Steam is a significant source of CO2. Water vapor of any kind produces a lot of carbon dioxide. Oceans, for instance, are the number one cause of CO2 emissions. Goodness knows, if we are trying to cut back on CO2, steam would be counter productive. We should be more like Mars- though desolate, it has halted its CO2 production by drying up all its water and consolidating all its carbon dioxide in the form of dry ice at its polar caps. Have you seen any steam cars on Mars? No, because they know its bad for the environment.

water vapor of any kind produces carbon dioxide. How is that possible. Water is H2O, there's no carbon anywhere in there. Perhaps you mean that water vapor is a greenhouse "gas" in its own right, and that is true. However, we wouldn't be adding any net water vapor to the atmosphere, most of the steam condenses almost immediately, unlike CO2 emissions from fossil fuels which remove C that was locked underground and releases it to the atmosphere.

Steam engines can do away with gear boxes. It is a great idea to work on steam engines and find a way to power generators & cars. We can directly convert all out waste and reduce consumption of imported oil.
http://dancrissco.wordpress.com/
This give me an idea. I could retrofit the pemmPOD for a steam engine. Interesting designs anybody?

Ok, it's just a romantic fantasy. But why not? How about a steam-electric hybrid?

The problem with steam-powered vehicles is that you still have to burn fossil fuels to generate the heat. In other words, the polution problem is not solved unless you come up with a super clean burner. Everything else being equal, I would much rather have a Stirling engine because, as far as I know, the stirling engine is more efficient at relatively low power output.

The only advantage I can see from this engine over a Stirling is less volume.
Concerning efficiency is probably worse.
But I still hope to see one steam engine producing power to batteries of a hybrid car...

Steam allows for utility power output double to that of an internal combustion engine. That means half compsumption of energy in transport and other uses. Electric power production uses steam, whatever the origin fuel they burn. The last car that run on steam was back in the 1920's, with better results than any other car in its time. Jay Leno has one of those vintage cars. It is very doubtful that climate change has its origin on CO2. If we eliminate CO2 from the earth, what would plants eat? There is a lot of nonsense going around with climate change, and many people doing a lot of bucks on it.
If compsumption of fuel is half for the same result, just imagine on halfing your fuel, heating and transport bills. And so goes for import bills. Arabs and Chavez would halve their power as well.
If a new steam engine eliminates the setback and uncomfort of cleaning it periodically I would go for it right away. I would just make double mileage in my vehicle for the same price.
If steam had won the race of engines against the internal combustion engine, today we would have used half of the oil reserves on earth. However, the steam engine runs on any fuel. We can make a lot of fuel in non agricultural land. Even we can get biofuels from plants grown in semi desertic areas. There is a lot of business out there that we have not yet tapped.

Their are some problems with portable steam boilers. A boiler explosion is graphic and deadly.  It takes time to boil a kettle.  We are used to just turning a key and driving away.  To make a steam engine that can monitor itself is with in our reach. The gasoline and diesel are running out faster then the government would like us to think.  Steam is a good choice for northern climates because batteries just cant do the job.  Stirling engines are to complex and high speed to be practical in an automobile as an only source of power.Please plant trees to tie up the Co2. Mark out

What about Thermite as a heat source, for powering a steam turbine?

It's a bit cool here in Minnesota and they'll be driving on Lake Mille Lacs any day now.  Maybe I ought to zip the lining into my jacket?  I wonder how if this bad boy would start easier than a diesel on a day like this?  Have they considered using another fluid with a lower freezing point?

Steam alone is not a great automobile option since steam is not easily modulated - it takes time to fire up a boiler and time to turn down the power back down. Just ask the electric utility about the costs of matching production to demand.

Combined with a fast response (electric) system, a steam driven flywheel system (to buffer changes in demand) might make sense.

The cost per BTU with Algae would be one third to one half that of the BTU from diesel. Estimate on web is $200 per ton for dried algae and 14,000 btu per pound. That is 140,000 BTU per dollar. Diesel is about 46000 BTU per dollar. Long haul trucks, trains and ships could all use low cost BTUs. Algae would be CO2 nuetral because it is renewable.

Using a Steam engine might be a good solution just eliminate the steam. The steam engine design will works just fine with ordinary compressed air. there is nothing special about steam that air can't do. All you need to some kind of air-compressor running off of a battery and your good to go. Almost no emissions.

