Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 33Vortex on April 12, 2011, 04:47:55 AM
-
In Japan they are positioned to market a car which run on water alone. After processing the water into HHO it's used to power a electrical motor.
Not much is said in the video, but anyway. Sceptics will of course not believe this, but it should be obvious to everyone what the motives would be to shut down this type of technology development. It is not the first time the water car has been brought forward as a environmentally friendly solution. First time I know of was in the 80's by a american who went on to die from poisoning.
The japanese car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ0kjilQd1s&feature=player_embedded
Stan Myers in the news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E&playnext=1&list=PL1788E501578A4CB7
-
it should be obvious to everyone what the motives would be to promote this type of "technology" development - to defraud clueless investors.
In a word - snakeoil.
-
it should be obvious to everyone what the motives would be to promote this type of "technology" development - to defraud clueless investors.
In a word - snakeoil.
actually holmes...hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that has been researched for quite a while...it's cheaper than oil and with better technology efficient.
-
thanks, but I know what hydrogen is.
I also know what a water-powered car is - fill the tank with water, split it to H2 and O, burn them to provide energy and then exhaust the nice clean water vapour. please :rolleyes:
-
actually holmes...hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that has been researched for quite a while...it's cheaper than oil and with better technology efficient.
The Mythbusters managed to start a car on pure hydrogen in one of their "Alternative Fuels" specials, merely by blowing hydrogen directly into the engine from a regular storage tank. The car was unmodified, though I can't remember if it used a carburetor or fuel injection. Worked pretty well until there was a backfire that almost blew up the tank in Jamie's hand. I think a closed system (IE, as in the hydrogen fuel cells already in use by some public transit vehicles) would eliminate those safety concerns.
-
The Mythbusters managed to start a car on pure hydrogen in one of their "Alternative Fuels" specials, merely by blowing hydrogen directly into the engine from a regular storage tank. The car was unmodified, though I can't remember if it used a carburetor or fuel injection. Worked pretty well until there was a backfire that almost blew up the tank in Jamie's hand. I think a closed system (IE, as in the hydrogen fuel cells already in use by some public transit vehicles) would eliminate those safety concerns.
it was a carberated oldsmobile if i recall.....and they're idiots.
it is possible to run a vehicle on hydrogen. the problem is that no one really seems willing to take it seriously, and accordingly, it'll never really happen.........
-
actually holmes...hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that has been researched for quite a while...it's cheaper than oil and with better technology efficient.
Really? I was in program management for the Focus Fuel Cell vehicle and I think you're trivializing things a bit
First, hydrogen can be cheaper than gasoline, depending on the price of gasoline and assuming you make it from hydrocarbon cracking on distributed sites. However, this retains distribution of the emissions. Also, If you have to make it and then store it, the costs go way up. Also note, you make the hydrogen, typically, from breaking biofuel or natural gas - thus the end product will fluctuate with the price of the input material, and will necessarily be more than the input, because of the additional processing. Now imagine a country that runs on hydrogen and the impact that demand would have on the price of source fuel to make the hydrogen. Wiki quotes $3 gce - but that's in small scale production ONLY. Put it in mass production and expect prices to rise with the massive increase in demand. Likewise, they price nuclear water electrolysis as even cheaper, but, of course, we'd have to build lots more nuke capacity to go large scale. Sadly, the nation is woefully uneducated with regard to nuclear power and has a history of poor decision-making with regard to same. Thus, we're unlikely to see a bunch of shiny new reactors any time soon (and replace the less-safe older ones? No way.)
On-board, of course, a big part of incremental vehicle cost is storage. H2 volumetric efficeincy is notably poor and its molecules are so small that they can leak through even solid materials like aluminum. We were using exotic material tankage at 5 kpsi and 10kpsi. Think that's cheap? As for making motive power from it, H2 IC is good - but fuel cells are platinum-intensive. Show me a cheap fuel cell stack and I'll show you a glittery unicorn. For those enamored of Fuel Cell stacks, think on the order of 6 figures for one.
The only statement you make with which I have a serious trouble is w/r H2's energy "efficiency". You need to specify... from start to finish or just in the vehicle..? Remember the added processing step. This should make it obviously less efficient, full cycle. Even in-vehicle, we were getting something like 40 mp ge, but that's highly subject to the platform you're driving. Perhaps you're referring to H2 IC cycle Thermal Efficiency (that's quite good, actually)..? Perhaps you're referring to the H2 specific energy, which is really high compared to typical hydrocarbons.? too bad the volumetric efficiency of it is so much worse...
