RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down.

RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 1:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Better than that ubiquitous 5.0 Mustang. Mustangs. [:'(] They're ok for the money back in the 80's and early 90's. Now they are almost slow unless one buys the $40-$50,000 model and that's a Cobra not a 5.0. All of my muscle cars from back in the day, were stock but fucked with a little and would blow the 5.0's doors off.

servantforuse -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 2:04:09 PM)
I had a 1970 Mach 1, 351 Cleveland, Hurst 4 speed. That was one fast car.

jlf1961 -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 2:05:23 PM)
I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one?

Real0ne -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 2:26:54 PM)
because texaco bought the rights to produce them at pennies on the million several years ago. look at it from the brite side, the us bilked the rest of the world out of their oil now the rest of the world is thanking the us with a big stick it up your asses

Made2Obey -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 2:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Back around 2000 GM was developing a hydrogen powered vehicle that I thought was pure genius. It had a base platform with the hydrogen drive mechanism and suspension, (think of a large mattress with a wheel at each corner for a visual) to which interchangeable bodies could be attached. The basic concept was that you'd buy the platform with one body. (Most likely a family vehicle.) Then if you needed a different style body at any time you could rent it from your local GM dealer. The dealer would change out the bodies and store yours until you brought back the rental. So let's say you owned a minivan body, you could drop by on Friday afternoon and swap out for a pickup body so you could haul gardening supplies all weekend, then swap back to your own minivan type body on Monday. The drive platform was also always four wheel drive, so it was superior for bad weather. It would have been costly to purchase initially, but cheap to operate, and since you would keep your platform forever, and only buy a new body when you wished for a more fresh look, it would be much cheaper to keep long term. Not to mention that the hydrogen should have been cheaper than gasoline and would have zero pollutants. So why don't we all have one now? It was dropped in favor of hybrids and battery electrics.

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 3:04:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Lithium-ion batteries are classified as Class 9 miscellaneous hazardous materials, and lead–acid batteries are listed as Class 8 corrosive hazardous materials under United States regulations (40 CFR 173.21(c)) Lithium-ion batteries are starting to be used in significant quantities for automotive propulsion. Because these batteries are expected to last the life of the vehicle, they will not be ending their useful lives in large numbers for about 10 years. They may subsequently be used for utility energy storage, but eventually their useful lives will end. In addition, the recycled product needs to be of high enough quality to find a market for its original purpose, or it must find an alternative market. HERE However, it does not make any economic sense to recycle the batteries. Batteries contain only a small fraction of lithium carbonate as a percent of weight and are inexpensive compared to cobalt or nickel. The average lithium cost associated with Li-ion battery production is less than 3% of the production cost. HERE

MakeM3Urs -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 3:05:09 PM)
I want one of those!

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 3:14:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne because texaco bought the rights to produce them at pennies on the million several years ago. look at it from the brite side, the us bilked the rest of the world out of their oil now the rest of the world is thanking the us with a big stick it up your asses Texaco bought what ? The patents on Ev's now for one marketplace, are so new as to render any such patents purchased by Texaco...worthless. Besides, who is Texaco ? They blew it and were bought up long ago. (2002 Chevron Corporation merged with Texaco and Shell purchased Texaco's interest in the Equilon and Motiva joint ventures. Shell began converting its Texaco stations to the Shell brand the next year) The US has always sought privately owned oil sources but have since come around and companies now actually pay cash money for imported oil no matter who owns it. Do US oil corps. corrupt local govt. ? No but give them all good reasons to be corrupt in mutually rich deals. Where do you get this shit ?