Sounds like this would be perfect for a generator to charge up batteries in out-of-the-way places where there's no electricity but lots of wood to burn.  Much cheaper and more eco-friendly than installing and maintaining electrical lines.  More reliable, cheaper, and longer-lasting than solar or windmills.  Taking all manufacturing costs into account, probably more eco-friendly too.  (Note: I'm assuming these places are not lived in year-round and don't have a heavy electrical load, e.g. no AC.  I'm thinking vacation cabins in the woods.)  I bet it would also be quieter than a typical diesel generator.

I think it could be very useful but on small scale stationary power production.   the key point isn't the efficiency its the fact that it can burn anything.   good for alternative fuel sources.  I wouldn't bother putting biodesiel in it. Its to energy intensives process and should be saved.   It would be better to use it for scrap.  (corn husks, manure, waste gas.  

Cyclone Power is one of a trio of new engine technologies that can use multiple fuels.  With Cyclone the steam is in a closed loop system so it is different from old steam designs.

Some advantages are very high torque, near complete combustion which lowers emmissions and the use of water lubrication instead of oil.  Liquid fuels will be around for a long time so don't get hung up on just CO2 emmissions.
The other two companies are Turbine Truck (TTEG) and Axial Vector Engines (AXVC).

I suspect the first poster was assuming that ALL greenhouse gasses were CO2.  Obviously not, but water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Using a steam engine, however, does not mean releasing water vapour.  In fact the most efficient steam turbines use a condenser to recover the water and re-use it, and thereby re-using some of the heat as well.

Like all turbines, steam powered ones do not respond quickly to demand, but are quite efficient at their working rpm. So the logical place for them is pushing the generator in a hybrid vehicle. They have the advantage of not being confined to a particular fuel.  The delivery system may be confined to a particular fuel state (solid, liquid, gas), but not to a unique fuel within that state.

Additionally, they are generally an External Compustion Engine (ECE) as opposed to an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE), so produce fewer by products, and the exhaust may be recurculated in a less involved process.

Turbines should work well in hybrids, and indeed there is a new supercar hybrid just announced in Europe that claims a zillion mph at 80 mpg.

A steam powered hybrid may just be an alternative that helps meet our need for a low emision engine.

I don't know it's written anywhere in the article but the Cyclone Engine recycles steam - it's main claim to efficiency is that it scavenges much waste heat as it recycles steam to liquid H2O and H2O in any form is not released to the atmosphere.  cyclonepower.com

Read what Cyclone Power Technologies has to say about their revolutionary steam engine:
http://www.cyclonepower.com/works.html
"Q. How does the Cyclone work in cold or freezing temperatures?
A. The answer is simple. First of all the Cyclone engine acts like a heating furnace where the temperature contained in the combustion chamber is not effected by freezing temperatures. The combustion chamber is located on the top of the engine and contains no water to freeze. It heats quickly as the fire in the chamber is circulated rapidly as in a centrifuge. This in turn swiftly heats the rest of the engine including the condenser pan where the water is located. Effectively, if ice was present the heat from the combustion chamber would defrost it within thirty seconds if not sooner. Normal start up time is 10 to 15 seconds while the complete warm up time is less than one minute. Today’s Diesel engines take much longer to warm up than the Cyclone engine. Running the Cyclone in extremely cold temperatures makes no difference as the cyclone works similar to a space heater. One third of the heat produced in the Cyclone is recovered and reused, the waste heat from the lower condenser could be used to directly heat the vehicles interior.

We have run freeze tests on the heat exchanger which is made up of ¼ inch tubing and holds 14 cubic inches of water. The freezing temperatures have had no effect on the tubes. The 100 HP engine holds 4 gallons of water in the condenser pan which has ample room for expansion when frozen, it is an insulated container that will hold the heat for a long period of time. If necessary a very small ni-chrome wire could keep the water in a liquid state indefinitely using very low voltage.

Engine start up time is fast and does not require any shifting as it does not require a transmission. Just turn it on and it will warm itself up. At normal 70 degree weather a cold engine will warm up and be able to run in 10 to 15 seconds with full power available in about a minute, while a frozen engine would take a minute or two. There is no smoke during start up period of the Cyclone, while gas or diesel is extremely dirty."

I'm no steam expert, but if you couple this engine with a parabolic dish as is being done with Stirling technology, could power generation get any cheaper?

There has been a lot of chatter on this thread about various topics that are kind of irrelevant.  Yes, surprise, surprise! Steam engines work on stuff you can burn!  Well, no surprise there unless it's the first time you've seen a steam engine.  Biomass wood chips, diesel, or diapers - it doesn't matter!  The heating side of this equation is not news to anyone with a clue or who has used a fireplace.