All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe, but there's no silver bullet w/r hydrogen. There are significant generation and storage issues, not to mention the infrastructure scale issue, all of which are going to impact pricing and front-to-back cycle efficiency.
Our fuel partner in the project was BP. I won't badmouth them publicly. I am confident that, were there money to be made in H2, they'd invest in it. I'd also say that the only way there is ever a transition to H2 is if lots of people can deliver it profitably. That doesn't obtain today and is compounded by the network externality of an octane-powered transport fleet. For those who think the government can get us there, dream on. It didn't build the current infrastructure or fleet and is too broke to take on another well-intentioned charity project anyway. H2 will have to stand on its own two feet.
As for the water car, it's snake oil sold to the technobliviously uncritical.
-
Really? I was in program management for the Focus Fuel Cell vehicle and I think you're trivializing things a bit
First, hydrogen can be cheaper than gasoline, depending on the price of gasoline and assuming you make it from hydrocarbon cracking on distributed sites. However, this retains distribution of the emissions. Also, If you have to make it and then store it, the costs go way up. Also note, you make the hydrogen, typically, from breaking biofuel or natural gas - thus the end product will fluctuate with the price of the input material, and will necessarily be more than the input, because of the additional processing. Now imagine a country that runs on hydrogen and the impact that demand would have on the price of source fuel to make the hydrogen. Wiki quotes $3 gce - but that's in small scale production ONLY. Put it in mass production and expect prices to rise with the massive increase in demand. Likewise, they price nuclear water electrolysis as even cheaper, but, of course, we'd have to build lots more nuke capacity to go large scale. Sadly, the nation is woefully uneducated with regard to nuclear power and has a history of poor decision-making with regard to same. Thus, we're unlikely to see a bunch of shiny new reactors any time soon (and replace the less-safe older ones? No way.)
On-board, of course, a big part of incremental vehicle cost is storage. H2 volumetric efficeincy is notably poor and its molecules are so small that they can leak through even solid materials like aluminum. We were using exotic material tankage at 5 kpsi and 10kpsi. Think that's cheap? As for making motive power from it, H2 IC is good - but fuel cells are platinum-intensive. Show me a cheap fuel cell stack and I'll show you a glittery unicorn. For those enamored of Fuel Cell stacks, think on the order of 6 figures for one.
The only statement you make with which I have a serious trouble is w/r H2's energy "efficiency". You need to specify... from start to finish or just in the vehicle..? Remember the added processing step. This should make it obviously less efficient, full cycle. Even in-vehicle, we were getting something like 40 mp ge, but that's highly subject to the platform you're driving. Perhaps you're referring to H2 IC cycle Thermal Efficiency (that's quite good, actually)..? Perhaps you're referring to the H2 specific energy, which is really high compared to typical hydrocarbons.? too bad the volumetric efficiency of it is so much worse...
All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe, but there's no silver bullet w/r hydrogen. There are significant generation and storage issues, not to mention the infrastructure scale issue, all of which are going to impact pricing and front-to-back cycle efficiency.
Our fuel partner in the project was BP. I won't badmouth them publicly. I am confident that, were there money to be made in H2, they'd invest in it. I'd also say that the only way there is ever a transition to H2 is if lots of people can deliver it profitably. That doesn't obtain today and is compounded by the network externality of an octane-powered transport fleet. For those who think the government can get us there, dream on. It didn't build the current infrastructure or fleet and is too broke to take on another well-intentioned charity project anyway. H2 will have to stand on its own two feet.
As for the water car, it's snake oil sold to the technobliviously uncritical.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
-
Wiki quotes $3 gce - but that's in small scale production ONLY. Put it in mass production and expect prices to rise with the massive increase in demand.
That's not how economics works.
Regardless of that, from the original idea of splitting water into its component elements, and then burning the H2 and O back into water, how that can ever result in more energy than it took to split the water? That's a perpetual motion machine. And those don't actually exist. It defies physics. The only way for it to work it to: put in water, then plug it in, then wait for the water to be split, then go for a drive. In which case its really an electric car. Or to put pre-split hydrogen and get water out as waste.
-
That's not how economics works.
