Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States

Transportation in the United States is the largest source of greenhouse gas

Though the U.S.'s per capita and per GDP emissions have declined significantly, the raw numerical decline in emissions is much less substantial

 

The U.S. has among the highest per person emissions, of the countries that emit the most greenhouse gases

 

US greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector

  Transportation (28.6%)

  Electricity generation (25.1%)

  Industry (22.9%)

  Agriculture (10.2%)

  Commercial (6.9%)

  Residential (5.8%)

  U.S. territories (0.4%)

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person. However, the IEA estimates that the richest decile in the US emits over 55 tonnes of CO₂ per capita each year. Because coal-fired power stations are gradually shutting down, in the 2010s emissions from electricity generation fell to second place behind transportation which is now the largest single source. In 2020, 27% of the GHG emissions of the United States were from transportation, 25% from electricity, 24% from industry, 13% from commercial and residential buildings and 11% from agriculture. In 2021, the electric power sector was the second largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 25% of the U.S. total. These greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change in the United States, as well as worldwide.

Background

Types of greenhouse gases

United States Greenhouse emission of gas from 1990 - 2016

US emissions of CO₂ and methane, 2018

Since 1850, the United States has cumulatively contributed the greatest amount of greenhouse gases of any nation or region.

Since 1850, the United States has cumulatively contributed the greatest amount of CO₂ of any nation.

Main article: Greenhouse gas

Greenhouse gases are gases; including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, methane, fluorinated gases and others; that absorb and emit radiant energy in the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, due to human activities. The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Human powered force and activity is known as anthropogenic activity, which is causing a lot of detrimental effects on the planet. Such effects include erratic weather patterns, droughts and heat waves, wildfires, ocean acidification, sea level rise, glacial melting, increased average global temperatures, extinction, and many more.

Greenhouse gases have a range in how long they remain in the atmosphere. Regardless of where it was emitted from, emissions are roughly spread across the world and become mixed into a heterogeneous mixture. They are calculated in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), and parts per trillion (ppt). In 2019, data states that there was 409.8 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This strongly impacts the atmosphere in that it causes global warming, creating a thick blanket over the Earth's atmosphere.

Sources of greenhouse gases

Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the mass burning of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil along with trees, solid waste, and biological materials. In 2018, carbon dioxide was estimated to approximately be 81% of all USA greenhouse gases emitted in 2018. Natural sinks and reservoirs absorb carbon dioxide emissions through a process called the carbon cycle. Sinks and reservoirs can include the ocean, forests and vegetation, and the ground.

Methane is mainly produced by livestock and agricultural practices. Methane was estimated to make up 10% of emitted greenhouse gases. From the decrease in non-agricultural GHG emissions during COVID-19, the percent of the USA's GHG emissions from livestock increased from 2.6% to about 5%, which is a smaller percentage than many other countries likely because the USA has more greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, machines, and factories. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas produced mainly by agriculture. Fluorinated gases are synthetically produced and used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances.

Greenhouse gases are produced from a wide variety of human activities, though some of the greatest impacts come from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture and industrial manufacturing. In the United States, power generation was the largest source of emissions for many years, but in 2017, the transportation sector overtook it as the leading emissions source. As of that year, the breakdown was transportation at 29%, followed by electricity generation at 28% and industry at 22%.

After carbon dioxide, the next most abundant compound is methane, though there have been methodological differences in how to measure its effects. According to a 2016 study, US methane emissions were underestimated by the EPA for at least a decade, by some 30 to 50 percent. Currently, the US government is working to reduce methane emissions in the agriculture, mining, landfill, and petroleum industries.

Another area of concern is that of ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are often potent greenhouse gases with serious global warming potential (GWP). However, significant progress has been made in reducing the usage of these gases as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the international treaty that took effect in 1989.

Major emissions-creating events

In February 2018, an explosion and blowout in a natural gas well in Belmont County, Ohio was detected by the Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite's Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument. The well was owned by XTO Energy. About 30 homes were evacuated, and brine and produced water were discharged into streams flowing into the Ohio River. The blowout lasted 20 days, releasing more than 50,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. The blowout leaked more methane than is discharged by most European nations in a year from their oil and gas industries.

Per person, the United States generates carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than other primary regions.

Since 2000, rising CO₂ emissions in China and the rest of world have eclipsed the output of the United States and Europe.

Reporting requirement

Reporting of greenhouse gases was first implemented on a voluntary basis with the creation of a federal register of greenhouse gas emissions authorized under Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This program provides a means for utilities, industries, and other entities to establish a public record of their emissions and the results of voluntary measures to reduce, avoid, or sequester GHG emission

In 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established a similar program mandating reporting for facilities that produce 25,000 or more metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This has resulted in thousands of US companies monitoring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions, covering about half of all GHG emissions in the United States.

A separate inventory of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions is provided by Project Vulcan, a NASA/DOE funded effort to quantify North American fossil fuel emissions over time.

Mitigation

See also: Energy conservation in the United States and Climate change policy of the United States

Federal Policies

The United States government has held shifting attitudes toward addressing greenhouse gas emissions. The George W. Bush administration opted not to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but the Obama administration entered the Paris Agreement. The Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement while increasing the export of crude oil and gas, making the United States the largest producer. In 2021, the Biden administration committed to reducing emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030. In 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, which is estimated to provide around $375 billion over 10 years to fight climate change. As of 2022 the social cost of carbon is 51 dollars a tonne whereas academics say it should be more than 3 times higher.

