Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !
Posted on 06/06/2008 5:31:52 AM PDT by libstripper
Too bad the GOP’s standard bearer this year is for this Cap and Trade nonsense.
How does that compare in efficiency and ease of use to just running electric cars? Hydrogen is tough to work with and has a low energy density by volume so that it takes a very large, high pressure tank to compare to the typical 15-gallon (5.6 megajoules/liter when compressed at 700 atm. compared to 34.6 MJ/L for gasoline).
We already have the infrastructure for electricity delivery, but we don't have one for hydrogen yet.
If the goal is performance and acceleration, my method probably would have been the way to go, say, 10-15 yrs ago. I conced that hydrogen is hard to contain, it leaks, and it’s dangerous.
Probably the way to go today would be, as you say, direct use of electricity. Improvements have been made in battery storage and in the motors so that we can get performance nearly on par with gasoline motors, now or in the foreseeable future.
Yep, it is totally amazing to watch the incompetence of the GOP (so-called) leadership. It’s as if they want to lose.
Thank God for Mitch McConnell, at least he has the guts to fight back in the Senate.
...pushing this bill just as gas spikes to $4/gallon is the single most stupid act by the Dem's since pushing Hillary-care. Also consider the global cooling over the past year & a half - yes, i believe the tide is starting to turn...
Maybe that is exactly what should be done with EVERY bill. There would be a lot less BS bills coming out of DC and less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ being spent by congress.
Some environmentalists said the current legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), is too weak, in any case. The bill aims to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at 488 parts per million, rather than at 350 parts per million, which climate scientists such as NASA's James E. Hansen see as necessary.
"Any bill that does not set us on track to reduce atmospheric carbon levels to 350 parts per million is wishful and dangerous thinking," wrote Kierán Suckling, of the Center for Biological Diversity, in an e-mail. "We're thankful the bill was introduced, but more thankful that it did not pass."
Why 350 ppm? Because Hansen, the man who has declared he on a mission to prevent the "destruction of Creation" says so?
Why not 400 ppm? Or why not 500? Shouldn't it be obvious to the nitwits writing about this that greenhouses artificially pump up the level of CO2 for a reason?
The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) for Healthy Plant Growth
Question #2...
As several have noted, Republican Senators seemed to grow a spine. They fought hard and performed good works.
Advance to 2009. If a President McCain were supporting this legislation and twisting GOP arms, would Republicans fight so vigorously in opposition? Would Democrats be able to peel off eight to ten RINOs to get them to the magic 60 votes?
Click this link.
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/
Go to the bottom of the page and listen to Senator Cornyn of Texas. He basically said, “Up yours, boxer.”
I think I’ll go to his website and thank him and also ask he and other senators call for the entire reading of every bill and stall the heck out of the DUmmie legislation.
the dirty little secret is that the Dem's have never had all their Senators behind a drastic GW bill like this...so it would take a few more Rino's, I suspect.
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.