Posted on 09/28/2007 9:27:36 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Answer, None !
125,000 BTU/gallon baby ! Beat that.
You know, I was having a discussion with a liberal friend of mine about fuel cell vehicles. He was touting them and saying that the only emission was water vapor.
I thought about that and responded, “Well, how is that any better for reducing global warming since water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas?” He said water vapor wasn’t the abundant greenhouse gas. I pointed him to a dozen reputable sources that show that is indeed the case. He had no response for me after that.
Facts...like Kryptonite to Libs.
The US electrical infrastructure cannot handle even a significant minority of the US auto fleet being electrified. It isn’t just a lack of generation capacity, there are significant constraints in transmission capacity as well.
I’ve been a proponent that the fastest way to achieve a significant increase in US auto fleet efficiency is to use modern diesel engines. The barriers are the idiots in Detroit and the environmentalist who stupidly believe that all diesel engines are exemplified by the soot-belching Detroit two-strokes in muni bus fleets.
Drill for our own oil and stop the idea that we depend totally on the middle east. One thing they don’t tell you is that oil is used for just about everything we use in everyday life..........not just for gas.
What about Mr. Fusion? By the way, oil doesn’t just make gasoline or power automobiles. It is made into over 1,000 products and powers, trains, planes, ships etc. It is the only versatile power source that exists in mass quantities. Global Warming is like Free Health Care, it’s all about control.
If we went back to using horses for transportation (which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea in some places - horse drawn trolleys can and did work), we’d be hearing the usual carping from some know-it-alls about ag policy that “we’re using our farmland to grow fuel!”
Whatever is next will cost more.
“The US electrical infrastructure cannot handle even a significant minority of the US auto fleet being electrified.”
Think of what would happen if the lights went out because of problems at the generating facilities.
And yet the lawmakers keep flogging the automotive industry for more, more, more, more - trying to shave the eyebrows off a flea.
That, and most fuel cells use a “reformer” to convert natural gas to CO2 and H2.
Fuel cells use H2 + O2 to create electrical power and H2O as a byproduct. But most fuel cell proponents overlook the fact that, even tho there is no combustion happening, most fuel cell applications start with natural gas and the CH4 gets split into CO2 + 2H2 by the “reformer” do-hickey.
Without an abundant source of free hydrogen gas (H2), fuel cells aren’t going much of anywhere. And, as you point out, they *do* emit a known greenhouse gas. ;-)
Very sharp. You didn’t even have to get into a discussion of the cost of creating a fuel cell. Libs always assume tech is grown on trees or some miracle happens and it is found under a rock. Sigh, why are we even dragging these people along?
I smell bull exhaust.
That number keeps on going up and up and up. The author is saying that a mower engine emits about 2000 times as much exhaust / horsepower / hour?
You’re entirely correct — electrifying the transportation infrastructure means that generation facilities become a single point failure mode.
Tailor-made for a terrorist or outside attacker to target.
Not exhaust, but for some very narrowly specified emissions components, yes.
No problem. Diesel :-D
“He had no response for me after that.”
Don’t confuse a liberal with facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.