Electric Cars Could Save $104 Billion Dollars In Health Care Costs
Fran
believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
(let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
For me, this is one of the most difficult things to understand about
the denier position. Even allowing that there might be some who
through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
pours out of car exhausts and coalfired power station flues thinks
this is a good thing or even acceptable and not worth fixing up?
The deniers are pretty silent on this -- so silent, than it's hard to
accept that they can possibly be speaking in good faith. Either they
are unhinged, or sociopathic, or ignorant of not just the science of
climate change but of basic data about the state of the planet. That I
believe is why there is so much animus towards them. They aren't just
taking a contrary view -- they are taking a perverse and incoherent
view, in theory opposing measures that must surely conclude are
worthwhile because they are unsure about one of the justifications.
Anyhow ... read on
||||
According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of
California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction
benefits would result from converting the entire California motor
vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than
relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion
figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global
warming emissions.
The study, conducted by TIAX LLC, a consulting firm specializing in
transportation and alternative fuels research, also found that
California can avoid at least $2.2 billion per year in health costs
from reduction of dangerous particulate matter by converting the motor
vehicle fleet to ZEVs instead of relying on the lowest emitting
gasoline technologies. This reduction in particulates means that
California would annually avoid 300 cases of premature death, over 260
cases of chronic bronchitis, over 7,000 asthma attacks and more than
18,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms by moving to ZEV
technology.
...
According to the American Lung Association of California’s study,
approximately 110 million tons of greenhouse gases per year could be
avoided if all California vehicles were replaced with ZEVs by 2030.
This would make significant progress toward the transportation
sector’s portion of the state goal for reducing greenhouse gases by
2050.
The study also addressed the current costs of gasoline motor vehicle
use:
– The total cost to public health and society of the existing motor
vehicle fleet is over $10 billion in 2010, and this cost only drops to
approximately $7 billion over the 20-year time frame of the study with
normal fleet turnover.
– The existing motor vehicle fleet generates health costs in terms of
hospitalizations, premature deaths and illnesses that add up to over
$7.4 billion per year (2010), including $4.4 billion per year linked
to one pollutant, nitrogen oxide (NOx).
- The total greenhouse gas (well-to-wheel) emissions from the existing
motor vehicle fleet are 150 million tons per year, and drop only to
140 million tons per year in 2030 through existing programs and
vehicle turnover. This is far from the total reduction that is needed
to meet California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.
http://envirovaluation.org/index.php/2008/03/23/electric_cars_could_save_142_billion_dol
||||
Fran
Anthony Matonak
...
> For me, this is one of the most difficult things to understand about
> the denier position. Even allowing that there might be some who
> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
> who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
> pours out of car exhausts and coalfired power station flues thinks
> this is a good thing or even acceptable and not worth fixing up?
>
> The deniers are pretty silent on this -- so silent, than it's hard to
> accept that they can possibly be speaking in good faith. Either they
> are unhinged, or sociopathic, or ignorant of not just the science of
> climate change but of basic data about the state of the planet. That I
> believe is why there is so much animus towards them. They aren't just
> taking a contrary view -- they are taking a perverse and incoherent
> view, in theory opposing measures that must surely conclude are
> worthwhile because they are unsure about one of the justifications.
Just who are these deniers that are so silent on this topic and how
come they sound like a fictional crowd made up to support your argument?
I, for one, am none too sure about the whole AGW thing* and I'm all
for doing things cleaner, better, smarter, more efficiently and
to everyones profit even if the profit isn't distributed equally.
I've never been particularly silent on this either.
I'm not for going off and forcing people at gunpoint to give up all
their money (or die trying) based on some wild assed guesses about
what the weather will be like a hundred years from now.
Anthony
--
* To be clear, I think it's obvious the Earth is warming since it's
not still in an Ice Age. I'm not sure that people caused the end to
the ice age or that we're all that responsible for any warming since
then.
Fran
<anthony...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Fran wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > For me, this is one of the most difficult things to understand about
> > the denier position. Even allowing that there might be some who
> > through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> > who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
> > who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
> > pours out of car exhausts and coalfired power station flues thinks
> > this is a good thing or even acceptable and not worth fixing up?
>
> > The deniers are pretty silent on this -- so silent, than it's hard to
> > accept that they can possibly be speaking in good faith. Either they
> > are unhinged, or sociopathic, or ignorant of not just the science of
> > climate change but of basic data about the state of the planet. That I
> > believe is why there is so much animus towards them. They aren't just
> > taking a contrary view -- they are taking a perverse and incoherent
> > view, in theory opposing measures that must surely conclude are
> > worthwhile because they are unsure about one of the justifications.