Regardless of that, from the original idea of splitting water into its component elements, and then burning the H2 and O back into water, how that can ever result in more energy than it took to split the water? That's a perpetual motion machine. And those don't actually exist. It defies physics. The only way for it to work it to: put in water, then plug it in, then wait for the water to be split, then go for a drive. In which case its really an electric car. Or to put pre-split hydrogen and get water out as waste.
You don't need to tell me how economics works (I can cite credientials on that or engineering if you require). You instead need to check the date on the Wiki GCE quote. I'm sure it's not especially recent. Second, you also don't need to remind me of the 2nd law of thermo. I. e., you are correct -and I say as much, the added processing adds a conversion step and thus a cost and energy inefficiency. I acknowledge this. However, you need to recognize a critical distinction: you can crack any type of hydrocarbon whereas todays fleet requires a specific type of hydrocarbon (octane). Thus, you can overcome the cost hit of the added step by means of using a substitute fuel. Likewise, if, by your comment, you're referring to the un-intuitive implication I make, i.e, that costs will go up with scale, recognize that I only state the input material price will rise, not that the processing costs will necessarily rise. However, under an extensive-cracking model, I think you'll find economies of scale hard to come by. Replace that with centralizerd generation and you're now back in the position of having to store hydrogen, itself a costly thing to do.
Second, I see little reason to qualify an H2 IC vehicle as "electric" based on the source of fuel. Hydrogen is hydrogen - regardless of how you generate it. OTOHO, if, as you seem to be saying, you electrolyze the hydrogen on board, you've got another problem - namely, how do you package the electrolysis machinery and what powers THAT? The only feasible electrolysis solutions I've seen are NOT on board and raise storage issues. Good luck with that.
As for the Honda FCX, I recognize the subtext, CAP, but we've studied Honda pretty extensively. Care to make a guess on how much that car costs? Didja happen to notice that it's lease-only? Wonder why at all?
-
IIRC the Japanese car uses a catalyst to produce hydrogen from the water. The said catalyst requires more energy to make than it will ever produce and about same goes for the price. So eco friendly it is not.
-
IIRC the Japanese car uses a catalyst to produce hydrogen from the water. The said catalyst requires more energy to make than it will ever produce and about same goes for the price. So eco friendly it is not.
Do you recall where it was getting the power to do so? It's generally easier to crack hydrocarbon aboard with a reformer but this adds cost and weight, not to mention package. All are problems on FCEVs.
As for CAP1's magical Honda FCX, try approximately $1M fully accounted... I'll grant that Honda makes best-in class small powertrains, but they're not magicians. Sure, they're leasing 'em for $600/mo. But they're most emphatically NOT making money on them.
Anybody wanna buy a car whose pricing is something like $250k yet underperforms a piece o' keeeerap Chevy Cobalt in just about every category?
-
actually holmes...hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that has been researched for quite a while...it's cheaper than oil and with better technology efficient.
Cheaper than oil? In what quantities? There are no hydrogen wells, so you have to expend energy (burn oil, coal, whatever) to crack hydrogen out of water. So there is no way in heck that hydrogen is any cheaper than the cheapest other energy source, because you MUST expend energy to get hydrogen. There is simply no other way, since hydrogen doesn't naturally occur.
Even if there is a designed bacteria to use biological processes to get the hydrogen, that is STILL using energy to get it.
So, nope. You still can't get something for nothing, and anyone claiming hydrogen is cheaper than [insert favorite whipping boy energy source] is full of it. There are no naturally occurring hydrogen wells, so you have to get it from another source, and that takes energy from another fuel source. So the cost of hydrogen will always be the cost of the fuel burned to get the energy, plus the cost of power conversion inefficiencies, plus the cost of the manufacturing processes used. Even "free" solar and "free" wind power have extremely high up-front manufacturing expenses requiring... you got it, energy from another source, to produce.
No such thing as a free lunch. Hydrogen as a power source is no different than a battery or solar cell... You've done nothing but expend energy in one place and transported it elsewhere for use.
-
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/23093-bigthumbnail.jpg)
Been there. Done that.
-
Cheaper than oil? In what quantities? There are no hydrogen wells, so you have to expend energy (burn oil, coal, whatever) to crack hydrogen out of water. So there is no way in heck that hydrogen is any cheaper than the cheapest other energy source, because you MUST expend energy to get hydrogen. There is simply no other way, since hydrogen doesn't naturally occur.
Even if there is a designed bacteria to use biological processes to get the hydrogen, that is STILL using energy to get it.
So, nope. You still can't get something for nothing, and anyone claiming hydrogen is cheaper than [insert favorite whipping boy energy source] is full of it. There are no naturally occurring hydrogen wells, so you have to get it from another source, and that takes energy from another fuel source. So the cost of hydrogen will always be the cost of the fuel burned to get the energy, plus the cost of power conversion inefficiencies, plus the cost of the manufacturing processes used. Even "free" solar and "free" wind power have extremely high up-front manufacturing expenses requiring... you got it, energy from another source, to produce.
No such thing as a free lunch. Hydrogen as a power source is no different than a battery or solar cell... You've done nothing but expend energy in one place and transported it elsewhere for use.
Your intuition is fundamentally correct, Eagl, but see my other post. It is unlikely that H2 would be cheaper than oil but it is possible that it be cheaper than gasoline IF AND ONLY IF:
1. gasoline is at an elevated price
2. you can use a cheap substitute fuel to generate the hydrogen (entirely possible).
Note that I also stipulate that, front to back, the hydrogen cycle is less efficient. However, and this point stands, an H2 IC cycle has better thermal efficiency than an Octane fueled IC cycle.
You guys need to get a little mor eprecise here. The devil is in the details w/r this issue.
-
IIRC the Japanese car uses a catalyst to produce hydrogen from the water. The said catalyst requires more energy to make than it will ever produce and about same goes for the price. So eco friendly it is not.
i think that's how the honda clarity works.
-
i think that's how the honda clarity works.
Flat WRONG. Clarity has on-board H2 storage.
-
Cheaper than oil? In what quantities? There are no hydrogen wells, so you have to expend energy (burn oil, coal, whatever) to crack hydrogen out of water. So there is no way in heck that hydrogen is any cheaper than the cheapest other energy source, because you MUST expend energy to get hydrogen. There is simply no other way, since hydrogen doesn't naturally occur.
Even if there is a designed bacteria to use biological processes to get the hydrogen, that is STILL using energy to get it.
So, nope. You still can't get something for nothing, and anyone claiming hydrogen is cheaper than [insert favorite whipping boy energy source] is full of it. There are no naturally occurring hydrogen wells, so you have to get it from another source, and that takes energy from another fuel source. So the cost of hydrogen will always be the cost of the fuel burned to get the energy, plus the cost of power conversion inefficiencies, plus the cost of the manufacturing processes used. Even "free" solar and "free" wind power have extremely high up-front manufacturing expenses requiring... you got it, energy from another source, to produce.
No such thing as a free lunch. Hydrogen as a power source is no different than a battery or solar cell... You've done nothing but expend energy in one place and transported it elsewhere for use.
there is this too....
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
i think they used solar powered electrolysis machines to separate the hydrogen.....
-
there is this too....
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
i think they used solar powered electrolysis machines to separate the hydrogen.....
Solar-powered electrolysis is one of the WORST for cost there is. Why? Because of the high cost of PV solar cells. You'd be better off with nuke - unless you want to cover Nebraska in PV panels.
-
there is this too....
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
i think they used solar powered electrolysis machines to separate the hydrogen.....
If you bothered to read your own link you'd see they use hydro to generate the electricity to decompose the water.
-
Flat WRONG. Clarity has on-board H2 storage.
hence the "i think". :aok
-
If you bothered to read your own link you'd see they use hydro to generate the electricity to decompose the water.
i put that up here quick......i'm up front doing estimates. there was a link somewhere showing how they used solar power. even if they're using hydro......still not burning oil though.
-
In a word - snakeoil.
;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
-
If you bothered to read your own link you'd see they use hydro to generate the electricity to decompose the water.
California Hydrogen Power Plant
"The project would gasify petroleum coke (or blends of petroleum coke and coal, as needed) to produce hydrogen to fuel a combustion turbine operating in combined cycle mode. The gasification component would produce 180 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) of hydrogen to feed a 390 megawatt (MW) gross combined cycle plant providing California with low-carbon baseload power to the grid. The gasification component would also capture approximately 130 MMSCFD of carbon dioxide (or approximately 90 percent at steady-state operation) which would be transported and used for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration (storage) in the Elk Hills Oil Field Unit. "
4 way winner ...
1. Burn big oil byproduct Coke
2. Permanent Sequestration of C02
3. Pushes More Oil out of well
4. Produces Hydrogen for Turbine for Clean Electricity
This will whip the pants off of Nuclear.
Carbon Capture Storage with Enhanced Oil Recovery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbyVcye7qE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbyVcye7qE)
:aok
-
Solar-powered electrolysis is one of the WORST for cost there is. Why? Because of the high cost of PV solar cells. You'd be better off with nuke - unless you want to cover Nebraska in PV panels.
funny you mention that....was tlaking with a friend today, and he said the smea thing........
-
but here's my question? it's probably stupid, but i'll ask anyway......
why are they concerning themselves with extracting hydrogen from oil or petrolium, when it's in water, which is pretty much everywhere?
-
but here's my question? it's probably stupid, but i'll ask anyway......
why are they concerning themselves with extracting hydrogen from oil or petrolium, when it's in water, which is pretty much everywhere?
There is a company named Solar Systems of Hawthorne in Victoria, Australia building the world’s first direct solar to hydrogen commercial power plant.
“Electrolysis is used to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, but present technology is quite inefficient, even using solar power. At room temperature every 100 watts of electricity produces just 60 watts of hydrogen."
"In Australia Mr. John Lasich’s technique heats the water to 1000 degrees Celsius, a temperature at which the process delivers 140 watts worth of hydrogen for every 100 watts of electricity.”
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/direct-solar-to-hydrogen-plant-goes-up-in-australia/ (http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/direct-solar-to-hydrogen-plant-goes-up-in-australia/)
Abstract:http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37093.pdf (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37093.pdf)
-
California Hydrogen Power Plant
"The project would gasify petroleum coke (or blends of petroleum coke and coal, as needed) to produce hydrogen to fuel a combustion turbine operating in combined cycle mode. The gasification component would produce 180 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) of hydrogen to feed a 390 megawatt (MW) gross combined cycle plant providing California with low-carbon baseload power to the grid. The gasification component would also capture approximately 130 MMSCFD of carbon dioxide (or approximately 90 percent at steady-state operation) which would be transported and used for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration (storage) in the Elk Hills Oil Field Unit. "
4 way winner ...
1. Burn big oil byproduct Coke
2. Permanent Sequestration of C02
3. Pushes More Oil out of well
4. Produces Hydrogen for Turbine for Clean Electricity
This will whip the pants off of Nuclear.
Carbon Capture Storage with Enhanced Oil Recovery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbyVcye7qE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcbyVcye7qE)
:aok
Dream on. This turkey was planned to be in operation by now but has slipped back to 2015. The cost is ballooning thw whole while and it's source is quite dirty (stimulus funds to BP plus a rate hike for the customers). As for the sequestration, you could do the same with any hydrocarb-burning system. This one is not special in that sense and that portion of the developemnt is all taxpayer-funded.
I haven't seen a decent cost analysis on it yet but suspect it will, if it's ever actually pushed through permitting, that process now in its fifth year, deliver a matginally higher cost per kwh than existing.
Otherwise, I'll just say that this big dream is a fine example of the best that the BP/DOE consortium can produce - which is kind of like calling it modern art.
-
There is a company named Solar Systems of Hawthorne in Victoria, Australia building the world’s first direct solar to hydrogen commercial power plant.
“Electrolysis is used to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, but present technology is quite inefficient, even using solar power. At room temperature every 100 watts of electricity produces just 60 watts of hydrogen."
"In Australia Mr. John Lasich’s technique heats the water to 1000 degrees Celsius, a temperature at which the process delivers 140 watts worth of hydrogen for every 100 watts of electricity.”
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/direct-solar-to-hydrogen-plant-goes-up-in-australia/ (http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-production/direct-solar-to-hydrogen-plant-goes-up-in-australia/)
Abstract:http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37093.pdf (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37093.pdf)
The idea makes a certain amount of intuitive sense - be applying more heat energy to water, you should be able to crack it via electrolysis more easily. Note that those who dispute the energy balance of 140/100 only can do so by neglecting the large slug of heat energy applied to the feed stock of water.
OTOH, the only thing I can find on this plant is a couple of press releases that claim construction started in 08 or 09. I haven't seen anything that says this is anything more than experimental nor that it has successfully proven the process out as commercially viable.
File under "vaporware" for now. Then take a look at infiniacorp.com. Last I visited them, they had an order bank from the dreamers in Spain and FRG for on the order of billions for their solar-to-kinetic dish/free-piston system and were preparing to go to scale production. That technology is fabulous and will, I'm certain, find commercial success, just probably not in Spain and the FRG.
