A car that gives 310mpg of water

Where do you live?

I'm sure that's why the world health organization has a whole section devoted to "the right for water"
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/emerging/en/

The widespread droughts and flooding are due to global warming and will only continue to get more severe if the root cause isn't dealt with. Global warming is caused primarily by CO2 and Methane releases: top three culprits: fossil fuels, deforestation, and livestock. Slowly phasing out a technology that causes the CO2 release isn't going to do widespread harm.

Some of you are assuming that these cars will contribute to the droughts. However, in order for that to be a problem, a good portion of the population would need to immediately purchase a shiny new water powered car. Most people don't have that kind of cash lying around. Even assuming that whatever company decides to produce these cars (which get more than 2 times the mpg than I get per *tank* of gas) decides to release a PROTOTYPE technology for cheap---which never happens (gotta pay for R&D somehow)---think of how many hybrid and electric cars are on the road today despite the introduction of the technology in the late 1800s.

Sure, they're increasing in number, but they're still rare enough that the novelty of seeing a hybrid on the road hasn't worn off. A car that uses water isn't going to use up water that could be going to aid people in Somalia and Kenya. The sooner we start implementing this and related technologies, the sooner the droughts will cease to be a problem.

Please don't tell me what my opinion should be as you have no idea what this would or would not contribute to. I would never buy a car that runs on water. PERIOD.

Hmm, an oil company getting in on selling 'water powered' cars to greenwash and still make money. Sounds about right to me.

The oceans called, they say they're still there and still for all intents and purposes an infinite source of water.

Infinite? How do you figure?

So you say that water scarcity is being caused by global warming huh? A car that burns less fossil fuel will not contribute to global warming as much. Besides these cars will probably not require clean pure drinking water. They can probably run on salt water just fine and we have plenty of that.

Really? Tell that to the marinelife that need it to live that are already suffering in the calcified oceans. Some people are simply selfish beyond belief. We already have resources that could run your car that will not interfere with the life cycle of other species and yet you choose a source that is in need to be used elsewhere? And what happens when the seas run dry because people wasted it all as well to run their cars to go to the mall?

water is a renewable resource

Then why are there water shortages around the world? I understand that water is renewable but it takes more energy to turn water back to its form.

If there is no scarcity then explain the drought in over 45% of the world now that is leading to famine and the fact that over a billion people do not have potable water. How about helping them first? Water is scarcer around the world due to glacier melt, pollution, privitization and also waste. Also water evaporation is on the rise due to warmer temperatures. Anglcazn is correct and I don't think this is a good idea, just like building more coal plants that use billions of gallons of water is a bad idea, as is nuclear energy which wastes water. And taking it from the ocean which I am sure someone will say, could harm marinelife. Much to think about before rushing into anything since we humans don't seem to be wired to conserve and do the right thing regarding our water.

We cannot afford to waste more water in a world that is already water scarce with population rising and predictions calling for more severe drought. And if it is going to be reclaimed it should be done so to feed people, not run someone' s car so they can go shopping. I would rather see people in the world using that water to eat and live and get proper medical attention. Millions oif children die each year due to unnecessary waterborne diseases and malnutrition. I think it is more important to deal with that first regarding water resources.

There are also many other alternate energy sources like electric and solar that can be perfected to run cars that do not waste a valuable resource like water. What next, NESTLE CARS? Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas that actually perpetuates climate change, or global warming if you care to use that phrase. Helping people to have potable water to live and eat, up. Using it to run your car while they go without it, down.

There is one town, on the Alabama border, that had to shut their water down in the whole town. It was only turned on for a couple of hours each day, at that time, work virtually stopped in the town as people went home to take showers, cook meals, and do whatever they needed that involved water. The water would then be shut off until the next day. Water was being carted 27 miles, one way I believe, in fire trucks so that the town could have water. If I remember right, pipes were finally put in from the neighboring Alabama town so the town could have water once again. I don't know much about renewable water, the most I have heard of is desalinzation, and isn't that very expensive and would that not deplete the ocean waters? And what about the marine life living in them? A world without fish, dolphins, sharks, everything. Doesn't sound that great to me. Not sure about this area...so any help would be appreciated.

I live in Wyoming, just came out of drought after ten years. I lived in Las Vegas before moving here...it became so bad you could only water on certain days.

Hey hey hey, if you BURN THE ELEMENTS OF WATER, you just make water vapor, which will condense and rain down from the sky.

No it doesn't require more energy, it actually requires that the water LOSE energy to become liquid once again.

If this model is like the Stanley Meyer model, then it can use any form of water, sea water, lake water, no matter what.

So, we would have to virtually live in humid climates every day while the water was being burned to evaporise, rise to the sky and rain back down? This after BURNING water to get it back? Makes no sense to me. Unless I misunderstood? (If so, just holler)

"If this model is like the Stanley Meyer model, then it can use any form of water, sea water, lake water, no matter what"

But then you're asking to endanger the species that live in the water just so we can run a car. And you can't just "burn" water. We have global warming where temperatures are rising around some parts of the world. Where are the rain clouds that are suppose to happen? It's not that simple.

sorry I know this is an old topic but I had to clarify something.

Our planet is not running out of water, nor is it losing water. There's about 360 quintillion gallons of water on the planet, and it's not going anywhere except in a circle. Earth's hydrologic cycle is a closed system, and the process is as old as time: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, and so on. In fact, there is probably more liquid water on Earth than there was just a few decades ago, due in part to global warming and melting polar ice caps.

Water shortages that you read about in the news are regional. The problem is not that we are running out of water, the problem is with how we use and distribute it. Purifying and transporting the water from places where its plentiful to places that need it can be costly. Add to that poor planning and management by those who govern the distribution and that's when you run into problems.

We need vehicles like this one not only because they are more energy efficient but because they are also healthier on our environment. You specify global warming as a concern in your argument against using water-powered vehicles but the irony is that these vehicles will help reduce global warming, so you should be supporting it.

In regards to water shortages, we need to be supporting advances in technologies and ideas that will make distributing water cheaper and more efficiently to areas that need it.

Yup that's what I have read!!

Yeah thats what i read.
I find it quite stupid that a group of inventors would sell their product- which purpose of being was to prevent climate change and help retain from using oil- to those who will just hide it from public; destroying the environmental revolution it could create.

Sell outs! =P