>
> ...
> Just who are these deniers that are so silent on this topic
Show me those amongst the deniers who have ever expressed a concrete
interest (i.e. a set of policy proposals) in reducing toxic aerosols,
acid rain etc.
Perhaps they exist, but beyond the occasional lip service along the
lines of 'we want to reduce real pollution', there's nothing. They
aren't silent by accident, because the obvious way to make a dent in
this is carrying out low carbon footprint strategies.
> and how
> come they sound like a fictional crowd made up to support your argument?
>
Please don't ask me to speculate on how your mind works. I might guess
incorrectly and to your detriment..
> I, for one, am none too sure about the whole AGW thing* and I'm all
> for doing things cleaner, better, smarter, more efficiently and
> to everyones profit even if the profit isn't distributed equally.
> I've never been particularly silent on this either.
>
So what do you propose, system-wide that meets the above criteria?
Until now of course, I had no idea that you were 'none too sure about
the whole AGW thing'. Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen you make
a claim until now.
> I'm not for going off and forcing people at gunpoint to give up all
> their money
Well neither am I. I'm so glad I resisted the temptation to specualte
on how your mind works. The amount of money involved has been
estimated as leaving the world as much as 1% of GDP worse off by 2050
than in a business as usual strategy in a worst case scenario. And as
we saw above, the non-AGW upside is very considerable, entirely enough
to recommend the program.
> (or die trying) based on some wild assed guesses about
> what the weather will be like a hundred years from now.
>
To call them 'guesses' juxtaposes them with results of processes that
are so different as to be entirely other things. And these are not
models about 'the weather' but about decadal climate patterns, sea
levels, ocean temperatures and so forth and they aren't all 100 years
from now, but in the next few decades.
> Anthony
> --
> * To be clear, I think it's obvious the Earth is warming since it's
> not still in an Ice Age. I'm not sure that people caused the end to
> the ice age
I'm sure they didn't.
> or that we're all that responsible for any warming since
> then
The data recommend otherwise, but as I said, the most cost-effective
way of dealing with the things you say you're bothered about involves
following a low carbon footprint approach. There's simply no downside.
We're ahead from the time we start.
Fran
Whata Fool
>http://envirovaluation.org/index.php/2008/03/23/electric_cars_could_save_142_billion_dol
Sure, 20 million cars = 400 Billion dollars, maybe Arnold will
pay for them. But the auto companies don't know how to build an
electric car, they think cars will only run on petroleum products.
The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
30 or 40 miles on it's batteries, and the "word" that nobody wants a
car they can't go on a trip with.
So the auto companies can't afford to take a chance on converting
the assembly plants to electric cars, people might not buy them.
I wouldn't, unless the car weighs 4000 pounds, and has two aux
generators to keep the batteries from going below 40 percent Degree
of Discharge.
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
> Even allowing that there might be some who
> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
> who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
> pours out of car exhausts
What pollution ?
Even the relatively ancient Saab 9000 was able to advertise that its exhaust fumes could be
cleaner than inner city air ! It was one of the first cars that could actually clean the air
as it was driven along.
Graham
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
Largely true.
Graham
Tom Gardner
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b1abc8-e7f3-40cf...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
An interesting piece which highlights the fact that even those who
believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
(let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
<snip>
****************************************************
I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
coal burned to generate power. (But, they make the left "Feel Good", and that's
what counts!)
If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
every year.
Eeyore
Tom Gardner wrote:
> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
> every year.
Where are these millions of abortions ?
Graham
Poetic Justice
Ouroboros_Rex
> Fran wrote:
> ...
>> For me, this is one of the most difficult things to understand about
>> the denier position. Even allowing that there might be some who
>> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
>> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
>> who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
>> pours out of car exhausts and coalfired power station flues thinks
>> this is a good thing or even acceptable and not worth fixing up?
>>
>> The deniers are pretty silent on this -- so silent, than it's hard to
>> accept that they can possibly be speaking in good faith. Either they
>> are unhinged, or sociopathic, or ignorant of not just the science of
>> climate change but of basic data about the state of the planet. That
>> I believe is why there is so much animus towards them. They aren't
>> just taking a contrary view -- they are taking a perverse and
>> incoherent view, in theory opposing measures that must surely
>> conclude are worthwhile because they are unsure about one of the
>> justifications.