Cross-sectoral

• State and Local Climate and Energy Program
• Federal Energy Management Program

Transportation

The transportation sector accounted for nearly 29% of GHG emissions in the United States in 2019, with 58% of emissions coming from light-duty vehicles. As of 2021, states lack legislation for low emission zones. Programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector include:

• The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program: Requires automobile manufacturers to meet average fuel economy standards for the light-duty vehicles, large passenger vans and SUVs sold in the United States. Fuel economy standards vary according to the size of the vehicle.
• SmartWay: Helps improve environmental outcomes for companies in the freight industry.
• Renewable Fuel Standard: Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for promulgating regulations to ensure that gasoline sold in the United States contains a specific volume of renewable fuel.
• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and Vehicle Technologies Program: The program works jointly with DOE's hydrogen, fuel cell, and infrastructure R&D efforts and the efforts to develop improved technology for hybrid electric vehicles, which include components (such as batteries and electric motors). The U.S. government uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and lead and does not include carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
• Clean Cities: A network of local coalitions created by DOE in 1993 that works to support energy efficiency and clean fuel efforts in local transportation contexts.
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program: Provides funds to states to improve air quality and congestion through the implementation of surface transportation projects (e.g., traffic flow and public transit improvements).
• Aviation industry regulation: Emissions from commercial and business jets make up 10% of U.S. transportation sector emissions and 3% of total national GHG emissions. In 2016, the EPA issued an "endangerment finding" that allowed the agency to regulate aircraft emissions, and the first proposed standards under that legal determination were issued in July 2020.
• Developing alternative energy sources: The Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) supports research into biofuels as part of that agency's efforts to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions.
• Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program: Provides grants for diesel emissions reduction projects and technologies.

Energy consumption, residential and commercial

As of 2020, buildings in the United States consume roughly 40% of the country's total electricity and contribute a similar percentage of GHG emissions.

• EPA and DOE Clean Energy Programs
• Commercial Building Integration
• Residential Building Integration
• Weatherization Assistance Program
• State Energy Program

Energy consumption, industrial

• Energy Star for industry
• Industrial Technologies Program (ITP)

Energy supply

Renewable energy exceeded coal-based energy for the first time in 2022.

CO₂ emissions from the US electric power sector

• The Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) works to reduce methane released into the atmosphere as a result of coal mining by supporting recovery of naturally occurring coal mine gases and encouraging the production of coalbed methane energy, among other uses.
• Natural Gas STAR Program
• The government also supports alternative energy sources that do not rely on fossil fuels, including wind power, solar power, geothermal power, and biofuel.
• These clean energy sources can often be integrated into the electric grid in what are known as distributed generation systems.
• EPA Clean Energy Programs - Green Power Partnership
• EPA Clean Energy Programs - Combined Heat and Power Partnership
• Carbon capture and storage Research Program
  • Advanced Energy Systems Program
  • CO₂ Capture
  • CO₂ Storage

Agriculture

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program
• Conservation Reserve Program
• Conservation Security Program
• AgSTAR Program

Forestry

• Healthy Forests Initiative
• Forest Land Enhancement Program

Waste management

• The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) promotes the use of landfill gas, a naturally occurring byproduct of decaying landfill waste, as a sustainable energy source. Besides reducing emissions, landfill gas utilization has also been credited for reductions in air pollution, improvements to health and safety conditions, and economic benefits for local communities.
• In addition to reducing emissions from waste already in landfills, the EPA's WasteWise program works with businesses to encourage recycling and source reduction to keep waste out of landfills in the first place.

Regional initiatives

• Western Climate Initiative
• The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), founded in 2007, is a state-level emissions capping and trading program by nine northeastern U.S. states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. It is a cap and trade program in which states "sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other consumer benefit programs."
• Western Governors Association Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative
• Powering the Plains
• Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships
• U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
• National Governors Association's (NGA) Securing a Clean Energy Future.

State Policies

California

• Vehicle Air Pollution (Senate Resolution 27): States and implies that California does not have to adhere to cutbacks in federal emissions standards, thereby allowing stricter California emissions standards than the federal government. This Senate Resolution stems from the previous administration's efforts to reverse environmental policies, and in this case, vehicle emissions standards. California's authority to set its own emissions standards is allowed through California's Clean Air Act preemption waiver granted to the state by the EPA in 2009.  California's waiver applies to vehicles made in 2009 and later. The previous state standard included a goal for certain vehicles to reach an average 35 miles per gallon. California saw a large decline in vehicle emissions from 2007 to 2013 but a rise in emissions following 2013, which can be attributed to different circumstances, some of which include population and employment growth, and increases in overall state GDP indicating more economic activity in the state.
• Cap-and-Trade Program: Market-based carbon pricing program that sets a statewide cap on emissions. This cap declines annually and applies to large emitters that account for over 80 percent of California's GHG emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) creates an allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide emissions. The number of allowances decreases over time and incentivizes a flexible approach to emissions reduction through trading.
• Advanced Clean Cars: Addresses GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants in California through the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulation and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation. The LEV regulation establishes increasing emissions standards for passenger vehicles through model year 2025. The ZEV regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of ZEVs and plug-in hybrids annually through 2025. The next iteration of this program for future model years is under development. 15 states have adopted the regulations under this program.
• Advanced Clean Cars II: Mandates a ban on the sale of internal combustion engine passenger vehicles, trucks, and SUVs starting in 2035, and mandates annual increases in ZEV sales targets from model year 2026 to 2035. California has adopted the regulation and New York announced that it would follow.
• Advanced Clean Trucks: Requires manufacturers of medium-and heavy-duty trucks to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks each year starting with model year 2024. In addition to California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts have also adopted this regulation. 10 other states and the District of Columbia intend to adopt in the future.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): Establishes annual targets through 2030 to ensure transportation-related fuels become cleaner and less carbon intensive. Oregon has a similar program entitled, Clean Fuels Program, which runs until 2025.
• In 2006, the state of California passed AB-32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To implement AB-32, the California Air Resources Board proposed a carbon tax but this was not enacted.
• In May 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which covers nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, passed a carbon tax on businesses of 4.4 cents per ton of CO₂.

