And rocket scientist Barack Obama is doing everything he can to shut down coal and oil fired electrical generation.
Posted on 06/02/2014 5:09:45 AM PDT by thackney
Those who hype the "green" ecological benefits of battery powered electric cars never seem to account for the impact of manufacturing the batteries and caustic battery acid or their ultimate disposal and/or recycling.
What disposal or recycling systems are in place to accommodate the tremendous amount of burned out batteries a big move to electric cars would generate? How much of the acid will just be poured into the ground at the local junkyards?
In 20 years will we have another pollution/health crisis resulting from the manufacture and handling of the batteries and acid?
I agree with both of you but steam reform means storage and transportation. Hydrogen is one of the most difficult gases on earth to “handle”
I can’t see it working unless you use inefficient hydrolysis or some localized process “on site” at the refill station. None of this makes any sense to me.
“mutations” - they add information to the “genome”.
I have been an advocate of hydrogen as a fuel for over forty years; either in a fuel cell or in an internal combustion engine.
And rocket scientist Barack Obama is doing everything he can to shut down coal and oil fired electrical generation.
The basic error is the conversion of energy to get electricity. The hydrocarbon is not going away. It IS natures battery, as plants are the most efficient generator of stored solar energy. They also do it without any real maintenance or work to make sure they are doing their job. They also do it as a byproduct of other agricultural industries.
Also, the internal combustion engine, as we know it, is not necessarily the most efficient engine to utilize the hydrocarbon, but with current tooling and materials, it is still the most cost effective.
"I want to say one word to you. Just one word Benjamin... Plastics" And what are plastics made from? Hydrocarbons.
Even when you neglect the pollution from the waste caused by creating hydrogen, it is still not a viable fuel for automobiles. There is currently NO commercial method of storing hydrogen in a vehicle other than as a compressed gas. Even when compressed to 10,000 psi, and ignoring the volume of the storage tanks, hydrogen requires 7 times the volume to contain the same energy as in gasoline. Where can you put a 100 gallon fuel tank in a Prius?
The most important use of hydrogen fuel is the generation of government subsidies as it is not an economic choice of fuel.
That is important for conservatives to be against and liberals to be in favor of.
I don’t understand why Toyota abandoned their small pick-ups, pre-1994. I was able to get 25mpg out of my ‘92 4x4 if I drove it right.
Fuel cells, as described in this article, are a generator, converting a physical chemical fuel into electricity. Hydrogen, natural gas are examples of the fuel.
We will know that hydrogen fuel cells are nearing commercial viability when the Sierra Club comes out against water vapor.
Probably some regulatory/safety standard made them illegal,
or at least not economically feasible in meeting that standard.
Indeed - you see through them as well.
As soon as an energy source becomes “viable”, ie, readily available and affordable,
the left will come out against it.
Because their goals aren’t environmental. Their goal is reducing the lifestyles of average Americans.
No glorified golf cart will ever outperform my Shelby GT500.
Toyota is in business to make money;there is more profit in larger vehicles.
Study the history of cars and light trucks in the U.S. and you will find many examples of economical transportation that were turned into bloated gashogs withins a few model years.
Salesmen make more by selling you a big luxury model rather than an economy model.The entire system works to convince the customer/consumer to buy the car/tv/computer/home/boat that will benefit the people selling the item the most,NOT the item best suited for the customer.
I am not arguing for the limitation of choices but what always has happened is the incessant and effective sales pitches using sex,status,and “don’t you want your family to have the best” ,and even “you DESERVE this because you work so hard...” results in most buyers burdening themselves with stuff they can hardly enjoy because of the financial strain.
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have huge advantages in energy density and ease of storage that make them sensible for mobile use.
It does appear that Toyota has figured out the obvious - that electric cars can be TOYS for people that have means to own extra vehicles. But they can never be primary vehicles due to their limited range, so, no doubt everyone that owns an electric car will also have a real car for going longer distances.
As to “emerging battery technology”...all sounds good, but for every 100 promising ideas, 99% lose out because they cannot handle the physical and economic environment that cars go through (which is torturous). The other 1% simply costs too much.
I’m not trying to denigrate electric cars, just pointing out the facts.
I don’t know how they will do it, but do it they will. Look at a 5 pound chunk of plutonium and then imagine how big a pile of hydrocarbons it would take to release the same amount of energy. Give me a battery cell with the same energy as a pound of plutonium, and the ability to release it in a controlled manner, and I’ll be quite pleased.
Please explain to us folks who did not make it past Calculus II and general physics how exactly does a hydrogen fuel cell work? How many does it take to power a 3000# car? Are they going to burn my garage/house down?
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.
