This could be fun, but..
-
I am almost 6 feet 2 inches tall and this just to hard to crawl into and out of: http://www.fastcompany.com/1643253/toyota-50k-hydrogen-sedan-will-be-ready-by-2015[^]
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: The Arrogant Apple!
-
I am almost 6 feet 2 inches tall and this just to hard to crawl into and out of: http://www.fastcompany.com/1643253/toyota-50k-hydrogen-sedan-will-be-ready-by-2015[^]
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: The Arrogant Apple!
-
I am almost 6 feet 2 inches tall and this just to hard to crawl into and out of: http://www.fastcompany.com/1643253/toyota-50k-hydrogen-sedan-will-be-ready-by-2015[^]
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: The Arrogant Apple!
Gee the accelerator will stick and you go boom. :laugh: (I actually like Toyota)
-
I am almost 6 feet 2 inches tall and this just to hard to crawl into and out of: http://www.fastcompany.com/1643253/toyota-50k-hydrogen-sedan-will-be-ready-by-2015[^]
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: The Arrogant Apple!
So far as it is generally presented, the entire Hydrogen-Vehicle concept is a load of duck-sh$($ on virtually any measure, despite the endless presentation as an environmental panacea. Safety? - Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air in almost any proportion (Don't crash!) - Pressurized hydrogen leaks can spontaneously ignite (reverse Joule-Thomson effect) with an invisible flame. - And where the hell is the hydrogen supposed to come from? Hydrogen is abundant on earth - but only in the form of water. Hydrolysis requires energy: and for those who know thermodynamics at all, it takes more energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen then you get when you reburn it. The electricity used for the hydrolysis could be better spent charging batteries on electric cars. HOWEVER, if one burns fossil fuel to make the electricity, you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient). [It's a typical example of classic media lacking the ability to think and ask the important questions. Better, from their point of view, to use their resources to photograph celebrities (they create) as though it were important.] I have yet to find a single presentation delineating the true full cycle of hydrogen based energy solving any problems - except, of course, those profiting from research grants. Never mind any analysis of the true environmental efficiency when when consider the full cycle.
/xml>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
So far as it is generally presented, the entire Hydrogen-Vehicle concept is a load of duck-sh$($ on virtually any measure, despite the endless presentation as an environmental panacea. Safety? - Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air in almost any proportion (Don't crash!) - Pressurized hydrogen leaks can spontaneously ignite (reverse Joule-Thomson effect) with an invisible flame. - And where the hell is the hydrogen supposed to come from? Hydrogen is abundant on earth - but only in the form of water. Hydrolysis requires energy: and for those who know thermodynamics at all, it takes more energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen then you get when you reburn it. The electricity used for the hydrolysis could be better spent charging batteries on electric cars. HOWEVER, if one burns fossil fuel to make the electricity, you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient). [It's a typical example of classic media lacking the ability to think and ask the important questions. Better, from their point of view, to use their resources to photograph celebrities (they create) as though it were important.] I have yet to find a single presentation delineating the true full cycle of hydrogen based energy solving any problems - except, of course, those profiting from research grants. Never mind any analysis of the true environmental efficiency when when consider the full cycle.
/xml>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Everything you say is true with a small addition – the only marginally efficient way to produce hydrogen is from methane – so again, fossil fuel…
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Everything you say is true with a small addition – the only marginally efficient way to produce hydrogen is from methane – so again, fossil fuel…
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Methane can be obtained with sources aside from fossil fuel. I produce fairly large amounts regularly after eating.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
So far as it is generally presented, the entire Hydrogen-Vehicle concept is a load of duck-sh$($ on virtually any measure, despite the endless presentation as an environmental panacea. Safety? - Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air in almost any proportion (Don't crash!) - Pressurized hydrogen leaks can spontaneously ignite (reverse Joule-Thomson effect) with an invisible flame. - And where the hell is the hydrogen supposed to come from? Hydrogen is abundant on earth - but only in the form of water. Hydrolysis requires energy: and for those who know thermodynamics at all, it takes more energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen then you get when you reburn it. The electricity used for the hydrolysis could be better spent charging batteries on electric cars. HOWEVER, if one burns fossil fuel to make the electricity, you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient). [It's a typical example of classic media lacking the ability to think and ask the important questions. Better, from their point of view, to use their resources to photograph celebrities (they create) as though it were important.] I have yet to find a single presentation delineating the true full cycle of hydrogen based energy solving any problems - except, of course, those profiting from research grants. Never mind any analysis of the true environmental efficiency when when consider the full cycle.
