Environmentalists Show their true Face?

[corplinx]

I consider myself a conservationist and was proud to have been recycling before it was cool (i think it become "cool" around earth day back during bush I).

We have been presented with a bold vision of the future. A baby born today will purchase a hydrogen cell powered auto for their first car. This is the single most exciting scientific pledge to me since Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon.

What am I hearing from environmentalists? Crickets chirping. That and "he still wants more arsenic in our water and factories to be able to pollute more!".

To me its just more evidence that environmentlist groups have been subverted by political activity.

[arcticpenguin]

Are you saying that Bush supports mandating hydrogen vehicles? I never read that.

I thought all he was doing was paying for what should be corporate research so that the car companies con continue to feel good about themselves while they churn out gas-guzzling SUVs in ever-increasing numbers.

----
We have been presented with a bold vision of the future. A baby born today will purchase a hydrogen cell powered auto for their first car. This is the single most exciting scientific pledge to me since Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon.
----


I thought that was the problem.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by corplinx
I consider myself a conservationist and was proud to have been recycling before it was cool (i think it become "cool" around earth day back during bush I).

We have been presented with a bold vision of the future. A baby born today will purchase a hydrogen cell powered auto for their first car. This is the single most exciting scientific pledge to me since Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon.

What am I hearing from environmentalists? Crickets chirping. That and "he still wants more arsenic in our water and factories to be able to pollute more!".

To me its just more evidence that environmentlist groups have been subverted by political activity.

He's only doing it to appease Big Oil.

They've wanted more money for fuel cell cars for decades now, and only the Thin Green Line of Environmental activists have held them back... or something.

Seriously, though... Perhaps you should give them a little time to react. I'm sure they'll find a reason to complain eventually. Never mind... after hitting the preview button, I see all they needed was a catalyst.

MattJ

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is the single most exciting scientific pledge to me since Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon.

What about Lyndon LaRouche's promise ot put a man on Mars (if her were elected)?

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_whatsnew.shtml

Honda is already preparing to put a fuel cell vehicle in the field, and they didn't need a Bush-funded research program to do it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I thought all he was doing was paying for what should be corporate research so that the car companies con continue to feel good about themselves while they churn out gas-guzzling SUVs in ever-increasing numbers.

Actually, the car manufacturers are going to be coming out with hybrid electric SUVs this year that get 40+mpg. And this without any government intervention whatsoever.

Corporate welfare is useless and expensive.

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Honda is already preparing to put a fuel cell vehicle in the field, and they didn't need a Bush-funded research program to do it.

Honda was also one of the first with an HEV. (Toyota was the other. They actually developed it together. And again, with no government program forcing them to do it!)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Honda was also one of the first with an HEV. (Toyota was the other. They actually developed it together. And again, with no government program forcing them to do it!)

once again, naive view that is a direct result of your ideology creating your world view.

http://www.ms.rhbnc.ac.uk/~uhtm001/publications/IJInnManagement.pdf



ABSTRACT
The paper explores the inherent relationship between stand-alone products and their
technological sub-systems. The development of the electric vehicle, explored in the paper,
discusses preliminary issues of radical product innovation against a backdrop of mature
technological evolution.
INTRODUCTION
The development of new forms of fuel technology in the auto industry has largely been as a result
of regulations towards reducing vehicle emissions and extending fuel economy. One result of a
particular set of Californian regulations, those demanding zero emission vehicles, has been to
stimulate the pace of development of the battery electric vehicle (BEV). This case explores the
technological development of a radical new product, together with many of the sub-systems that
make up the vehicle and supporting infrastructure. This poses both strategic and technological
problems for the established incumbents in the automobile industry: namely how to manage and
integrate a complex web of disparate, new and sometimes unfamiliar, technologies.
This paper first explores the literature on innovation and product development as it relates to such
radical new product development and in particular focuses upon the contradictions of cumulative
knowledge growth. The case of the electric vehicle is then introduced to show how car
manufacturers have responded to regulatory efforts that have demanded the development of a
totally new product, something that is seen only rarely, particularly in the automobile industry.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_whatsnew.shtml

Honda is already preparing to put a fuel cell vehicle in the field, and they didn't need a Bush-funded research program to do it.

Well, no, since to a degree the government has been funding fuel cell research for years - before Bush was elected. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
once again, naive view that is a direct result of your ideology creating your world view.

http://www.ms.rhbnc.ac.uk/~uhtm001/publications/IJInnManagement.pdf

Oh, yeah, I'm sure California regulations really had that huge effect on Japanese auto makers. :rolleyes:

And anyone who claims, as this paper does, that "the development of a totally new product...is seen only rarely, particularly in the automobile industry," deserves to be laughed at, because it just so obviously isn't true.