Colorado

In November 2006, voters in Boulder, Colorado, passed what is said to be the first municipal carbon tax. It covers electricity consumption with deductions for using electricity from renewable sources (primarily Xcel's WindSource program). The goal is to reduce their emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. Tax revenues are collected by Xcel Energy and are directed to the city's Office of Environmental Affairs to fund programs to reduce emissions.

Boulder's Climate Action Plan (CAP) tax was expected to raise $1.6 million in 2010. The tax was increased to a maximum allowable rate by voters in 2009 to meet CAP goals. As of 2017 the tax was set at $0.0049 /kWh for residential users (avg. $21 per year), $0.0009/kWh for commercial (avg. $94 per year), and $0.0003 /kWh for industrial (avg. $9,600 per year). Tax revenues were expected to decrease over time as conservation and renewable energy expand. The tax was renewed by voters on 6 November 2012.

As of 2015, the Boulder carbon tax was estimated to reduce carbon output by over 100,000 tons per year and provided $1.8 million in revenue. This revenue is invested in bike lanes, energy-efficient solutions, rebates, and community programs. The surcharge has been generally well received.

Maryland

In May 2010, Montgomery County, Maryland, passed the nation's first county-level carbon tax. The legislation required payments of $5 per ton of CO₂ emitted from any stationary source emitting more than a million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The only source of emissions fitting the criteria is an 850 megawatt coal-fired power plant then owned by Mirant Corporation. The tax was expected to raise between $10 million and $15 million for the county, which faced a nearly $1 billion budget gap. The law directed half of tax revenues toward low interest loans for county residents to invest in residential energy efficiency. The county's energy supplier buys its energy at auction, requiring the plant owner to sell its energy at market value, preventing any increase in energy costs. In June 2010, Mirant sued the county to stop the tax. In June 2011 the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the tax was a fee imposed "for regulatory or punitive purposes" rather than a tax, and therefore could be challenged in court. The County Council repealed the fee in July 2012.

GHG reduction targets

• States with statutory GHG reduction targets: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
• States that don't have statutory targets, but have statutory GHG reporting requirements: Iowa and Pennsylvania.

Renewable portfolio standards

• 38 states have established renewable portfolio standards or voluntary targets, which increase the share of renewable electricity generation over time.

Lead by example programs

• New Hampshire's Better Buildings Neighborhood Program
• New Jersey's Clean Energy Program
• Atlanta's Virginia Highland - 1st Carbon Neutral Zone in the United States

Local programs

Municipal, county, and regional governments have substantial influence on greenhouse gas emissions, and many have reduction goals and programs. Local governments are often one of the largest employers in their jurisdictions, and can achieve substantial reductions in their own operations, such as by using zero-emissions vehicles, making government buildings energy-efficient, making or buying renewable energy, and providing incentives for employees to walk, bike, or take transit to work. Local governments have control over several policy areas which influence emissions for the population as a whole. These include land use regulations such as zoning; transportation infrastructure like public transit, parking, and bike lanes; and building codes and efficiency regulations. Some municipalities act as utility cooperatives and set a minimum standard for renewable generation.

Non-governmental responses

Individual action

See also: Individual action on climate change

Actions taken by individuals on climate change include diet, travel alternatives, household energy use, reduced consumption and family size. Individuals can also engage in local and political advocacy around issues of climate change. Individuals have a variety of carbon offsetting options available to mitigate their environmental impact through non-profit organizations.

Business community

See also: Business action on climate change

Numerous large businesses have started cutting emissions and committed to eliminate net emissions by various dates in the future, resulting in higher demand for renewable energy and lower demand for fossil fuel energy. Businesses may also go carbon neutral by enrolling in Carbonfree® Programs or certifying their products as Carbonfree® through carbon offset organizations.

Technologies in development

• Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships
• Nuclear:
  • Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative
  • Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
  • Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
  • Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
• Clean Automotive Technology
• Hydrogen Technology
• High-temperature superconductivity

Austrian school of economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, the concept that social phenomena result exclusively from the motivations and actions of individuals. Austrian school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.

The Austrian School originated in Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others. It was methodologically opposed to the Historical School (based in Germany), in a dispute known as Methodenstreit, or methodology struggle. Current-day economists working in this tradition are located in many different countries, but their work is still referred to as Austrian economics. Among the theoretical contributions of the early years of the Austrian School are the subjective theory of value, marginalism in price theory and the formulation of the economic calculation problem, each of which has become an accepted part of mainstream economics.

In the 1970s, the Austrian School attracted some renewed interest after Friedrich Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Gunnar Myrdal.

History

Jean-Baptiste Say. The French Liberal School of Political Economy is an intellectual ancestor of Austrian School of Economics.

Etymology

The Austrian School owes its name to members of the German historical school of economics, who argued against the Austrians during the late 19th-century Methodenstreit ("methodology struggle"), in which the Austrians defended the role of theory in economics as distinct from the study or compilation of historical circumstance. In 1883, Menger published Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, which attacked the methods of the historical school. Gustav von Schmoller, a leader of the historical school, responded with an unfavorable review, coining the term "Austrian School" in an attempt to characterize the school as outcast and provincial. The label endured and was adopted by the adherents themselves.

First wave

Carl Menger

The school originated in Vienna in the Austrian Empire. Carl Menger's 1871 book Principles of Economics is generally considered the founding of the Austrian School. The book was one of the first modern treatises to advance the theory of marginal utility. The Austrian School was one of three founding currents of the marginalist revolution of the 1870s, with its major contribution being the introduction of the subjectivist approach in economics.