MercTech -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 3:19:07 PM)
A hydrogen powered car would be a good thing. The only contaminants in the exhaust is a bit of nitrous oxide with the rest being water vapor. The problem is with no really good storage methods for hydrogen. Hydrogen even permeates out of steel pressure cylinders. Fuel cell cars would be wonderful if the research would ever get off the horse of high dollar research contracts looking at industrial generator replacements and design a portable system that runs on something besides hydrogen. re. Storage problems mentioned above. Battery based electric cars, due to inefficiencies in generation and in motors; end up causing more fuel to be burned than an internal combustion engine. We couldn't afford all electric transportation from a pollution standpoint unless we went 100% hydro and nuclear. What would turn that around in a heartbeat would be to get a solution to the superconductor to regular conductor bridge problem. If you could get superconducting windings in motors and generators; it would move the efficiency from a paltry 28% to over 95%. Currently the only alternatives that are efficient enough overall to compete with a straight internal combustion engine is a hybrid with a diesel generator. Zero carbon footprint if you run bio diesel.

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 4:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Battery based electric cars, due to inefficiencies in generation and in motors; end up causing more fuel to be burned than an internal combustion engine. Not according to my sources. If I understand you correctly. $60 month less HERE The Department of Energy’s eGallon provides a quick and simple answer to this question and allows electric vehicle (EV) drivers to see how much they can save on fuel by using electricity instead of gasoline. We take the average distance that a gasoline-powered vehicle can drive on a gallon of gas (28.2 miles for comparable 2012 model year cars), and then calculate how much it would cost to drive the average EV that same distance. Because electricity prices are a little different state to state, our eGallon tool shows how much an eGallon costs in your state, and compares it to the cost of gasoline. As you can see, on average, fueling your car with gasoline costs roughly 3 times more than fueling with electricity. HERE

DesideriScuri -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 4:42:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Hydrogen can go boom, for one thing. Plus, one of the drawbacks to it is storage of enough hydrogen to get the job done (remember hydrogen can make big booms), and/or making a safe on-demand hydrolysis apparatus.

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 5:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Hydrogen can go boom, for one thing. Plus, one of the drawbacks to it is storage of enough hydrogen to get the job done (remember hydrogen can make big booms), and/or making a safe on-demand hydrolysis apparatus. Methane (LPG etc.) can go boom and has a worldwide fleet now about 2 million, US almost 200,000. Safer, cheaper, cleaner and growing. (the Las Vegas bus system uses natural gas powered only) And these figures are only light trucks, buses and trucks...no passenger cars.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 8:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Hydrogen can go boom, for one thing. Plus, one of the drawbacks to it is storage of enough hydrogen to get the job done (remember hydrogen can make big booms), and/or making a safe on-demand hydrolysis apparatus. Methane (LPG etc.) can go boom and has a worldwide fleet now about 2 million, US almost 200,000. Safer, cheaper, cleaner and growing. (the Las Vegas bus system uses natural gas powered only) And these figures are only light trucks, buses and trucks...no passenger cars. So, why don't we have hydrogen fuel cells yet? Perhaps it's not as easily and safely stored as LPG? The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) bus lines use a lot (most, if I recall correctly) of LPG-fueled buses. But, LPG isn't Hydrogen, unless my chemistry is off. Your response to my post about some issues as to why we don't have hydrogen-fueled vehicles was to bring up the fact that we have methane-fueled vehicles. That has fuckall to do with hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Personally, I think hydrogen fuel cells and/or on-demand hydrolysis is going to be the best way to go. Use the car's batter/alternator (using gasoline as fuel) to hydrolyze water and once you get enough vapor pressure, shut off the gasoline and rely solely on the on-demand hydrolysis. It's being done in backyards already. It's even on youtube how to make the hydrolysis apparatus.