> ...
> Just who are these deniers that are so silent on this topic and how
> come they sound like a fictional crowd made up to support your
> argument?
Probably because you are not a regular in alt.global-warming. =)
>
> I, for one, am none too sure about the whole AGW thing* and I'm all
> for doing things cleaner, better, smarter, more efficiently and
> to everyones profit even if the profit isn't distributed equally.
> I've never been particularly silent on this either.
>
> I'm not for going off and forcing people at gunpoint to give up all
> their money (or die trying) based on some wild assed guesses about
> what the weather will be like a hundred years from now.
>
Cost to stabilize GW: Negligible
http://tinyurl.com/2klwop
Ouroboros_Rex
Did you have a relevant point?
Ouroboros_Rex
You are claiming the power sources are dirtier on average than gasoline
combustion? Be interesting to see that proven. We have a nuclear power
station about 30 miles away.
Eeyore
Poetic Justice wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Whata Fool wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
> >> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
> >> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
> >
> > Largely true.
>
> Lousy when people spread the truth, isn't it.
Totally rotten for sure. It's a bugger innit ? ;~)
Graham
Eeyore
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> Did you have a relevant point?
As I said in my previous post "what pollution ?". Cars certainly should not
be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks (you DO have
annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the emission levels.
Graham
Eeyore
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> > I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come
> > from nuclear or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and
> > MORE CO2 because of the coal burned to generate power. (But, they
> > make the left "Feel Good", and that's what counts!)
>
> You are claiming the power sources are dirtier on average than gasoline
> combustion? Be interesting to see that proven. We have a nuclear power
> station about 30 miles away.
He said COAL fired stations are dirtier, which they certainly are.
Graham
Tom Gardner
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:481B13D0...@hotmail.com...
What planet do YOU call home?
Tom Gardner
I understand his point, but it would take a bit of research among coal fired
plants to see the amount of pollution per KW/hr because I'm sure it varies a
lot!
Eeyore
Tom Gardner wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of
> >> abortions every year.
> >
> > Where are these millions of abortions ?
>
>
> What planet do YOU call home?
Would you care to get closer than 'planet' ? Maybe you could name a country
?
Graham
Eeyore
Tom Gardner wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> >> Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come
> >> > from nuclear or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and
> >> > MORE CO2 because of the coal burned to generate power. (But, they
> >> > make the left "Feel Good", and that's what counts!)
> >>
> >> You are claiming the power sources are dirtier on average than gasoline
> >> combustion? Be interesting to see that proven. We have a nuclear power
> >> station about 30 miles away.
> >
> > He said COAL fired stations are dirtier, which they certainly are.
>
> I understand his point, but it would take a bit of research among coal fired
> plants to see the amount of pollution per KW/hr because I'm sure it varies a
> lot!
Yes it absolutely will do according to the technology used and indeed the
'quality' of the coal.
Nevertheless, a gasoline engine will invariable be 'cleaner' than ANY coal fired
power station. NO harmful particulates for starters. No CO to talk of either.
Not sure how the NOx compares.
Graham
Ouroboros_Rex
Pretty surprising statement. The entire planet disagrees.
Eeyore
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
You're talking out of your backside. Only to be expected from the fabulously
ignorant 'greenie' community. You couldn't tell one end of a cluebat from
the other.
Graham
Anthony Matonak
> Eeyore wrote:
>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
>>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
>>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
>>
>> Largely true.
>>
Lousy when people spread misinformation, isn't it?
The 30 to 40 miles limit is what you get when you have an
auto company like Ford spend taxpayer dollars to do a study
on how impossible it is to build a practical electric car.
It's like those studies showing how biofuels simply can't
produce more energy than it took to grow them. You choose
the worst example every step of the way and then put it
all together to show just how poorly it all works.
Anything can be done amazingly bad but this doesn't mean you
can't do something well or that what you propose (biofuels,
electric cars) can't work. It just proves it can't be done
the way you choose for your 'study'.
Anthony
Eeyore
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Poetic Justice wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> Whata Fool wrote:
> >>
> >>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
> >>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
> >>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
> >>
> >> Largely true.
> >>
> > Lousy when people spread the truth, isn't it.
>
> Lousy when people spread misinformation, isn't it?
>
> The 30 to 40 miles limit is what you get when you have an
> auto company like Ford spend taxpayer dollars to do a study
> on how impossible it is to build a practical electric car.