Despite such claim, John Stuart Mill had used value in use in this sense in 1848 in Principles of Political Economy, where he wrote: "Value in use, or as Mr. De Quincey calls it, teleologic value, is the extreme limit of value in exchange. The exchange value of a thing may fall short, to any amount, of its value in use; but that it can ever exceed the value in use, implies a contradiction; it supposes that persons will give, to possess a thing, more than the utmost value which they themselves put upon it as a means of gratifying their inclinations."

While marginalism was generally influential, there was also a more specific school that began to coalesce around Menger's work, which came to be known as the "Psychological School", "Vienna School", or "Austrian School". Menger's contributions to economic theory were closely followed by those of Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser. These three economists became what is known as the "first wave" of the Austrian School. Böhm-Bawerk wrote extensive critiques of Karl Marx in the 1880s and 1890s and was part of the Austrians' participation in the late 19th-century Methodenstreit, during which they attacked the Hegelian doctrines of the historical school.

Early 20th century

Frank Albert Fetter (1863–1949) was a leader in the United States of Austrian thought. He obtained his PhD in 1894 from the University of Halle and then was made Professor of Political Economy and Finance at Cornell University in 1901. Several important Austrian economists trained at the University of Vienna in the 1920s and later participated in private seminars held by Ludwig von Mises. These included Gottfried Haberler, Friedrich Hayek, Fritz Machlup, Karl Menger (son of Carl Menger), Oskar Morgenstern, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, Abraham Wald, and Michael A. Heilperin, among others, as well as the sociologist Alfred Schütz.

Later 20th century

Campus of Mises Institute, in Auburn, Alabama

By the mid-1930s, most economists had embraced what they considered the important contributions of the early Austrians. Fritz Machlup quoted Hayek's statement that "the greatest success of a school is that it stops existing because its fundamental teachings have become parts of the general body of commonly accepted thought". Sometime during the middle of the 20th century, Austrian economics became disregarded or derided by mainstream economists because it rejected model building and mathematical and statistical methods in the study of economics. Mises' student Israel Kirzner recalled that in 1954, when Kirzner was pursuing his PhD, there was no separate Austrian School as such. When Kirzner was deciding which graduate school to attend, Mises had advised him to accept an offer of admission at Johns Hopkins because it was a prestigious university and Fritz Machlup taught there.

After the 1940s, Austrian economics can be divided into two schools of economic thought and the school "split" to some degree in the late 20th century. One camp of Austrians, exemplified by Mises, regards neoclassical methodology to be irredeemably flawed; the other camp, exemplified by Friedrich Hayek, accepts a large part of neoclassical methodology and is more accepting of government intervention in the economy. Henry Hazlitt wrote economics columns and editorials for a number of publications and wrote many books on the topic of Austrian economics from the 1930s to the 1980s. Hazlitt's thinking was influenced by Mises. His book Economics in One Lesson (1946) sold over a million copies and he is also known for The Failure of the "New Economics" (1959), a line-by-line critique of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory.

The reputation of the Austrian School rose in the late 20th century due in part to the work of Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann at New York University and to renewed public awareness of the work of Hayek after he won the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek's work was influential in the revival of laissez-faire thought in the 20th century.

Split among contemporary Austrians

Economist Leland Yeager discussed the late 20th-century rift and referred to a discussion written by Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Joseph Salerno and others in which they attack and disparage Hayek. Yeager stated: "To try to drive a wedge between Mises and Hayek on [the role of knowledge in economic calculation], especially to the disparagement of Hayek, is unfair to these two great men, unfaithful to the history of economic thought". He went on to call the rift subversive to economic analysis and the historical understanding of the fall of Eastern European communism.

In a 1999 book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Hoppe asserted that Rothbard was the leader of the "mainstream within Austrian Economics" and contrasted Rothbard with Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, whom he identified as a British empiricist and an opponent of the thought of Mises and Rothbard. Hoppe acknowledged that Hayek was the most prominent Austrian economist within academia, but stated that Hayek was an opponent of the Austrian tradition which led from Carl Menger and Böhm-Bawerk through Mises to Rothbard. Austrian economist Walter Block says that the Austrian School can be distinguished from other schools of economic thought through two categories—economic theory and political theory. According to Block, while Hayek can be considered an Austrian economist, his views on political theory clash with the libertarian political theory which Block sees as an integral part of the Austrian School.

Both criticism from Hoppe and Block to Hayek apply to Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School. Hoppe emphasizes that Hayek, which for him is from the English empirical tradition, is an opponent of the supposed rationalist tradition of the Austrian School; Menger made strong critiques to rationalism in his works in similar vein as Hayek's. He emphasized the idea that there are several institutions which were not deliberately created, have a kind of "superior wisdom" and serve important functions to society. He also talked about Burke and the English tradition to sustain these positions.

When saying that the libertarian political theory is an integral part of the Austrian School and supposing Hayek is not a libertarian, Block excludes Menger from the Austrian School too since Menger seems to defend broader state activity than Hayek—for example, progressive taxation and extensive labour legislation.

Economists of the Hayekian view are affiliated with the Cato Institute, George Mason University (GMU) and New York University, among other institutions. They include Peter Boettke, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, Peter Leeson and George Reisman. Economists of the Mises–Rothbard view include Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto and Robert P. Murphy, each of whom is associated with the Mises Institute and some of them also with academic institutions. According to Murphy, a "truce between (for lack of better terms) the GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians" was signed around 2011.

Influence

Many theories developed by "first wave" Austrian economists have long been absorbed into mainstream economics. These include Carl Menger's theories on marginal utility, Friedrich von Wieser's theories on opportunity cost and Eugen Böhm von Bawerk's theories on time preference, as well as Menger and Böhm-Bawerk's criticisms of Marxian economics.

Former American Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the founders of the Austrian School "reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country". In 1987, Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan told an interviewer: "I have no objections to being called an Austrian. Hayek and Mises might consider me an Austrian but, surely some of the others would not".

Currently, universities with a significant Austrian presence are George Mason University, New York University, Grove City College, Loyola University New Orleans, Monmouth College, and Auburn University in the United States; King Juan Carlos University in Spain; and Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. Austrian economic ideas are also promoted by privately funded organizations such as the Mises Institute and the Cato Institute.

Theory

The Austrian School theorizes that the subjective choices of individuals including individual knowledge, time, expectation and other subjective factors cause all economic phenomena. Austrians seek to understand the economy by examining the social ramifications of individual choice, an approach called methodological individualism. It differs from other schools of economic thought, which have focused on aggregate variables, equilibrium analysis and societal groups rather than individuals.

Ludwig von Mises

In the 20th and 21st centuries, economists with a methodological lineage to the early Austrian School developed many diverse approaches and theoretical orientations. Ludwig von Mises organized his version of the subjectivist approach, which he called "praxeology", in a book published in English as Human Action in 1949. In it, Mises stated that praxeology could be used to deduce a priori theoretical economic truths and that deductive economic thought experiments could yield conclusions which follow irrefutably from the underlying assumptions. He wrote that conclusions could not be inferred from empirical observation or statistical analysis and argued against the use of probabilities in economic models.

Since Mises' time, some Austrian thinkers have accepted his praxeological approach while others have adopted alternative methodologies. For example, Fritz Machlup, Friedrich Hayek and others did not take Mises' strong a priori approach to economics. Ludwig Lachmann, a radical subjectivist, also largely rejected Mises' formulation of Praxeology in favor of the verstehende Methode ("interpretive method") articulated by Max Weber.

In the 20th century, various Austrians incorporated models and mathematics into their analysis. Austrian economist Steven Horwitz argued in 2000 that Austrian methodology is consistent with macroeconomics and that Austrian macroeconomics can be expressed in terms of microeconomic foundations. Austrian economist Roger Garrison writes that Austrian macroeconomic theory can be correctly expressed in terms of diagrammatic models. In 1944, Austrian economist Oskar Morgenstern presented a rigorous schematization of an ordinal utility function (the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem) in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.

Fundamental tenets

In 1981, Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking as such:

• Methodological individualism: in the explanation of economic phenomena, we have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of individual members. Groups do not think; people think.
• Methodological subjectivism: the judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have, and whatever expectations they have regarding external developments and the consequences of their actions.
• Tastes and preferences: subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them so that their prices are influenced by consumers.
• Opportunity costs: the costs of the alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all alternative uses have to be sacrificed.
• Marginalism: in all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity and so on are determined by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.
• Time structure of production and consumption: decisions to save reflect "time preferences" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future and investments are made in view of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken.

He included two additional tenets held by the Mises branch of Austrian economics:

• Consumer sovereignty: the influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and services and through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities and prices of products and services.
• Political individualism: only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the 19th century.

Contributions to economic thought

Opportunity cost

Main article: Opportunity cost

Friedrich von Wieser

The opportunity cost doctrine was first explicitly formulated by the Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser in the late 19th century. Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative foregone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices. Although a more ephemeral scarcity, expectations of the future must also be considered. Quantified as time preference, opportunity cost must also be valued with respect to one’s preference for present versus future investments.

Opportunity cost is a key concept in mainstream economics and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that resources are used efficiently.

Capital and interest

See also: Capital and Interest, Marginalism, Neutrality of money, and Time preference

Eugen Böhm von Bawerk

The Austrian theory of capital and interest was first developed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk. He stated that interest rates and profits are determined by two factors, namely supply and demand in the market for final goods and time preference.

Böhm-Bawerk's theory equates capital intensity with the degree of roundaboutness of production processes. Böhm-Bawerk also argued that the law of marginal utility necessarily implies the classical law of costs. Some Austrian economists therefore entirely reject the notion that interest rates are affected by liquidity preference.

Inflation

See also: Monetary inflation

In Mises's definition, inflation is an increase in the supply of money:

In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.

Hayek pointed out that inflationary stimulation exploits the lag between an increase in money supply and the consequent increase in the prices of goods and services:

And since any inflation, however modest at first, can help employment only so long as it accelerates, adopted as a means of reducing unemployment, it will do so for any length of time only while it accelerates. "Mild" steady inflation cannot help—it can lead only to outright inflation. That inflation at a constant rate soon ceases to have any stimulating effect, and in the end merely leaves us with a backlog of delayed adaptations, is the conclusive argument against the "mild" inflation represented as beneficial even in standard economics textbooks.

Economic calculation problem

Main article: Economic calculation problem

Friedrich Hayek

Israel Kirzner

The economic calculation problem refers to a criticism of planned economies which was first stated by Max Weber in 1920. Mises subsequently discussed Weber's idea with his student Friedrich Hayek, who developed it in various works including The Road to Serfdom. What the calculation problem essentially states is that without price signals, the factors of production cannot be allocated in the most efficient way possible, rendering planned economies inefficacious.

Austrian theory emphasizes the organizing power of markets. Hayek stated that market prices reflect information, the totality of which is not known to any single individual, which determines the allocation of resources in an economy. Because socialist systems lack the individual incentives and price discovery processes by which individuals act on their personal information, Hayek argued that socialist economic planners lack all of the knowledge required to make optimal decisions. Those who agree with this criticism view it as a refutation of socialism, showing that socialism is not a viable or sustainable form of economic organization. The debate rose to prominence in the 1920s and 1930s and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by historians of economic thought as the socialist calculation debate.

Mises argued in a 1920 essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if the government owned the means of production, then no prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange", unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him to write "that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth".

