This seems to be a level-handed, hard-hitting analysis of the fallacy of running a car on hydrogen anytime soon.
1 posted on
09/23/2005 2:19:41 PM PDT by
newgeezer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
To: newgeezer
My truck is powered by nonsense and I have a limitless supply.
2 posted on
09/23/2005 2:22:36 PM PDT by
Conspiracy Guy
(Ponce de Leon is coming here to look for the fountain of dumb. The DNC is his first stop.)
To: newgeezer
This is what we need:
3 posted on
09/23/2005 2:23:15 PM PDT by
RockinRight
(What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
To: newgeezer
Anthrop says it must be compressed to at least 4000 psi (Honda uses 5000 psi in the FCX; GM is trying for 10,000). 10,000 psi containers of compressed hydrogen. That sure will be a lot of fun during a high-speed accident or other container failure. You thought a ruptured gas tank or throwing a piston was bad...
To: newgeezer
This article jibes with one I read in American Spectator a couple of years ago. I've been down on hydrogen cars ever since. And with all I've read lately about the safety of new nuclear plants, I'm coming to the conclusion that that may be the way to go. I'm sure sick of being jerked around by the oil-producing countries, and hydrogen's economically unfeasible.
By the way, isn't it amazing that France gets 75% of its power from nuclear plants?
To: newgeezer
Well, maybe they will have a cold fusion cell as a power source. The quackery content alone would be enough to propel the vehicle to the greenpissers' headquarters and back.
6 posted on
09/23/2005 2:31:00 PM PDT by
GSlob
To: RightWhale
7 posted on
09/23/2005 2:31:50 PM PDT by
King Prout
(19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
To: newgeezer
Us techies have been saying this all along--"Hydrogen, hydrogen everywhere, but nary a drop to burn."
10 posted on
09/23/2005 2:34:47 PM PDT by
randog
(What the....?!)
To: newgeezer
What the hell is wrong with gasoline? Let's just close down the Sierra Club, NRDC and ACLU under RICO statutes, and then open up ANWR and the entire Western shale to unfettered production (f**k the caribou and salamanders, they can't drive). Investor's Business Daily estimates that the Western shale can produce enough oil to provide for America's entire demand for the next 400 years. Tree-huggers are the enemy. We voted in Republicans to shut those stupid pussies down. It's time to do that. Get the children (meaning Liberals) out of the office, it's time to let the adults solve America's energy needs.
To: newgeezer
The area of promise is entrained hydrogen generated catalytically or biologically. This is the only realistic hope.
If someone works it out, he will be rich beyond imagining!!!
12 posted on
09/23/2005 2:39:14 PM PDT by
BillM
To: newgeezer
Nuclear plants dedicated solely to electrolysis are the answer.
Seeing as the greenies will not allow the construction of any new nuclear facility dedicated to any purpose, we will just have to listen to them whine on about fantasy clean energy ideas until the lights literally go out and the economy runs to a stop.
That is the greenie goal for those who are unaware, all their talk of new sources and their continued political obstruction of any new sources is simply the masturbation they are using to deliver the masses to their goal.
True environmentalists believe the earth is their "mother" and any use of her resources it equivalent to a cancer in a biological entity. They intend to deliver humanity back to the stone age, and have no problem with the casualties.
I know these pigs well as I was once one of them.
14 posted on
09/23/2005 2:41:20 PM PDT by
mmercier
To: newgeezer
15 posted on
09/23/2005 2:43:34 PM PDT by
chaosagent
(Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
To: newgeezer
This seems to be a level-handed, hard-hitting analysis of the fallacy of running a car on hydrogen anytime soon.
I would like to see a similar analysis using the Canadian anhydride's as the hydrogen source instead of the expensive water or natural gas which is useful for other purposes.
Hulkster
16 posted on
09/23/2005 2:44:28 PM PDT by
IncredibleHulk
(For some, it is better to live in Hell ...)
To: newgeezer
19 posted on
09/23/2005 2:49:44 PM PDT by
Publius6961
(Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
To: newgeezer
20 posted on
09/23/2005 2:50:35 PM PDT by
Publius6961
(Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
To: newgeezer
This is the same issue I have with electric cars. The EvroWacks pretend that the electricity they put in their cars comes from fantasy land. It had to be produced in a power plant that unless was nuclear, most likely is causing more total pollution than a gas powered cars would.
21 posted on
09/23/2005 2:50:43 PM PDT by
upier
(Stop Child abuse - Teach your children English!)
To: newgeezer
Rest easy, hydrophobics. (And a great post)
The next wave for the internal combustion engine is ultra-pure low-sulfur diesel fuel, plus computerized diesel management and exhaust handling.
The engines will be small, 3-4 cylinders 2-liter max, ...about 20 BHP, and will be used in a hybrid configuration to both drive the car as needed and to charge the batteries for electric motors at each wheel. It will be, unlike the PRIUS, a plug-in set up that can be charged overnight to complement dynamic charging on coast or while braking.
And this makes sense because we can use our coal and nuclear resources to provide the elctrical energy needed to supplement fossil, or vegetable fuels. A big plus is that diesel needs somewhat less refinement than gasoline, and can be mixed with bio-fuels.
A peppy family car in this configuration might deliver 55mpg, overall, or even more. Read it and weep, O Sons of Allah! This is already happening in Europe. I suspect that if Chrysler could get enough small diesels from D-B, they would be trying it now.
BTW, today's IC engines are absolutely fabulous, with micro-finishes and tolerances managed out to the 100 Thousandth, they last forever and make even the cheapest flivvers one hell of a lot hotter than many Americans can handle.
One complaint: I cruise my ancient 240,000-mile M-B at 75. I am being continually left in the dust by Honda Civics, which showing their huge rear exhaust pipes, blow my doors off at easily 100+mph, and then disappear over the horizon. What's with this trend?
To: newgeezer
To: newgeezer
To: newgeezer
There are at least two assumptions in this hit piece that are either unwarranted or uncertain.
First, there is no reason that we cannot use nuclear power plants to break the chemical bonds of the hydrogen compounds, such as water.
Second, it is far from certain that the hydrogen will have to be compressed. There are some promising technologies that allow for storage chemically.
To: newgeezer
One possibility (mentioned in this month's Scientific American) is that cars could be a lot lighter than they are today by using various space-age materials that are both far lighter and stronger than what we use today. And if you have a lighter car, you can use a lighter and smaller engine to move it. Combine light small cars with hybrid technology and biofuels, and we can tell the Saudis to drink their darned oil for all we care.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson