Kozuch (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. Even though the content is mixed up, Automobile propulsion technologies content is not right since included content that belongs to Alternative fuel vehicle. As an example, alternative fuels should not be included in propulsion technologies, as gasoline engine tecnology can ran on several fuels properly adjusted. Furthermore, just google and you will see that the common use of alternative fuel vehicles included alternative technologies also.-Mariordo (talk)
I don't understand your point. Can you explain why you believe the two are different enough to warrant a fork? Shadowjams (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather request Afd: I read it carefully, and on a second though, the title is not related with the content, this guy created a small mirror version of this article. Because it was recently created I would rather go for requesting a deletion (AfD). What do you think?-Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it for a non-controversial AfD today.--Mariordo (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
PROD isn't the same as AFD, and a deletion nomination isn't necessary for articles to be merged or redirected. I've removed the template although you could still nominate for AFD. They are separate articles; Alternative fuel vehicle specifically about alternatives to petrol or diesel, and Automobile propulsion technologies is a general article about technologies, including alternative fuels. Maybe articles could be merged, but Automobile propulsion technologies to Vehicle propulsion would be a better target. If Automobile propulsion technologies is kept separate, it should probably include some historical information in the lead section. snigbrook (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S can you put this into more understandable words please xx thank you xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How to align the bottom of the images?[edit]

Hi, I added Trev model images. For a better look I tried to make them even in height, but I could not manage that. May be you can help? 3DRivers (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to help you, in fact I tried to do it myself, but the image returns a red link, meaning that it does not exist (and that is why I remove it). Can you point its location for me please (provide the link of the page where it is located).-Mariordo (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, image names are Trev_solar_car.png and Trev_solar_car2.png 3DRivers (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, but the only way was vertical. Two image is too much for a general article (see Wikipedia:Undue weight). Why don't you choose one, and use the two in the car's specific article.-Mariordo (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, two may be too much. I will go ahead and delete one. I am so sorry - I have had to delete it before you aligned the images! Thanks for your help :) 3DRivers (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide and syngas-powered car[edit]

Cars running on either syngas or the combination ethanol-nitrous oxide (flexible-fuel vehicle) should be mentioned. See also — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Battery electric vehicles[edit]

Perhaps that the reducing of the battery capacity may be mentioned at the battery-electric vehicle section ? See Talk:Hybrid_vehicle#Hybrid_cars_with_very_little_energy_storage_capacity_in_electrical_storage_device (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Engine control unit altering[edit]

Can we mention something about the engine control unit altering ?

A gasoline engine car that has its tank filled with say ethanol, rather than gasoline for which the engine was initially designed, will run worse and the engine would require more maintenance if the fuel injection timing and amount of fuel sprayed into it hasn't been changed. Using a carburettor instead of direct injection (which uses needle valves) is off course the easy way to do it, but not many people will want to convert their car by removing the direct injection needles and swapping the whole thing for a carburettor.

I read and found some companies/products in it which could be mentioned, however I don't want to promote commercial companies off course (adhering to wiki policy), and another issue is that not all products made may be universally used. It seems that there are different ECU's and software loaded unto one ECU may not work on others -see - (so we best just mention only those things that are univerally usable). I assume this requires replacing the ECU alltogether with one that works on all engines, and using (open-source) software that runs on this (preferably open) hardware. Settings should be changable so that a wide range of fuels can be run optimally on any engine (injection timing and amount of fuel per spray being settable freely)

As such, romraider all ready falls out of the boat (as not universal). Same goes for OpenPort/ECuFlash (see and ) Leaves just the VEMS ECU V3 and the MicroSquirt. None of these are open hardware though, nor do they use open source ECU software I think and I also don't know what software they are able to communicate with open source pc software like Enginuity (there's also ECUedit but that's not open-source).

There are some open-source ECU's btw ([rusEfi], SECU-3) but I don't know whether the timing and fuel amount per spray can be set with that.

Finally, there's also Coolingmist, Devils own, Snow performance, and Aquamist but these too are not open-source, and I doubt that they can be set to inject a certain amount of fuel (settable), or change the spray timing (they're just intented for injecting water to the engine appearantly; which seems to be a technique to cool the engine). See Water_injection_(engine). KVDP (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)