Stop the presses! Car runs on water! For reals!

In an age where we hear about how global warming is going to potentially extinguish our species, I would have imagined that an emission-free car running purely on any type of water (sea water, rain water, toilet water, & even tea) would be front page news everywhere.  After all, automobiles are responsible for a big chunk of carbon dioxide emissions in America and elsewhere.  Japanese company, Genepax, has done such a feat.  It introduced a new fuel cell system, running only on water and air, in a working prototype car that can travel up to 50 miles per hour.  Since any water will do, refueling is no problem anywhere.  In an age where a hydrogen Honda still costs a cool $1 million to produce, Genepax’s fuel cell system only costs $18,500 and is likely to fall below $5,000 with mass production.  In addition to cars, Genepax envisions a future where homes can also be powered using water from their fuel cell systems.

So where is the news coverage?  There is no mention of this in the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, or CBC.  I picked up the article from Tech-On, an English technology news website based out of Japan.  Why isn’t this news in any of the major news outlets in the States and elsewhere?  Should I just sit here and scratch my head baffled or start running around yelling conspiracy?!!??

A car that runs only on regular water is bad news for a lot of powerful folks, namely the oil companies.  Even when petroleum runs out, Exxon Mobil and friends would love for you to continue to stop by their happy stations to pump in some nice hydrogen (and I’m sure they will come up with some reason to charge an exorbitant amount for it).  But if your car ran purely on water from the faucet in your kitchen, a public bathroom (yes, gross), or even Evian if you are feeling extra snooty, what are the likes of Exxon Mobil and friends going to do?  That gives you some food for thought on how companies like Shell are already building hydrogen refueling stations in California and how the automobile manufacturers are also pushing hydrogen cars as the end-all-be-all solution.  My gut always told me that oil executives and auto executives play golf and drink scotch together at the same country club, but where do the news people fall in?  Once again, why isn’t stuff like a car that runs on water big news when the Olsen twins makes news by eating an entire sandwich?

(Edit: Please read my followup post in response to many people’s comments that Genepax’s car is just a hoax).

Genepax Prototype Car










Genepax’s prototype car (photo courtesy Tech-On)



  1. 1

    I would love to hear more about it! And so should the newspapers.

  2. […] mass production.  What is sadly missing is just trying to use plan old water to run cars (see my previous post about Genepax and their prototype car that is fueled by […]

  3. 3
    jeff Says:

    This is probably a hoax. It’s either a breakthrough in science, or a hoax. Water requires energy to be split up, and there is no net energy gain through this process. My guess is that the chemical reaction that they talk about involves the oxidization of a bar of metal, which would split up the water. However, this would mean that you would have to replace the metal (probably a alkaline metal) every once in a while. For sure not “running off of water” alone.

  4. 4

    I don’t think it is a hoax. Genepax also demonstrated their fuel cell system by powering the entire TV crew’s equipment while they were there for the press conference. Also, the article that I got the story from is reputable and from one of Japan’s largest media outlets. Finally, I don’t really see the point of Genepax of orchestrating a hoax like this.

  5. 5
    nesquik Says:

    The point of orchestrating this hoax is to convince
    venture capitalists who are as ignorant about science
    as tv news crews to invest.

    If it were true it would be more than a breakthrough
    in science, it would disprove most of modern physics.

    There are two possibilities;

    a) An outright lie.

    b) Uses up something other that the air and water

    I especially object to this company because there are so
    many clean, renewable ways to power machines which
    don’t get enough funding, and this reflects badly on
    the genuine technologies.

    Besides, if it was real they’d probably have been
    assassinated by the oil conglomerates owned by the
    Bush family and their friends!

  6. 6
    jeff Says:

    unfortunatly, there is no feasible way to use water as a fuel source and as an end product in a chemical reaction and get energy. There’s no free lunch, and this device effectivly breaks the first law of thermodynamics if it does not use an additional source of either chemical or electrical energy.
    Check out the japanese website: The diagrams that they have clearly demonstrate that this machine is not feasible under the “no additional fuel besides water (and possibly tea?!) concept.

  7. […] announcement of a fuel system powered by water has been generating some buzz (see my previous post on the […]

  8. 8
    Eagle Bird Says:

    If car can be run with water, than what’s about running the other’s equipements in the house. Or either it cost more than the fuel, means it only can be used when their a crieses of the Fuel.

  9. 9

    the so-called “Skeptics” here seem to be as quick to rush to judgment as the “easy believers” they denounce.

    this company has not claimed to break the second law of thermodynamics. they don’t break it. All they do is run a car without using fossil fuels and without producing carbon emissions.

    I have my own thoughts on why the company decided to take it public like this and risk the negative word-of-mouth backlash that has been occurring. You can bet they think the benefits outweigh the risks.

  10. 10
    fake Says:

    This is not physically possible as proposed by the company. If you look at the website diagram the end product is the same as the starting material and thus the net energy of the reaction is zero unless another material or energy is applied and transformed, which is currently dismissed by the company. Also, because the starting material and end products are the same it would make sense to make this a closed system which would never require the addition of water and thus it would be a perpetual motion machine. Clearly this is not the case as the company claims that water must be periodically added (indicating a loss of energy in the system), which should be evidence enough of the hoax. I’m sure all the supporters of this scam will attribute this loss of energy to heat given off by resistance, or evaporation, but the fact of the matter is that the company has (even admitting a loss of energy to those factors) lied about the actual reaction taking place on their own website because any loss in energy should be shown in the reaction diagram as, at the minimum, a secondary product of the reaction. So there you have it, a dishonest company with an impossible product….SCAM!

  11. 11
    bill Says:

    MoneyEnergy: “this company has not claimed to break the second law of thermodynamics.”

    H2O goes in, energy comes out. Where does the H and O from the H2O go? It seems from their description that it comes back out as H2O again. So yes, thermodynamic laws are broken here. And heck, anything else containing the H and O, besides water, could be reduced to water, with more energy released.

  12. 12
    kuban Says:

    My guess is that the chemical reaction that they talk about involves the oxidization of a bar of metal, which would split up the water. However, this would mean that you would have to replace the metal (probably a alkaline metal) every once in a while. For sure not “running off of water” alone.

  13. 13
    Soci0path Says:

    This has been done successfully. And it wasnt a hoax. However the english engineer who did it also used a radioactive element to help somehow with the conversion from water to gasses. I’m trying to find the link now.

    The BK govt allowed him to do it for the one car, but said because of the radioactive element it wasnt practical for a production car.

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: