[Dezakin]

Nitpicking here, hydroboranes are about twice as energy dense as hydrocarbons if volumetric energy density in a liquid fuel is desired.

However they come with the draw backs of the exhast being a tarry solid that shreds engines unless they're some sort of specially designed turbine to slough off the gunk and having the nasty property of decomposition being a slightly aggresive nerve agent.

[outcast]

Nitpicking here, hydroboranes are about twice as energy dense as hydrocarbons if volumetric energy density in a liquid fuel is desired.

However they come with the draw backs of the exhast being a tarry solid that shreds engines unless they're some sort of specially designed turbine to slough off the gunk and having the nasty property of decomposition being a slightly aggresive nerve agent.

I read somewhere that there is a patent for an engine capable of burning solid boron. It wouldn't be impossible by any means.

[TheAntiDoomer]

Found this on another board, great response to this article:

Why is this guy writing an article about something everyone in the EV, battery, and capacitor circles already knows? Clearly, the only motivation is he is anti-EV and therefore wishes to mislead the general public. As his profile states, he is clearly trying to make money off burning oil.

1) Regardless of the potential energy of hydrocarbons, does he really expect us to believe processing, transporting, and then burning gasoline in an ICE allows us to achieve anywhere near that potential? It's a meaningless statistic.

2) He says current lithium batteries hold 0.5 MJ and and the theoretical max is 5MJ. He talks about this as if it is a bad thing. ABSURD! A Tesla Roadster can go 244 miles on a charge, according to the EPA. But let's round that down to 200 miles. With a battery 10x better (which he says is possible) that would mean it could go 2,000 miles on a charge. How the %$#& is that a bad thing? This guy must be NUTS.

3) And then he goes on to rant and rave about fuel cells!?! Shame on him and shame on the publication that ran this garbage article. Disgusting.

[outcast]

You got a link?

[Dezakin]

Nitpicking here, hydroboranes are about twice as energy dense as hydrocarbons if volumetric energy density in a liquid fuel is desired.

However they come with the draw backs of the exhast being a tarry solid that shreds engines unless they're some sort of specially designed turbine to slough off the gunk and having the nasty property of decomposition being a slightly aggresive nerve agent.

I read somewhere that there is a patent for an engine capable of burning solid boron. It wouldn't be impossible by any means.

No, its not impossible. You could make cars that use strontium-90 for a heat source to that would run for decades at a time. There are some tactical disadvantages compared to ordinary hydrocarbons however.

[TheDude]

I posted an article here about engines powered by metal nanoparticles, specifically boron. May also be of interest.

[TonyPrep]

Nitpicking here, hydroboranes are about twice as energy dense as hydrocarbons if volumetric energy density in a liquid fuel is desired.

However they come with the draw backs of the exhast being a tarry solid that shreds engines unless they're some sort of specially designed turbine to slough off the gunk and having the nasty property of decomposition being a slightly aggresive nerve agent.

The article quoted talked about "conceivable alternatives" hydroboranes doesn't seem to match that notion, from what you've written. So I'm not sure what the nitpicking is.

[Dezakin]

Hydroboranes are superior to hydrocarbons in every way except for some small details (heavy on the sarcasm for small details in case you hadn't noticed)

I only mentioned them because I think they're interesting and underappreciated even if largely practically useless.