[Brown]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
What about Lyndon LaRouche's promise ot put a man on Mars (if her were elected)? Oh yeah? What about Dan Quayle's promise to land a man on the sun?? To avoid injury to the astronaut, Qualye proposed that the mission take place at night. (Rimshot.)

Seriously, fuel cell cars and hybrids are too long in coming.

My hope is that the US will get the ball rolling toward fuel-efficient vehicles. But more than that, my hope is that the government will not support protectionistic measures that would help domestic companies to the detriment of consumers. It's one thing for a government to help its domestic companies compete with foreign companies. It's another thing for a government to protect its domestic companies from foreign competition by unreasonable regulations and trade restrictions.

[Diezel]

I have said, a long time ago, that almost all enivronmental groups and many environmentalists gave up caring about the environment a long time ago. It is now about money and power and how to get both.

I've said it a million times, do you think if somehow we fixed everything they are complaining about today, they would close up shop and go home tomorrow? No. There is a lot of money involved, so they must get more radical with their expectations, to justify their cause.

Hence, the silence on what should be a victory.

[Richard G]

Hydrogen is extremely flamable, much more so than gasoline. Its upper and lower flamability range is much larger than that of gasoline, which is very narrow (will not burn if too lean or rich). Because of gasolines narrow UFL and LFL it is quite safe to handle. Not so with hydrogen. As a proffesional firefighter, the idea of hydrogen refueling stations, and auto accidents involving vehicles loaded with hydrogen is a nightmare. Remember the Hindenburg?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Diezel
I have said, a long time ago, that almost all enivronmental groups and many environmentalists gave up caring about the environment a long time ago. It is now about money and power and how to get both.

I've said it a million times, do you think if somehow we fixed everything they are complaining about today, they would close up shop and go home tomorrow? No. There is a lot of money involved, so they must get more radical with their expectations, to justify their cause.

Hence, the silence on what should be a victory. This is true of a lot of groups, not just environmental groups.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Brown
This is true of a lot of groups, not just environmental groups.

True, very true. The classic examples are workers unions.

If you really, really want to screw up your cause, form a group to fight for it. ;)

[DanishDynamite]

While I certainly find that some environmentalist groups have gone over the top (or, in some recent cases, were even created "over the top"), I feel their creation was very justified and necessary. Compared to 50 years ago, there is now a huge awareness (at least in Western countries) of reducing/eliminating pollution and retaining wildlife species and their habitats. These NGOs have, IMO, a large part in this awareness.

I haven't heard Bush's speech, but in regard to his support of hydrogen cell cars, that's certainly commendable, albeit hardly necessary. These cars have already been made. His support is certainly better than his active disdain, but it in no way compares in the slightest with man-to-the-moon.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Richard G
Hydrogen is extremely flamable, much more so than gasoline. Its upper and lower flamability range is much larger than that of gasoline, which is very narrow (will not burn if too lean or rich). Because of gasolines narrow UFL and LFL it is quite safe to handle. Not so with hydrogen. As a proffesional firefighter, the idea of hydrogen refueling stations, and auto accidents involving vehicles loaded with hydrogen is a nightmare. Remember the Hindenburg?

That's a very good point that I have wondered about myself.

The fact that the only by-product of burning hydrogen is water vapor makes it extremely attractive but I do wonder how they plan to deal with the safety issues.

Hell, a static electrical discharge can ignite gasoline fumes and ocasionally does. It will be interesting to see how they plan to handle hydrogen.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
While I certainly find that some environmentalist groups have gone over the top (or, in some recent cases, were even created "over the top"), I feel their creation was very justified and necessary. Compared to 50 years ago, there is now a huge awareness (at least in Western countries) of reducing/eliminating pollution and retaining wildlife species and their habitats. These NGOs have, IMO, a large part in this awareness.

I haven't heard Bush's speech, but in regard to his support of hydrogen cell cars, that's certainly commendable, albeit hardly necessary. These cars have already been made. His support is certainly better than his active disdain, but it in no way compares in the slightest with man-to-the-moon.

I will be the first to admit that Greenpeace (and the other originals) have accomplished their original mission, which was to bring environmental concerns to the mainstream. For that, I commend them.