The part that concerns is is that I've seen no hard data on the Cyclone Engine.  It worries me that this is a lot of fluff.  While there are videos and working models (hey, a big step up from most "alt energy" competitors) there are still no real comparisons I've seen as far as total energy efficiency versus internal combustion.  If I burn a gallon of diesel in the Cyclone Engine, how many kwh of electricity will I get out of the electrical generator versus burning that same gallon of diesel in a stationary, high-efficiency diesel connected to the same generator?  A nifty steam loop and heat recovery and all that jazz is sexy, but the lack of real data on their site makes me VERY suspicious that this is no more efficient than anything else.  Does anyone know the Carnot numbers for this system?  Lack of data = suspicions that they're hiding something mediocre or worse than other solutions.

PS: I still see no demonstrations of real uses here.  They've demonstrated at 200psi, which is a far, FAR cry from the 3200psi they claim will be the operating pressures on their production systems.  Models are a great first step, but working systems are the only acceptable proof of functionality.   (If I've just missed those videos or descriptions, please post them here.)

JT

I decided to address directly your comment and question: "It's hard to imagine this being a real alternative--outside of some nice applications. Anyone think otherwise?"

In my opinion, most people cannot see many benefits that a modern small scale steam power source can provide. A failure to appreciate the potential benefits of a modern steam engine usually lies in not understanding the system, or in having a myopic focus on one performance characteristic. But the ideal engine in virtually any application would have a range of characteristics. In my opinion, the Cyclone engine has the potential to provide these qualities better than any other alternative. There remains a lot of development to be done. But the results to date should convince the skeptic that small scale steam power should not be casually dismissed. The following are some desirable features of any small engine, and how the Cyclone measures up:
1. Light weight - the 18 hp system designed for stationary power weighs less than 100 lbs. The automotive system designed for full size passenger cars weighs less than 350 lbs.
2. Compact - the complete 10 KWe generator prototype is roughly 12" x 18" x 30". The complete 100 hp automotive system is a barrel shaped unit roughly 30" in diameter and 30" high.
3. Multi-fuel - the automotive system can use any light liquid fuel, gaseous fuels, and has also used a solid fuel (coal dust). Stationary systems can use these fuels also, but also use biomass directly. Solar concentrators may also power these engines.
4. Clean burning (low emissions)- low emissions are inherent in a properly designed external combustion furnace. The automotive system can pass smog without emissions controls equipment. Stationary systems are as clean as home heating furnances.
5. A simple design - the system has a low overall parts count, a simple control system, and no emissions controls equipment. The automotive system requires no clutch and no transmission
6. Highly efficient - The opinions of engineers notwithstanding, the best measure of efficiency is cost (see discussion on cost below). But the thermal efficiency of the Cyclone is marginally higher than conventional automotive gas engines.  
7. Safe - exterior temps are low (hands can be placed on unit during operation). A low volume of steam is contained within multiple barriers.
8. Quiet - inherently quiet compared to internal combustion. Most of the noise is from the external blower fan
9. Easy to operate - No more difficult than its internal combustion counterpart
10. Cost - At similar economies of scale the lighter weight, lower parts count, simpler design, lack of emissions controls equipment, no oil lubrication, easy access to hardware, and ability to use a wide range of less expensive and less refined fuels with no additives or octane requirements will bring down both initial costs and operating costs. Furthermore, the heated air blown off the condenser can be used directly in space heating applications. The relatively low temperature of the (much cleaner) exhaust (350F) can be more easily and safely used in other heating applications (ex. water heating).
11. Scalability - The Cyclone design can be used for outputs ranging from fractional hp up to 1500 hp.

See:
http://www.benecke.com.br/pt_br/produto.php5?pid=2
an integrated power generation plant in a 40 foot container, one cylinder, 25 kVA generator.17 bar steam intake, 2 bar exhaust, closed loop,  air condenser. Oil free piston, 40k hours piston seals life, proven 8k hours MTBF, less than 3 hours MRT with no expert engineers need.
Over 200 units running.
They also manufactures  50, 100, 125 and 250 kW engines, and has a unit with 6 parallel 250 kW engines running now!!
Benecke bougth 20 years ago a manufacturer or steam engines, they have more than forty years experience in design and manufacture of stationary steam engines,
Believe it or not. Not Rocker Science, just "logic" technology.
BTW: They are in Brezil.