How about you show some figures about kWh battery capacity vs mileage before
going off on a totally idiotic 'political' tirade.
ALL that matters here is science and technology. Your OPINIONS (dubious as
they certainly are) count for ZERO.
FACTS please. And nothing but FACTS. Cut out the whinging greenie bit too.
Graham
Poetic Justice
>
> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Fran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even allowing that there might be some who
>>>>>> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
>>>>>> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate
>>>>>> change, who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the
>>>>>> stuff that pours out of car exhausts
>>>>> What pollution ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the relatively ancient Saab 9000 was able to advertise that its
>>>>> exhaust fumes could be cleaner than inner city air ! It was one of
>>>>> the first cars that could actually clean the air as it was driven
>>>>> along.
>>>> Did you have a relevant point?
>>> As I said in my previous post "what pollution ?". Cars certainly
>>> should not be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks
>>> (you DO have annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the
>>> emission levels.
Check for what? We are supposed to believe CO2 is a pollutant, they all
put out some CO2.
Eeyore
Poetic Justice wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>> Fran wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Even allowing that there might be some who
> >>>>>> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> >>>>>> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate
> >>>>>> change, who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the
> >>>>>> stuff that pours out of car exhausts
> >>>>> What pollution ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even the relatively ancient Saab 9000 was able to advertise that its
> >>>>> exhaust fumes could be cleaner than inner city air ! It was one of
> >>>>> the first cars that could actually clean the air as it was driven
> >>>>> along.
> >>>> Did you have a relevant point?
> >>> As I said in my previous post "what pollution ?". Cars certainly
> >>> should not be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks
> >>> (you DO have annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the
> >>> emission levels.
>
> Check for what? We are supposed to believe CO2 is a pollutant, they all
> put out some CO2.
Where did I mention CO2 ?
Even us humans exhale CO2 for God's sake. So kill all humans and solve the
frigging 'global warming problem' FFS !
Graham
Whata Fool
Whata Fool
All over the world, has to be more than 100 million,
48 million in the US alone.
Whata Fool
It never was true, Auxiliary generators have been available for
less than $1000 for many years.
What the general public and apparently the auto engineers don't
know is that an electric car with an auxiliary generator can get double
the mileage of an ICE car.
All the engineers need to do to be convinced is drive their best
mileage car for an hour on a closed track at 3000 RPM in highest gear,
and then put the car in a test bay with a fan if needed to keep the
engine from overheating and run the engine at 3000 RPM for an hour in
neutral and see how much difference in fuel is used.
It takes more fuel to turn the engine than to overcome rolling
and wind resistance.
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
>>>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
>>>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
>>> Largely true.
>>>
>>> Graham
>> Lousy when people spread the truth, isn't it.
>
> It never was true, Auxiliary generators have been available for
> less than $1000 for many years.
But they are gas powered, that means the car is not on batteries.
>
> What the general public and apparently the auto engineers don't
> know is that an electric car with an auxiliary generator can get double
> the mileage of an ICE car.
>
And no better than a VW Diesel.
Poetic Justice
Start with liberals, that way while it remains unproven and eventually
someone shows Global warming was a hoax, we'll have lost nothing.
Fran
> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
He didn't think anything. Very little birth control, proportionately,
entails abortion. Most is 'prophylactic' -- creating circumstances in
which women and girls can avoid conception until that is their active
choice. The spread of condoms would also have an ancillary benefit --
reducing the transmission of other fatal or life-altering STIs. AIDS
alreadul kills a huge number of people and imposes a heavy burden on
economies (especially in the developing world). Throw in chlamydia,
gonorrhea, hepatitis, syphilis, and even comparatively banal
conditions such as candida (which can lead to cervical cancer) and the
case for empowering women is compelling.
Fran
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41b1abc8-e7f3-40cf...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> An interesting piece which highlights the fact that even those who
> believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
> to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
> the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
> produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
> mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
> on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
> consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
> worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
>
> If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
> (let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
> then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
> effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
> <snip>
> ****************************************************
>
> I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
> or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
> coal burned to generate power.
Misleading. It depends on when the cars are recharged. In most places,
in practice, vehicles would be recharged from home overnight, when
peaking rather than baseload plants would be used. Typically, these
are either gas turbine or hydro and in an increasing number of cases
wind.
> (But, they make the left "Feel Good", and that's
> what counts!)
>
pfft ... you should think rather than comment reflexively
> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
> every year.
See my answer below ...