But once they started reaching their goals, they couldn't quit. They needed to justify their existence, so they had to get more extreme - they had no other choice.

Well, they did have another choice, which was to switch from an "activist" group to a "watch-dog" group, but that point seems to have escaped them.

As for fuel cell vehicles - yes, they have been designed and created already, but they are a far cry from being practical for full-scale marketability. There is another point that many, on both sides, have missed:

Infrastructure.

The Libertarians and more conservatives have cried paying for "corporate research". What they haven't thought of was the infrastructure changes that need to be made in order to accomadate fuel cell vehicles. And I think even the most hardcore Libertarian can agree that the country's vital infrastructures can fall into the responsibilites of the federal government.

So, who says this money is going to develop only the vehicle? His wording was vague enough to include funding for infrastructure research and development.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, yeah, I'm sure California regulations really had that huge effect on Japanese auto makers. :rolleyes:

The US is the world's largest market for automobiles, and California happens to be the largest market in the US. Since the Japanese seem to enjoy selling cars to Americans, I'm sure this was one of the big motivating factors (along with Kyoto).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, yeah, I'm sure California regulations really had that huge effect on Japanese auto makers. :rolleyes:



you better believe it.



And anyone who claims, as this paper does, that "the development of a totally new product...is seen only rarely, particularly in the automobile industry," deserves to be laughed at, because it just so obviously isn't true.

do you understand the meaning of the phrase 'totally new'. the cars of today are not that different to the cars of 100 years ago. despite the many component improvements, the engines are still the same basic technology.

i still see brand new cars driving around with drum brakes. why? because the tooling and machines are still there, and it is easier and cheaper to use them than for every car to have disc brakes. i think leaf springs on cars are finally all gone, but they also hung aound for many years past their due date. Why? As the article says, change in cars is an incremental process driven as much by economics and infrastructure as anything else. a massive change to hydrogen, for example, requires a massive investment, up front, with no ROI for many years. doesn't look too good on this years balance sheet.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Richard G
Remember the Hindenburg?
http://www.dwv-info.de/pm/hindbg/hbe.htm

http://www.carolina.com/tech-ed/hydrogen.asp

http://www.canuck.com/~bnb/greatcosmicjoke/planets/hindenburg.html

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/products/atlantis/hindenburg_hydrogen.html

[arcticpenguin]

Can you blame us for being wary of Bush on environmental issues? It would be untrue to say that he is a friend of Big Oil; in fact he is Big Oil.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's what that notorious rabid environmentalist Robert Park of the American Physical Society has to say: http://www.aps.org/WN/

1. FREEDOM FUEL: CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush ranked promoting "energy independence while dramatically improving the environment" as one of his top goals. In addition to "clear skies" legislation that would mandate a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over 15 years, Bush proposed $1.2B in research funding for the Freedom Car "powered by hydrogen and pollution free." But where will the hydrogen come from? 95% of the hydrogen currently produced in the U.S. comes from steam methane reforming, a catalytic process that also produces copious quantities of CO2. No green points there. What about electrolysis? It’s not as efficient, but the only bi-product is oxygen. Oops, 65% of our electric power is generated by burning fossil fuel; no green points there either. Hydroelectric dams are being torn down to save the rivers, and other renewables are not up to it. Turn to nuclear? Whoa! The public is terrified by nuclear fission. But what about fusion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Richard G
Hydrogen is extremely flamable, much more so than gasoline.

It depends on the form it's in. Water, for example, is hardly flammable. Solid fuel cells are quite safe and easy to handle.

Remember the Hindenburg?

Yeah, it was painted with rocket fuel. So?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
do you understand the meaning of the phrase 'totally new'. the cars of today are not that different to the cars of 100 years ago.

Look at a Saturn and then tell me that with a straight face.

despite the many component improvements, the engines are still the same basic technology.

So? Your source said that any new products were rate, which is obviously poppycock!

i still see brand new cars driving around with drum brakes. why? because the tooling and machines are still there, and it is easier and cheaper to use them than for every car to have disc brakes.

But many cars, nonetheless, have disc brakes. Just because the market hasn't selected them to exclusivity doesn't mean the new product wasn't introduced.

Do you even think about what you're saying?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by shanek

It depends on the form it's in. Water, for example, is hardly flammable. Solid fuel cells are quite safe and easy to handle.

Of course, hydrogen already oxidised into water would be completely useless as a source of energy. That's like saying you would fill your gas tank with carbon dioxide instead of gasoline.