Business cycles

Main article: Austrian business cycle theory

The Austrian theory of the business cycle (ABCT) focuses on banks' issuance of credit as the cause of economic fluctuations. Although later elaborated by Hayek and others, the theory was first set forth by Mises, who posited that fractional reserve banks extend credit at artificially low interest rates, causing businesses to invest in relatively roundabout production processes which leads to an artificial "boom". Mises stated that this artificial "boom" then led to a misallocation of resources which he called "malinvestment" – which eventually must end in a "bust".

Mises surmised how government manipulation of money and credit in the banking system throws savings and investment out of balance, resulting in misdirected investment projects that are eventually found to be unsustainable, at which point the economy has to rebalance itself through a period of corrective recession. Austrian economist Fritz Machlup summarized the Austrian view by stating, "monetary factors cause the cycle but real phenomena constitute it." For Austrians, the only prudent strategy for government is to leave money and the financial system to the free market's competitive forces to eradicate the business cycle's inflationary booms and recessionary busts, allowing markets to keep people's saving and investment decisions in place for well-coordinated economic stability and growth.

A Keynesian would suggest government intervention during a recession to inject spending into the economy when people will not. However, the heart of Austrian macroeconomic theory states the government "fine tuning" through expansions and contractions in the money supply orchestrated by the government are actually the cause of business cycles because of the differing impact of the resulting interest rate changes on different stages in the structure of production. Austrian economist Thomas Woods further supports this view by arguing it is not consumption, but rather production that should be emphasized. A country cannot become rich by consuming, and therefore, by using up all their resources. Instead, production is what enables consumption as a possibility in the first place, since a producer would be working for nothing, if not for the desire to consume.

Central banks

According to Ludwig von Mises, central banks enable the commercial banks to fund loans at artificially low interest rates, thereby inducing an unsustainable expansion of bank credit and impeding any subsequent contraction and argued for a gold standard to constrain growth in fiduciary media. Friedrich Hayek took a different perspective not focusing on gold but focusing on regulation of the banking sector via strong central banking.

Criticism

General

Mainstream economists generally reject modern-day Austrian economics, and argue that modern-day Austrian economists are excessively averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics. Austrian opposition to mathematization extends to economic theorizing only, as they argue that human behavior is too variable for overarching mathematical models to hold true across time and context. Austrians do, however, support analyzing revealed preference via mathematization to aid business and finance.

Economist Paul Krugman has stated that Austrians are unaware of holes in their own thinking because they do not use "explicit models".

Economist Benjamin Klein has criticized the economic methodological work of Austrian economist Israel M. Kirzner. While praising Kirzner for highlighting shortcomings in traditional methodology, Klein argued that Kirzner did not provide a viable alternative for economic methodology. Economist Tyler Cowen has written that Kirzner's theory of entrepreneurship can ultimately be reduced to a neoclassical search model and is thus not in the radical subjectivist tradition of Austrian praxeology. Cowen states that Kirzner's entrepreneurs can be modeled in mainstream terms of search.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness".

Economist Bryan Caplan has noted that Mises has been criticized for overstating the strength of his case in describing socialism as "impossible" rather than as something that would need to establish non-market institutions to deal with the inefficiency.

Methodology

Critics generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor and rejects scientific methods and the use of empirical data in modelling economic behavior. Some economists describe Austrian methodology as being a priori or non-empirical.

Economist Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.

Economist Thomas Mayer has stated that Austrians advocate a rejection of the scientific method which involves the development of empirically falsifiable theories. Furthermore, economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful information about individual preferences.

Although economist Leland Yeager is sympathetic to Austrian economics, he rejects many favorite views of the Misesian group of Austrians, in particular "the specifics of their business-cycle theory, ultra-subjectivism in value theory and particularly in interest-rate theory, their insistence on unidirectional causality rather than general interdependence, and their fondness for methodological brooding, pointless profundities, and verbal gymnastics".

Economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1964 that most economists believe that economic conclusions reached by pure logical deduction are limited and weak. According to Samuelson and Caplan, Mises' deductive methodology also embraced by Murray Rothbard and to a lesser extent by Mises' student Israel Kirzner was not sufficient in and of itself.

Business cycle theory

Mainstream economic research regarding Austrian business cycle theory finds that it is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Noted economists such as Gordon Tullock, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman have said that they regard the theory as incorrect. Austrian economist Ludwig Lachmann noted that the Austrian theory was rejected during the 1930s:

The promise of an Austrian theory of the trade cycle, which might also serve to explain the severity of the Great Depression, a feature of the early 1930s that provided the background for Hayek's successful appearance on the London scene, soon proved deceptive. Three giants – Keynes, Knight and Sraffa – turned against the hapless Austrians who, in the middle of that black decade, thus had to do battle on three fronts. Naturally it proved a task beyond their strength.

— Ludwig M. Lachmann, The Market as an Economic Process, p. ix

Theoretical objections

Some economists have argued that Austrian business cycle theory requires bankers and investors to exhibit a kind of irrationality because the Austrian theory posits that investors will be fooled repeatedly (by temporarily low interest rates) into making unprofitable investment decisions. Milton Friedman objected to the policy implications of the theory, stating the following in a 1998 interview:

I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You've just got to let it cure itself. You can't do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm.

— Milton Friedman, Barron's Magazine, 1998

Empirical objections

In 1969, Milton Friedman examined the history of business cycles in the United States and wrote that there "appears to be no systematic connection between the size of an expansion and of the succeeding contraction", contradicting business cycle theories (such as the Austrian business cycle theory) which rely on that premise. He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusion. Referring to Friedman's discussion of the business cycle, Austrian economist Roger Garrison argued that Friedman's empirical findings are "broadly consistent with both Monetarist and Austrian views" and goes on to argue that although Friedman's model "describes the economy's performance at the highest level of aggregation, Austrian theory offers an insightful account of the market process that might underlie those aggregates".