MercTech -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 8:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Hydrogen has a major storage problem. If you buy Hydrogen in compressed gas cylinders; you will lose up to five percent a month from hydrogen molecules permeating the steel cylinder. And, hydriding makes piping and containers holding hydrogen brittle and subject to catastrophic failure. The space shuttle uses hydrogen and oxygen for attitude jets and fuel cells for electric power. They pack liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for space saving. Both LH2 and LOX are extremely dangerous to handle and transfer and extremely expensive. A regular 100 ft3 2200 psi pressure cylinder will run a fuel cell for half a day or so if you are drawing a fuel cell enough to power a house and you need both an Oxygen cylinder and a Hydrogen cylinder. Don't bother considering using electricity from a fuel cell to split oxygen then run through the fuel cell. That would be perpetual motion. Hydrogen fuel cells are great for putting a low wattage source of electricity in a really really remote place like in orbit. If you want really long lasting at minuscule wattage; you want a nuclear decay battery. If you want intermittent wattage draw, batteries and a solar cell. To be practical for automotive uses; you need something easier to store than hydrogen. Say a fuel cell that runs on compressed air and propane. If you want one, there was one marketed in 1973 that used compressed air, natural gas, with a phosphoric acid catalyst. The down side of that one was the reaction chamber corroded and needed replacing every few months due to the phosphoric acid catalyst.

MercTech -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 9:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Battery based electric cars, due to inefficiencies in generation and in motors; end up causing more fuel to be burned than an internal combustion engine. Not according to my sources. If I understand you correctly. $60 month less HERE The Department of Energy’s eGallon provides a quick and simple answer to this question and allows electric vehicle (EV) drivers to see how much they can save on fuel by using electricity instead of gasoline. We take the average distance that a gasoline-powered vehicle can drive on a gallon of gas (28.2 miles for comparable 2012 model year cars), and then calculate how much it would cost to drive the average EV that same distance. Because electricity prices are a little different state to state, our eGallon tool shows how much an eGallon costs in your state, and compares it to the cost of gasoline. As you can see, on average, fueling your car with gasoline costs roughly 3 times more than fueling with electricity. HERE No one was talking a dollar price but the amount of fossil fuel burned. Most of the electricity in the U.S. still comes from fossil fuel. The touts ignore the conversion losses in going from chemical to mechanical to electrical to storage to motor to wheels as opposed to chemical to mechanical to drive train. The maximum 28 percent efficiency of mechanical to electrical conversion or electrical to mechanical is a horrendous amount of power thrown away. You never get as many amp hours out of a battery as you put in. And the more steps from source to end use allows for losses along the way. For a given number of horsepower-hours; an electric care will result in having to generate more power than an internal combustion car uses. Trying to jigger a set of numbers to make a grant application or an investment prospectus look good is far removed from an objective look at a total system. Given, the efficiency of Li-ION storage cells has made battery technology much better than it was even a decade ago. But the inefficiencies of electric motors and electric generators still makes battery electric systems a poor overall choice compared to internal combustion. For electric cars to be other than a boondoggle that doesn't cure what it claims to: some technical breakthroughs need to be made to alleviate all the system losses inherent in the design.

MercTech -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 9:28:14 PM)
If you want a really fuel efficient transportation system; you don't go all electric but regenerative kinetic energy. The first ones I saw of these were adopted by the City Transit out on Oahu back in 1985. Bloody quet, minimal exhaust, and a very characteristic high pitched whine when braking as braking spins up the internal flywheel. The two cylinder diesel on the ones out in Hawaii only kicked on when the flywheel dropped below a certain RPM. The bus did labor a bit going over the Pali Pass but cruised on everywhere else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC0pHkstuF8 Another very efficient system is a diesel hybrid. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/300mpg-Diesel-Electric-Hybrid-Unveiled-by-Volkswagen.html Cost is a downside to diesel pushers but can be offset by much higher fuel economy. Most care manufacturers are sticking with gasoline engines running an Atkinson cycle (high RPM, very low torque) A gasoline engine performs better but burns more fuel in stop and go traffic. A diesel performs much more efficiently and smoothly at sustained speed cruising. Another high efficiency tech is regenerative hydraulic. This method has acceleration issues but some application in light rail and industrial machinery. Gasoline powered hydraulic motor, large accumulators, a hydraulic drive on each wheel. Braking regeneratively charges the accumulators. This is a good system for slow speed heavy industrial machinery. The fuel powered engine switches completely off instead of idling and only kicks on when the capacity of the accumulator drops. Very good for low speed humongous torque applications like massive earth haulers, back hoes, bulldozers, and cranes. (accumulator - kinda like a pressure tank for incompressible fluids like hydraulic fluid. The tank fills pushing a piston out against a really powerful spring. The spring pushes the fluid out when needed. Some use an air load tank instead of a spring but the principle is the same.)