[crackmonkey]

Water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen and water. I don't recall ever hearing about the CO2 to octane conversion, however...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen and water. I don't recall ever hearing about the CO2 to octane conversion, however...
The whole point of a hydrogen powered fuel cell is to use the oxidation with water as a source of energy. If you decide to carry water instead, where are you going to get the energy to electrolyze it? Perpetual motion? Zero point energy?

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
The whole point of a hydrogen powered fuel cell is to use the oxidation with water as a source of energy. If you decide to carry water instead, where are you going to get the energy to electrolyze it? Perpetual motion? Zero point energy?

BMW's looking at making one that uses solar power. Unfortunately, today's solar cells don't appear to be efficient enough to make it happen.

Anyway, the point was that hydrogen in many forms is safe. I used water as one example; solid fuel cells as another.

[shanek]

By the way, just for everyone's information:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Look at a Saturn and then tell me that with a straight face.



yep, my face is still perfectly straight. the saturn appears to be more of a marketing angle. it still has a reciprocating four cylinder four stroke enging, 4 wheels and brakes. nothing revolutionary there, quality control and attention to durability appear to be higher.

in all respects, a conventional car.



So? Your source said that any new products were rate, which is obviously poppycock!



i think they are looking at an engineering viewpoint. the exerience of mazda with the rotary engine put an end to even mild experiments with radical change.

all other change has been incremental, not radical.




But many cars, nonetheless, have disc brakes. Just because the market hasn't selected them to exclusivity doesn't mean the new product wasn't introduced.



it just goes to show how long an obsolete technology can hang around just because the machines to build them are still around, or there are mountains of spares still in the warehouse.



Do you even think about what you're saying?

not once.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


BMW's looking at making one that uses solar power. Unfortunately, today's solar cells don't appear to be efficient enough to make it happen.



they never will be



Anyway, the point was that hydrogen in many forms is safe. I used water as one example; solid fuel cells as another.

it is the useful form that has to be safe. nevertheless, lpg and other gases are now being widely used in many countries, due to the price advantage it has over petrol in some areas. the odd car does go up in a cloud of fire, but due to strict government regulations, on the whole it is a very safe fuel. I would guess no more deadly than petrol, in fact, since fuel leaks also cause fires.

[AP's sock puppet]

Hydrogen dissipates rapidly. More rapidly than any other gas. Gasoline forms a pool on the surface of the ground or water, constantly feeding the flammable vaporous phase.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by corplinx

We have been presented with a bold vision of the future. A baby born today will purchase a hydrogen cell powered auto for their first car. This is the single most exciting scientific pledge to me since Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon.

But emission regulation would help now, while hydrogen cars will make an impact at least 20-30 years into the future.

[AP's sock puppet]

Originally posted by bangdazap

But emission regulation would help now, while hydrogen cars will make an impact at least 20-30 years into the future.
You have misunderstood the issue. The issue is not the alleged environmental effects of switching to hydrogen, the issue is corplinx wishes to feel smugly superior to those who disagree with him, without presenting any evidence that his position is superior, rather than discuss the technical issue. He hasn't put in an appearance since his opening post.

Crickets chirping.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
yep, my face is still perfectly straight. the saturn appears to be more of a marketing angle.

The Saturn is a car that is completely reingeneered from the ground up. The body is protected by a cage, allowing them to make a dent-proof outer body. The insides have been completely reengineered to allow for better safety in an accident, such as a steering column that detaches and moves away from the driver. Traction Control is a new technology introduced by Saturn. On and on and on.

So when you say there's nothing new because it still has an engine and four wheels, you blatantly betray the pathetic little deulsions in your tiny woo-woo brain.

i think they are looking at an engineering viewpoint. the exerience of mazda with the rotary engine put an end to even mild experiments with radical change.

They've radically redesigned the Wankel engine for the new RX-8! What do you mean, "put an end to even mild experiments"???

not once.

Well that much is obvious.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
they never will be

Hmph...and if man were meant to fly, we would have wings. Where have we heard crap like this before?

How the fsck do you know what innovations there will be in solar cell technology in the future?

it is the useful form that has to be safe.

The solid fuel cell form is quite useful and very safe.

[shanek]

Originally posted by AP's sock puppet
Hydrogen dissipates rapidly. More rapidly than any other gas. Gasoline forms a pool on the surface of the ground or water, constantly feeding the flammable vaporous phase.