Water-fuelled car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car 

A water-fuelled car is an automobile that hypothetically derives its energy directly from water. Water-fuelled cars have been the subject of numerous international patents, newspaper and popular science magazine articles, local television news coverage, and websites. The claims for these devices have been found to be pseudoscience and some were found to be tied to investment frauds. These vehicles may be claimed to produce fuel from water on board with no other energy input, or may be a hybrid claiming to derive some of its energy from water in addition to a conventional source (such as gasoline).

Water is fully oxidized hydrogen. Hydrogen itself is a high-energy, flammable substance, but its useful energy is released when water is formed. Water will not burn. The process of electrolysis can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but it takes as much energy to take apart a water molecule as was released when the hydrogen was oxidized to form water. In fact, some energy would be lost in converting water to hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen because some waste heat would always be produced in the conversions. Releasing chemical energy from water, in excess or in equal proportion to the energy required to facilitate such production, would therefore violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

What water-fuelled cars are not

A water-fuelled car is not any of the following:

• Water injection, which is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and reduced engine knocking (detonation).
• The hydrogen car, although it often incorporates some of the same elements. To fuel a hydrogen car from water, electricity is used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis. The resulting hydrogen is an energy carrier that can power a car by reacting with oxygen from the air to create water, either through burning in a combustion engine or catalyzed to produce electricity in a fuel cell.
• Hydrogen fuel enhancement, where a mixture of hydrogen and conventional hydrocarbon fuel is burned in an internal combustion engine, usually in an attempt to improve fuel economy or reduce emissions.
• The steam car, which uses water (in both liquid and gaseous forms) as a working fluid, not as a fuel.

Extracting energy from water

According to the currently accepted laws of physics, there is no way to extract chemical energy from water alone. Water itself is highly stable—it was one of the classical elements and contains very strong chemical bonds. Its enthalpy of formation is negative (-68.3 kcal/mol or -285.8 kJ/mol), meaning that energy is required to break those stable bonds, to separate water into its elements, and there are no other compounds of hydrogen and oxygen with more negative enthalpies of formation, meaning that no energy can be released in this manner either.

Most proposed water-fuelled cars rely on some form of electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recombine them to release energy; however, because the energy required to separate the elements will always be at least as great as the useful energy released, this cannot be used to produce net energy.

Claims of functioning water-fuelled cars

Garrett electrolytic carburetor

Charles H. Garrett allegedly demonstrated a water-fuelled car "for several minutes", which was reported on September 8, 1935, in The Dallas Morning News. The car generated hydrogen by electrolysis as can be seen by examining Garrett's patent, issued that same year. This patent includes drawings which show a carburetor similar to an ordinary float-type carburetor but with electrolysis plates in the lower portion, and where the float is used to maintain the level of the water. Garrett's patent fails to identify a new source of energy.

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Main article: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

At least as far back as 1980, Stanley Meyer claimed that he had built a dune buggy that ran on water, although he gave inconsistent explanations as to its mode of operation. In some cases, he claimed that he had replaced the spark plugs with a "water splitter", while in other cases it was claimed to rely on a "fuel cell" that split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The "fuel cell", which he claimed was subjected to an electrical resonance, would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapour in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy. Meyer's claims were never independently verified, and in an Ohio court in 1996 he was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud". He died of an aneurysm in 1998, although conspiracy theories claim that he was poisoned.

Dennis Klein

In 2002, the firm Hydrogen Technology Applications patented an electrolyser design and trademarked the term "Aquygen" to refer to the hydrogen oxygen gas mixture produced by the device. Originally developed as an alternative to oxyacetylene welding, the company claimed to be able to run a vehicle exclusively on water, via the production of "Aquygen", and invoked an unproven state of matter called "magnegases" and a discredited theory about magnecules to explain their results. Company founder Dennis Klein claimed to be in negotiations with a major US auto manufacturer and that the US government wanted to produce Hummers that used his technology.

At present, the company no longer claims it can run a car exclusively on water, and is instead marketing "Aquygen" production as a technique to increase fuel efficiency, thus making it Hydrogen fuel enhancement rather than a water-fuelled car.

Genesis World Energy (GWE)

Also in 2002, Genesis World Energy announced a market ready device which would extract energy from water by separating the hydrogen and oxygen and then recombining them. In 2003, the company announced that this technology had been adapted to power automobiles. The company collected over $2.5 million from investors, but none of their devices were ever brought to market. In 2006, Patrick Kelly, the owner of Genesis World Energy was sentenced in New Jersey to five years in prison for theft and ordered to pay $400,000 in restitution.

Genepax Water Energy System

In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car it claimed ran on only water and air, and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car". The company said it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention" yet, but it disclosed that the system used an onboard energy generator, which it called a "membrane electrode assembly", to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water". The hydrogen was then used to generate energy to run the car. This led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making it a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle rather than water-fuelled as claimed. On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction". The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics described Genepax's claims as "rubbish". The vehicle Genepax demonstrated to the press in 2008 was a REVAi electric car, which was manufactured in India and sold in the UK as the G-Wiz.

In early 2009, Genepax announced they were closing their website, citing large development costs.

Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe

Also in 2008, Sri Lankan news sources reported that Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe claimed to drive a water-fuelled car about 300 km (190 miles). on 3 litres (5.3 imperial pints) of water. Like other alleged water-fuelled cars described above, energy for the car was supposedly produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis, and then burning the gases in the engine. Thushara showed the technology to Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayaka, who "extended the Government’s full support to his efforts to introduce the water-powered car to the Sri Lankan market". Thushara was arrested a few months later on suspicion of investment fraud.

Daniel Dingel

Daniel Dingel, a Filipino inventor, has been claiming since 1969 to have developed technology allowing water to be used as fuel. In 2000, Dingel entered into a business partnership with Formosa Plastics Group to further develop the technology. In 2008, Formosa Plastics successfully sued Dingel for fraud and Dingel, who was 82, was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.