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 10:49:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Battery based electric cars, due to inefficiencies in generation and in motors; end up causing more fuel to be burned than an internal combustion engine. Not according to my sources. If I understand you correctly. $60 month less HERE The Department of Energy’s eGallon provides a quick and simple answer to this question and allows electric vehicle (EV) drivers to see how much they can save on fuel by using electricity instead of gasoline. We take the average distance that a gasoline-powered vehicle can drive on a gallon of gas (28.2 miles for comparable 2012 model year cars), and then calculate how much it would cost to drive the average EV that same distance. Because electricity prices are a little different state to state, our eGallon tool shows how much an eGallon costs in your state, and compares it to the cost of gasoline. As you can see, on average, fueling your car with gasoline costs roughly 3 times more than fueling with electricity. HERE No one was talking a dollar price but the amount of fossil fuel burned. Most of the electricity in the U.S. still comes from fossil fuel. The touts ignore the conversion losses in going from chemical to mechanical to electrical to storage to motor to wheels as opposed to chemical to mechanical to drive train. The maximum 28 percent efficiency of mechanical to electrical conversion or electrical to mechanical is a horrendous amount of power thrown away. You never get as many amp hours out of a battery as you put in. And the more steps from source to end use allows for losses along the way. For a given number of horsepower-hours; an electric care will result in having to generate more power than an internal combustion car uses. Trying to jigger a set of numbers to make a grant application or an investment prospectus look good is far removed from an objective look at a total system. Given, the efficiency of Li-ION storage cells has made battery technology much better than it was even a decade ago. But the inefficiencies of electric motors and electric generators still makes battery electric systems a poor overall choice compared to internal combustion. For electric cars to be other than a boondoggle that doesn't cure what it claims to: some technical breakthroughs need to be made to alleviate all the system losses inherent in the design. Electric engines can be more than 90% efficient and even up to 98% efficient while combustion engines are 30 to 45% efficient. The motor itself is fantastically efficient, but that’s in terms of the electricity being delivered to it from the batteries. That conversion is not direct the batteries provide DC power but the motor uses AC, so you need to use an “inverter” to change it from one to the other. Modern inverters are about 95% efficient. In a gasoline car, the fuel that’s pumped into your tank is used directly in the engine. That’s not the case in an electric car, where the “fuel” is AC power from your home, and the tank is a battery full of DC power. So we have to convert from AC to DC using a charger which is also about 95% efficient. That’s right – we start with AC, turn it into DC, back into AC, and then into motion. That doesn’t sound great, does it? And finally, we need to consider leakage. When I charge the battery, not all of the power ends up stored, some of it is used up pushing the electrons through the battery. Typical numbers here are about 85 to 90% efficient. So, a rough estimate of the total round-trip tank to wheel efficiency is: 0.90 (motor and drivetrain) x 0.95 (inverter) x 0.90 (battery) x 0.95 (charger) = 73% This number jives quite well with the claims of Tesla, which quotes a 75% round-trip efficiency. Tesla and Leaf owners report slightly lower real-world charging numbers, with the charger and battery portions of the cycle on the order of 80 to 85%. If we use those numbers we get: 0.90 (motor and drivetrain) x 0.95 (inverter) x 0.8 (battery and charger) = 68% This isn’t a huge difference, so we’ll split it and call it 70%. How does this compare to a conventional car? Quite well in fact. A normal gasoline car has a tank-to-wheel efficiency of 16%. That’s right, an electric car is over four times as efficient at turning energy into motion. HERE