Moreover, gasoline vapors do not need containment to explode.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bangdazap
But emission regulation would help now,

And why is that, since they've never helped before?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Solid fuel cells are quite safe and easy to handle.


Which technology are you referring to here?

[Occasional Chemist]

A little more background information for those interested in hydrogen-powered cars:

More on hydrogen storage issues for fuel cell-powered vehicles (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/tasks/task17.html)

[fishbob]

Why is The Hydrogen Car supposed to be such a big deal? By itself, hydrogen fuel does not reduce energy consumption - it just relocates where the emissions occur. We still have to use oil or coal or hydroelectric or nukular power to produce the hydrogen - it does not grow on trees. This may appeal to the NIMBYs - the emissions are concentrated in somebody else's back yard. But there is no net reduction in energy use.

To reduce energy consumption we have to:

1) push less mass (lighter vehicles) down the highway or
2) develop more efficient engines

Do it now or do it later.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by fishbob
This may appeal to the NIMBYs - the emissions are concentrated in somebody else's back yard. But there is no net reduction in energy use.


It's easier to control a (relatively) small number of power plants than it is to control the pollutant output of every car in the country.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


The Saturn is a car that is completely reingeneered from the ground up. The body is protected by a cage, allowing them to make a dent-proof outer body. The insides have been completely reengineered to allow for better safety in an accident, such as a steering column that detaches and moves away from the driver. Traction Control is a new technology introduced by Saturn. On and on and on.



an incremental advance in body engineering and traction control is not a total redesign. I would put the mini as being a much more radical car in concept.

In terms of fuel/motor, both are very conventional. The mini even had the embarrasment of being saddled with an engine that was passed it's use by date when it first came out.



So when you say there's nothing new because it still has an engine and four wheels, you blatantly betray the pathetic little deulsions in your tiny woo-woo brain.



conventional engine. reciprocating, four cylinder inline petrol. the basic design has been around for over 100 years.



They've radically redesigned the Wankel engine for the new RX-8! What do you mean, "put an end to even mild experiments"???



The RX-8, yes, there are millions of them on the roads, and manufacturers queuing up to use rotary engines in their own cars.



Well that much is obvious.

woo woo.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

It's easier to control a (relatively) small number of power plants than it is to control the pollutant output of every car in the country.
There are a number of separate but related issues here, it will pay not to confuse them.

1) Energy consumption: As fishbob noted, powering cars with hydrogen does little in itself to reduce energy consumption. We already know that American consumers will drive cars several times the necessary mass unless they are forced by fuel costs.

2) Noxious gases, i.e. smog: hydrogen cars would eliminate tailpipe emission of NOx, Ozone, etc. It probably would be easier to control these at a central plant.

3) Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide: Hydrogen cars would merely move the energy production from the car to either a central plant or the home. Those central plants would probably be burning fossil fuels, since nuclear is unpopular and "alternative energy sources" like wind and solar are not very economical. Considering current solar panel costs and efficiencies, and comparing to current prices of electricity and natural gas, the break-even period for solar panels is measured in decades, noot years. It is not obvious that burning all your fossil fuels at a central plant would make dealing with greenhouse gases any simpler.

4) Hydrogen-powered cars would be a spiffy scifi thing, and apparently this is enough to impress trolls like corplinx.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
an incremental advance in body engineering and traction control is not a total redesign.

It's not an incremental design! They had to throw out most of the previous designs used by other car manufacturers and start from scratch!

Or is it an "incremental design" because that's how you want to define it? :rolleyes:

In terms of fuel/motor, both are very conventional.

So? Your source said that new innovations were rare. That is patently absurd.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


It's not an incremental design! They had to throw out most of the previous designs used by other car manufacturers and start from scratch!

Or is it an "incremental design" because that's how you want to define it? :rolleyes:



So? Your source said that new innovations were rare. That is patently absurd.

i don't think rare means non existant.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
It is not obvious that burning all your fossil fuels at a central plant would make dealing with greenhouse gases any simpler.


Just so you know, I'm not really talking about CO2. Other annoying pollutants from fossil fuel burning can be more effectively eliminated in a large plant than they can in the tailpipes of America's cars. As a chemical engineer, I'd say that "possibly" is too weak of a word here. It would be easier to deal with most non-CO2 pollutants in a large power plant setting.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
We already know that American consumers will drive cars several times the necessary mass unless they are forced by fuel costs.


What's the "necessary mass"?