Of course, this was before the Spanish "green jobs" program was demonstrated to be the equivalent of a worthless rathole in which to dispose of Spain's national wealth. But hey, we'll repeat that process in the US and this time it'll be a roaring success, right?
There's nothing like divorcing a venture from the bottom line to ensure its failure. People tend to forget, the beauty of "jobs" in private-sector ventures is that they self-fund - because profitable. Or, to paraphrase Thatcher, the only problem with massive transfer-backed schemes is that they tend to run out of other people's money.
-
Still cheaper to make the processing plant separate from the vehicle itself.
-
Anyone dare to try this? I haven't. :)
http://www.alternativegassolutions.com/
-
The thing people dont realize is no matter what you power the cars with, there will be more and more arguments.
Example: If you made all cars electric, then you would need more coal to charge electric cars which means is more pollution.
Example: If you made all cars water powered, then the gov would make it illegal to use rain water and make you pay for water and we will run out of water eventually.
No matter what way you power a car its going to pollute more or cause more or new problems.
-BigBOBCH
-
Dream on. This turkey was planned to be in operation by now but has slipped back to 2015. The cost is ballooning thw whole while and it's source is quite dirty (stimulus funds to BP plus a rate hike for the customers). As for the sequestration, you could do the same with any hydrocarb-burning system. This one is not special in that sense and that portion of the developemnt is all taxpayer-funded.
I haven't seen a decent cost analysis on it yet but suspect it will, if it's ever actually pushed through permitting, that process now in its fifth year, deliver a matginally higher cost per kwh than existing.
Otherwise, I'll just say that this big dream is a fine example of the best that the BP/DOE consortium can produce - which is kind of like calling it modern art.
Its 1st location is on hold because of the treehuggers... so they found a new sight and reapplied for license and have started the process over again . They still have to do all the "studys" again. Also the fact that proper legislation to regulate CCS. I'm sure there will be plenty more hoops.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hydrogen_energy/index.html (http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hydrogen_energy/index.html)
http://hydrogenenergycalifornia.com/ (http://hydrogenenergycalifornia.com/)
SB669 is moving thru the cal senate.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_669&sess=CUR&house=B&author=rubio (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_669&sess=CUR&house=B&author=rubio)
"'The $2 billion, 390 MW power plant will be one of the first hydrogen-fueled electricity plants in the world with carbon capture and sequestration"
-
The thing people dont realize is no matter what you power the cars with, there will be more and more arguments.
Example: If you made all cars electric, then you would need more coal to charge electric cars which means is more pollution.
Example: If you made all cars water powered, then the gov would make it illegal to use rain water and make you pay for water and we will run out of water eventually.
No matter what way you power a car its going to pollute more or cause more or new problems.
-BigBOBCH
this. ^^^^^^
-
The issue of the need of another sources of energy to produce the hydrogen has been discussed. Hydrogen is just an energy storage technology, not an energy source.
On top of that, do you really want lots of cars driving around full of hydrogen? My only though is: "OH the humanity!"
(http://www.nlhs.com/images/hindenburg/big_hindenburg_explodes_over_lakehurst.jpg)
-
Yes we do, must..have...fallout3...car nukes...must..have. :rock
-
The thing people dont realize is no matter what you power the cars with, there will be more and more arguments.
Example: If you made all cars electric, then you would need more coal to charge electric cars which means is more pollution.
Example: If you made all cars water powered, then the gov would make it illegal to use rain water and make you pay for water and we will run out of water eventually.
No matter what way you power a car its going to pollute more or cause more or new problems.
-BigBOBCH
My thinking is that most of the "envronmental" concerns with cars are really just trumped up trojan horses. On balance, I'd say cars do very little damage to the environment throughout the entire value chain. Where ther eis damage, you can usually find, like in the BP case, either Federal failures or direct Federal involvement.
The thing that "some" of a particular stripe have with cars has much more to do with simple envy, a desire to confiscate other's property, and a generally hateful streak that despises the idea that somebody out there might be having some fun.
I have little doubt that a reasonably regulated market can provide whatever energy transitions will be required. Consider whaling. A combination of legislative and market pressures shut it down, for all practical purposes. The haters just need to stop hating and let the man drive whatever he chooses, subject to some basic safety standards.