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 10:57:21 PM)
Then there’s well to wheel comparison: Contrary to what you may have heard, the electrical grid is very efficient. The total losses in the US grid are only about 7%. This number keeps going down as we improve the systems. So that means the real tank to wheel comparison is: 0.5 (generator) x 0.93 (line losses) x 0.7 (entire car side) = 33% Now we also have to get that gas to the NG power plant. The drilling and extraction requires energy equivalent to about 9% of the fuel, and shipping it in a pipeline is extremely efficient, accounting for about 1.5% of the energy. So that means the total cycle end-to-end is: 0.91 (extraction) x 0.985 (shipping) x 0.33 = 29% And that estimate is definitely on the conservative side, most academic papers put it closer to 35 to 40%, 5 to 10% better than what I've calculated here. The case for electric: Very basically, if we took the gasoline you put into your car and burned that in a turbine, then sent that power to your electric car, the overall efficiency of the system would double. I rest my case. Same link

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/27/2017 11:16:40 PM)
Jeff, there are very few questions that are stupid. There are many stupid answers. There are a few on here who can give consistently dumb answers, beliefs or theories and trying to talk sense to them is like fighting fog. They shall remain nameless but if the one I'm thinking of was to leave Singapore, the intelligence level of that benighted country, would rise by many, many points . The trouble is, some other country would suffer. I am in the process of reading a book titled 'The Triumph of the Airheads' by Shelley Gare . I would recommend it to you except that it would possibly get you angry to the point of reaching critical mass. You will see that person many times through the book.

MrRodgers -> RE: Look for gas and oil...to go down. (9/28/2017 8:44:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have one very fucking stupid question. NASA and other space agencies have been using hydrogen power cells that basically use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and other elements to generate electricity and heat that keeps components warm on some deeps space probes. Considering the fact that of the by products of such a power source is water, the other is oxygen, why the hell are these alternative energy gurus pushing lithium batteries with all the fucking toxic by products, not to mention the fact that when the battery is disposed of, the lithium itself is toxic? Oh gee, we have a clean electric vehicle that to build we get to generate superfund environmental dead zones. Lets face facts folks, every known substance that makes for great batteries is toxic as hell. Maybe we should look at something else that wont solve one problem while creating a larger deadlier one? Hydrogen can go boom, for one thing. Plus, one of the drawbacks to it is storage of enough hydrogen to get the job done (remember hydrogen can make big booms), and/or making a safe on-demand hydrolysis apparatus. Methane (LPG etc.) can go boom and has a worldwide fleet now about 2 million, US almost 200,000. Safer, cheaper, cleaner and growing. (the Las Vegas bus system uses natural gas powered only) And these figures are only light trucks, buses and trucks...no passenger cars. So, why don't we have hydrogen fuel cells yet? Perhaps it's not as easily and safely stored as LPG? The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) bus lines use a lot (most, if I recall correctly) of LPG-fueled buses. But, LPG isn't Hydrogen, unless my chemistry is off. Your response to my post about some issues as to why we don't have hydrogen-fueled vehicles was to bring up the fact that we have methane-fueled vehicles. That has fuckall to do with hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Personally, I think hydrogen fuel cells and/or on-demand hydrolysis is going to be the best way to go. Use the car's batter/alternator (using gasoline as fuel) to hydrolyze water and once you get enough vapor pressure, shut off the gasoline and rely solely on the on-demand hydrolysis. It's being done in backyards already. It's even on youtube how to make the hydrolysis apparatus. Your post in its entirety...Hydrogen can go boom, for one thing. Plus, one of the drawbacks to it is storage of enough hydrogen to get the job done (remember hydrogen can make big booms), and/or making a safe on-demand hydrolysis apparatus. I commented on the boom factor. Otherwise, I don't know why we don't don't have fully hydrogen powered vehicles.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625