/xml>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
The stupidest part of this is that we already have a well developed hydrogen distribution infrastructure that delivers it at higher energy density levels than can be practically achieved with pressurized or cryogenic H2: Short chain hydrocarbons. :cool:
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
So far as it is generally presented, the entire Hydrogen-Vehicle concept is a load of duck-sh$($ on virtually any measure, despite the endless presentation as an environmental panacea. Safety? - Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air in almost any proportion (Don't crash!) - Pressurized hydrogen leaks can spontaneously ignite (reverse Joule-Thomson effect) with an invisible flame. - And where the hell is the hydrogen supposed to come from? Hydrogen is abundant on earth - but only in the form of water. Hydrolysis requires energy: and for those who know thermodynamics at all, it takes more energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen then you get when you reburn it. The electricity used for the hydrolysis could be better spent charging batteries on electric cars. HOWEVER, if one burns fossil fuel to make the electricity, you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient). [It's a typical example of classic media lacking the ability to think and ask the important questions. Better, from their point of view, to use their resources to photograph celebrities (they create) as though it were important.] I have yet to find a single presentation delineating the true full cycle of hydrogen based energy solving any problems - except, of course, those profiting from research grants. Never mind any analysis of the true environmental efficiency when when consider the full cycle.
/xml>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Balboos wrote:
you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient).
This is actually the opposite of what is true. Internal combustion engines have an average efficiency of 18-20%[^], whereas a fossil fuel plant is about 33%[^] efficient. Safety is an engineering problem which has been solved, as far as I understand. Gasoline is not exactly a safe material, and won't disappear into the air when released from its tank. Have you read up on this? As for "classic media," this is an ad hominem, or I suppose ad medias argument and in itself invalid. Hydrolysis: lately they've been using algally-derived enzymes to split water using sunlight. As I understand it, it's not commercially available, but it does seem promising to me. I'm not saying you're wrong in the debate between various kinds of vehicles; I'm just saying your arguments are, if I may, utter duck-sh$($.
-
Everything you say is true with a small addition – the only marginally efficient way to produce hydrogen is from methane – so again, fossil fuel…
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
"Methane cometh from pig sh1t." -- Auntie
-
So far as it is generally presented, the entire Hydrogen-Vehicle concept is a load of duck-sh$($ on virtually any measure, despite the endless presentation as an environmental panacea. Safety? - Hydrogen forms an explosive mixture with air in almost any proportion (Don't crash!) - Pressurized hydrogen leaks can spontaneously ignite (reverse Joule-Thomson effect) with an invisible flame. - And where the hell is the hydrogen supposed to come from? Hydrogen is abundant on earth - but only in the form of water. Hydrolysis requires energy: and for those who know thermodynamics at all, it takes more energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen then you get when you reburn it. The electricity used for the hydrolysis could be better spent charging batteries on electric cars. HOWEVER, if one burns fossil fuel to make the electricity, you may as well burn it in the cars (which is more efficient). [It's a typical example of classic media lacking the ability to think and ask the important questions. Better, from their point of view, to use their resources to photograph celebrities (they create) as though it were important.] I have yet to find a single presentation delineating the true full cycle of hydrogen based energy solving any problems - except, of course, those profiting from research grants. Never mind any analysis of the true environmental efficiency when when consider the full cycle.
/xml>
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek dissappointment. If you are searching for perfection in yourself, then you seek failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
There are sooooo many problems using fossil fuels for individual vehicle transportation, but one of the most important is that is ALL you can use in those vehicles. Electric in some form is needed to allow for flexible power sources. Once every vehicle is electric, either by batteries, hydrogen (generated with electricity), then we can work at centralized locations on answers to energy problems. Fossil fuel vehicles locks us into a fossil fuel market regardless of available power sources. While I would prefer an electic vehicle, on huge problem is batteries as they have to be placed. But at least we still get centralized power generation so many forms of energy can be utilitized.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: The Arrogant Apple!