Fran
Fran
wrote:
In many countries abortion stats include involuntary miscarriages,
seriously prejudicing the figures upwards.
Fran
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
> >> every year.
> >
> >Where are these millions of abortions ?
> >
> >Graham
>
> All over the world, has to be more than 100 million,
> 48 million in the US alone.
>
> http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
48 million abortions every year in the USA ?
You're on crack sunshine.
Graham
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
> >Eeyore wrote:
> >> Whata Fool wrote:
> >>
> >>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
> >>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
> >>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
> >>
> >> Largely true.
> >>
> >> Graham
> >
> >Lousy when people spread the truth, isn't it.
>
> It never was true, Auxiliary generators have been available for
> less than $1000 for many years.
He didnt say HEVs, he said EVs.
Graham
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
> "Tom Gardner" wrote:
> >
> > I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
> > or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
> > coal burned to generate power.
>
> Misleading. It depends on when the cars are recharged. In most places,
> in practice, vehicles would be recharged from home overnight, when
> peaking rather than baseload plants would be used. Typically, these
> are either gas turbine or hydro and in an increasing number of cases
> wind.
Eh ? Where did you get that idea ? It's the baseload plants that are running
overnight.
Graham
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > "Eeyore" wrote
> > > > Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> > > >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of
> > > >> abortions every year.
> >
> > > > Where are these millions of abortions ?
> >
> > > What planet do YOU call home?
> >
> > Would you care to get closer than 'planet' ? Maybe you could name a country
>
> In many countries abortion stats include involuntary miscarriages,
> seriously prejudicing the figures upwards.
Do they really ? That's obviously utterly ridiculous.
Also makes you wonder why 'God' wanted those kids to be aborted ! ;~)
Graham
"Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ :)"
> An interesting piece which highlights the fact that even those who
> believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
> to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
> the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
> produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
> mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
> on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
> consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
> worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
>
> If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
> (let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
> then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
> effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
>
> the denier position. Even allowing that there might be some who
> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate change,
> who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the stuff that
> this is a good thing or even acceptable and not worth fixing up?
>
> The deniers are pretty silent on this -- so silent, than it's hard to
> accept that they can possibly be speaking in good faith. Either they
> are unhinged, or sociopathic, or ignorant of not just the science of
> climate change but of basic data about the state of the planet. That I
> believe is why there is so much animus towards them. They aren't just
> taking a contrary view -- they are taking a perverse and incoherent
> view, in theory opposing measures that must surely conclude are
> worthwhile because they are unsure about one of the justifications.
>
> Anyhow ... read on
>
> ||||
> According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of
> California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction
> benefits would result from converting the entire California motor
> vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
> technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than
> relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion
> figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global
> warming emissions.
>
> The study, conducted by TIAX LLC, a consulting firm specializing in
> transportation and alternative fuels research, also found that
> California can avoid at least $2.2 billion per year in health costs
> from reduction of dangerous particulate matter by converting the motor
> vehicle fleet to ZEVs instead of relying on the lowest emitting
> gasoline technologies. This reduction in particulates means that
> California would annually avoid 300 cases of premature death, over 260
> cases of chronic bronchitis, over 7,000 asthma attacks and more than
> 18,000 cases of upper and lower respiratory symptoms by moving to ZEV
> technology.
> ...
> According to the American Lung Association of California’s study,
> approximately 110 million tons of greenhouse gases per year could be
> avoided if all California vehicles were replaced with ZEVs by 2030.
> This would make significant progress toward the transportation
> sector’s portion of the state goal for reducing greenhouse gases by
> 2050.
>
> The study also addressed the current costs of gasoline motor vehicle
> use:
> – The total cost to public health and society of the existing motor
> vehicle fleet is over $10 billion in 2010, and this cost only drops to
> approximately $7 billion over the 20-year time frame of the study with
> normal fleet turnover.
> – The existing motor vehicle fleet generates health costs in terms of
> hospitalizations, premature deaths and illnesses that add up to over
> $7.4 billion per year (2010), including $4.4 billion per year linked
> to one pollutant, nitrogen oxide (NOx).
> - The total greenhouse gas (well-to-wheel) emissions from the existing
> motor vehicle fleet are 150 million tons per year, and drop only to
> 140 million tons per year in 2030 through existing programs and
> vehicle turnover. This is far from the total reduction that is needed
> to meet California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.
>
> http://envirovaluation.org/index.php/2008/03/23/electric_cars_could_save_142_billion_dol
>
> ||||
>
> Fran
The price of copper may put the brakes on electric cars.