Ghulam Sarwar

In December 2011, Ghulam Sarwar claimed he had invented a car that ran only on water. At the time the invented car was claimed to use 60% water and 40% Diesel or fuel, but that the inventor was working to make it run on only water, probably by end of June 2012. It was further claimed the car "emits only oxygen rather than the usual carbon".

Agha Waqar Ahmad

Main article: Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car

Pakistani man Agha Waqar Ahmad claimed in July 2012 to have invented a water-fuelled car by installing a "water kit" for all kind of automobiles, which consists of a cylindrical jar that holds the water, a bubbler, and a pipe leading to the engine. He claimed the kit used electrolysis to convert water into "HHO", which is then used as fuel. The kit required use of distilled water to work. Ahmed claimed he has been able to generate more oxyhydrogen than any other inventor because of "undisclosed calculations". He applied for a patent in Pakistan. Some Pakistani scientists said Agha's invention was a fraud that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Aryanto Misel

Indonesian inventor Aryanto Misel claimed in May 2022 that his invention, called Nikuba, can convert water into hydrogen that can be used as fuel for motorcycles. Aryanto claimed that he only required 1 liter of water for the distance of 500 kilometers.

In July 2023, Aryanto claimed that Italian-based automobile manufacturers Lamborghini, Ducati, and Ferrari are interested in Nikuba. He also claimed that he is willing to sell the device to foreign companies for 15 billion rupiahs, while also claiming that he didn't need the Indonesian government and National Research and Innovation Agency as they have "destroyed" him. Indonesian scientists from National Research and Innovation Agency stated that the device is theoretically impossible. Indonesian scientists also stated that there are no interest from Italian automobile manufacturers for Nikuba, and Aryanto is invited by their partners instead of the automobile manufacturers.

Hydrogen as a supplement

Main article: Hydrogen fuel enhancement

In addition to claims of cars that run exclusively on water, there have also been claims that burning hydrogen or oxyhydrogen together with petrol or diesel increases mileage and efficiency; these claims are debated. A number of websites promote the use of oxyhydrogen, also called "HHO", selling plans for do-it-yourself electrolysers or kits with the promise of large improvements in fuel efficiency. According to a spokesman for the American Automobile Association, "All of these devices look like they could probably work for you, but let me tell you they don't".

Gasoline pill and related additives

Main article: Gasoline pill

Related to the water-fuelled car hoax are claims that additives, often a pill, can convert the water into usable fuel, similar to a carbide lamp, in which a high-energy additive produces the combustible fuel. These claims are all false, and often with fraudulent intent, as again water itself cannot contribute any energy to the process.

Hydrogen on demand technologies

A hydrogen on demand vehicle uses a chemical reaction to produce hydrogen from water. The hydrogen is then burned in an internal combustion engine or used in a fuel cell to generate electricity which powers the vehicle. These designs take energy from the chemical that reacts with water; vehicles of this type are not precluded by the laws of nature. Aluminium, magnesium, and sodium borohydride react with water to generate hydrogen and have been used in hydrogen on demand prototypes. Eventually, the chemical runs out and has to be replenished. The energy required to produce such compounds exceeds the energy obtained from their reaction with water.

One example of a hydrogen on demand device, created by scientists from the University of Minnesota and the Weizmann Institute of Science, uses boron to generate hydrogen from water. An article in New Scientist in July 2006 described the power source under the headline "A fuel tank full of water," and they quote Abu-Hamed as saying:

The aim is to produce the hydrogen on-board at a rate matching the demand of the car engine. We want to use the boron to save transporting and storing the hydrogen.

A vehicle powered by the device would take on water and boron instead of petrol, and generate boron trioxide. Elemental boron is difficult to prepare and does not occur naturally. Boron trioxide is an example of a borate, which is the predominant form of boron on earth. Thus, a boron-powered vehicle would require an economical method of preparing elemental boron. The chemical reactions describing the oxidation of boron are:

4B + 6H₂O → 2B₂O₃ + 6H₂ [Hydrogen Generation Step]

6H₂ + 3O₂ → 6H₂O [Combustion step]

The balanced chemical equation representing the overall process (hydrogen generation and combustion) is:

4B + 3O₂ → 2 B₂O₃

As shown above, boron trioxide is the only net byproduct, and it could be removed from the car and turned back into boron and reused. Electricity input is required to complete this process, which Al-Hamed suggests could come from solar panels. Although it is possible to obtain elemental boron by electrolysis, a substantial expenditure of energy is required. The process of converting borates to elemental boron and back might be compared with the analogous process involving carbon: carbon dioxide could be converted to charcoal (elemental carbon), then burnt to produce carbon dioxide.

In popular culture

It is referred to in the pilot episode for the That '70s Show sitcom, as well as in the twenty-first episode of the fifth season and the series finale.

"Gashole" (2010), a documentary film about the history of oil prices and the future of alternative mentions multiple stories regarding engines that use water to increase mileage efficiency.

"Like Water for Octane," an episode of The Lone Gunmen, is based on a "water-powered" car that character Melvin Frohike saw with his own eyes back in 1962.

The Water Engine, a David Mamet play made into a television film in 1994, tells the story of Charles Lang inventing an engine that runs using water for fuel. The plot centers on the many obstacles the inventor must overcome to patent his device.

The plot of the 1996 action film Chain Reaction revolves around a technology to turn water (via a type of self-sustaining bubble fusion & electrolysis) into fuel and official suppression of it.

A water-powered car was depicted in a 1997 episode of Team Knight Rider (a spinoff of the original Knight Rider TV series) entitled "Oil and Water". In the episode, the vehicle explodes after a character sabotages it by putting seltzer tablets in the fuel tank. The car shown was actually a Bricklin SV-1.