[Tricky]

When it comes to hydrogen, everybody always mentions the Hindenburg disaster. Certainly it was horrific, but most people don't realize that as disasters go, it was not particularly bad. Of the 97 aboard, there were only 33 deaths, and most of those came from jumping or falling. Only two people were confirmed to be killed from burning and they were likely killed by the flammable paint. Since hydrogen is lighter than air, once the ship was breached, most of the heat went upward, and was almost completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. The lingering flames came from the diesel fuel stored on board used for running the engines.
.Hindenburg facts (http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety.htm)

That being said, hydrogen fuel still has a long way to go before it can replace fossil fuels. As Arctic Penguin pointed out, Hydrogen must be separated, a process which can use more energy than is stored. We just move the pollution to generator plants.

Another problem is that hydrogen fuel contains very few BTUs per unit volume. You must have an enormous amount of hydrogen to travel any distance. You also must have fueling stations with gigantic capacities located fairly closely together.

These problems can be overcome, and probably will be, although it is simply inevitable that people (especially Americans) will have to change their behaviors. The days of cheap, personal travel are drawing to a close

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


What's the "necessary mass"?

ROT would be half what an SUV weighs, or whatever is necessary to contain the engine, occupants, etc in a safe and secure travel environment.

[GreyWanderer]

Originally posted by Tricky

.Hindenburg facts (http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety.htm)

Interesting:

"Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests."

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
i don't think rare means non existant.

Uh-huh. You just love finding ways to weasel out of things. But there are so many completely new products introduced by the free market all the time. How many would I have to present to convince you that this is a common occurence?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by GreyWanderer

"Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests."

True, but I can't really fathom the point behind the statement quoted. Compressed gas cylinders are made the way they are for a reason.

A typical gasoline tank doesn't need to be designed that way.

Speaking of compressed hydrogen ... gotta remember to put that order in for another cylinder. Thanks, JREF, for reminding me. :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh-huh. You just love finding ways to weasel out of things. But there are so many completely new products introduced by the free market all the time. How many would I have to present to convince you that this is a common occurence?

you are the one doing the weasling. how many times do i have to present evidence to convince you that it is not a common occurance?

The mini, brilliant concept, c**p old engine.
Saturn, advance in body design, conventional engine. Same basic design as has been used for over 100 years. Rotary, ultra niche prestige symbol. the vast majority of new models are the last model with a different grill, mandatory engine changes, and a revised bolt or bush on the suspension.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

Another problem is that hydrogen fuel contains very few BTUs per unit volume. You must have an enormous amount of hydrogen to travel any distance. You also must have fueling stations with gigantic capacities located fairly closely together.



IIRC, petrol has the about the highest, which is a good reason for not wasting it just because it is cheap now.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Solid fuel cells are quite safe and easy to handle.

Unless you mean some other technology, solid oxide fuel cells - SOFCs - operate at 1000 degrees C (about 1800 F) and are better for large-scale power generation rather than automotive applications. Since they run at high temperatures, they can take poorer quality fuel than some of the other technologies.

The "solid" refers to the ceramic electrolyte.

edited to correct typo

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
you are the one doing the weasling. how many times do i have to present evidence to convince you that it is not a common occurance?

You have presented nothing! Nothing but assertions!

Saturn, advance in body design, conventional engine. Same basic design as has been used for over 100 years.

"Sure, but apart from sanitation, medecine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Unless you mean some other technology,

It sounds different, yeah. BMW plans to release one in 2006. And it doesn't require a full redesign of the car, either.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek

It sounds different, yeah. BMW plans to release one in 2006. And it doesn't require a full redesign of the car, either.

No, they mean the same technology. I remember reading about that sometime back. It had a couple of problems, one of which was that it takes about an hour for the fuel cell to get up to operating conditions. (This is probably one reason much other research is directed towards PEM fuel cells.)

And you thought your old 70s-era klunker took a while to warm up!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


IIRC, petrol has the about the highest, which is a good reason for not wasting it just because it is cheap now.
True. It has been said, and I believe wisely, that petroleum is much to valuable to burn. While there are many sources of energy, there are no other sources of petrochemicals. We should be conserving as much of this irreplacible commodity as possible.

BTW. I work for an oil company.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tricky

Another problem is that hydrogen fuel contains very few BTUs per unit volume. You must have an enormous amount of hydrogen to travel any distance. You also must have fueling stations with gigantic capacities located fairly closely together.

Well, it's a gas! "BTUs per volume" will depend entirely on your compression. And as far as BTUs per mass, diatomic molecular hydrogen (H2) is hard to beat.