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
Eeyore
"Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ź :) " wrote:
> The price of copper may put the brakes on electric cars.
And nickel, cadmium and lithium.
I wonder if anyone at all has projected how much of certain more exotic raw materials is ever
likely to be required to 'replace' the ICE (which itself uses raw materials like iron, steel
and aluminium that are wonderfully abundant).
Graham
Fran
Anthony Matonak
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>> The 30 to 40 miles limit is what you get when you have an
>> auto company like Ford spend taxpayer dollars to do a study
>> on how impossible it is to build a practical electric car.
>
> How about you show some figures about kWh battery capacity vs mileage before
> going off on a totally idiotic 'political' tirade.
>
> ALL that matters here is science and technology. Your OPINIONS (dubious as
> they certainly are) count for ZERO.
>
> FACTS please. And nothing but FACTS. Cut out the whinging greenie bit too.
What FACTS do you want? Can't you find FACTS yourself?
Most hobby electric vehicle conversions (remove the engine, replace with
a surplus DC motor, add lots of lead acid batteries) get about 1 mile
per kWh. Such vehicles are usually limited to 20 to 30 miles.
The GM EV1 got about 3 miles per kWh and had a range of about 80 miles
on lead acid, about twice that on NiMH and I'm sure it would have got
about four times that on lithium.
Some of the newer designs for electric vehicles are claiming to be even
more efficient at 4 to 5 miles per kWh. We'll never know for certain
until they start getting produced.
Ford has been "researching" electric vehicles for 30 years, at least.
I distinctly recall an issue of Popular Science with the Ford sodium
sulfur battery in the "25 years ago today" section. I've personally
looked at one of their test vehicles, a van conversion using lead acid
batteries, that they used in a study on the feasibility of electric
vehicles. I can't say just now much government money has gone down
Fords dry well. I have seen numerous mentions of government funded
electric car research over the years and almost all that money went
to the big auto companies like Ford and GM.
Unlike GM and Toyota, the only electric vehicle Ford ever tried to
put on the market was a renamed golf cart called the Think. If it's
whinging to point out that a golf cart is not a real car then I'm a
whinger.
Anthony
Fran
wrote:
I apologise for the ambiguity. In Australia, the baseload plants run
all the time, but during the off peak the baseload plants is backed
off and marginal power tends to be supplied from gas turbine or
hydro.
Fran
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Whata Fool wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > >Tom Gardner wrote:
> >
> > > >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
> > > >> every year.
> >
> > > >Where are these millions of abortions ?
> >
> > > >Graham
> >
> > > All over the world, has to be more than 100 million,
> > > 48 million in the US alone.
> >
> > >http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
> >
> > 48 million abortions every year in the USA ?
> >
> > You're on crack sunshine.
> >
> > Graham
>
> The source says since 1973
Tom's post was about "the millions of abortions every year", so Whata Fool's response
doesn't really address that at an average 1.37 million US abortions annually. I'm
surprised it's that high though.
Graham
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
I doubt that would happen with nuclear plants. They like to run best at a more or less
fixed output that's a large percentage of capacity.
Graham
Whata Fool
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> Fran wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even allowing that there might be some who
>>>>>>> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
>>>>>>> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate
>>>>>>> change, who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the
>>>>>>> stuff that pours out of car exhausts
>>>>>> What pollution ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the relatively ancient Saab 9000 was able to advertise that its
>>>>>> exhaust fumes could be cleaner than inner city air ! It was one of
>>>>>> the first cars that could actually clean the air as it was driven
>>>>>> along.
>>>>> Did you have a relevant point?
>>>> As I said in my previous post "what pollution ?". Cars certainly
>>>> should not be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks
>>>> (you DO have annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the
>>>> emission levels.
>
>
>
>Check for what? We are supposed to believe CO2 is a pollutant, they all
>put out some CO2.
And also _H2O_, don't forget that, an electric car running
on batteries puts out no H2O at all.
>>> Pretty surprising statement. The entire planet disagrees.
>>
>> You're talking out of your backside. Only to be expected from the fabulously
>> ignorant 'greenie' community. You couldn't tell one end of a cluebat from
>> the other.
>>
>> Graham
Too bad that the region that needs zero emission electric cars
(southern California) the most does not have much nuclear power or
even excess coal or natural gas generating capacity.
But things are about to change, with battery storage 50 to 100
percent greater in batteries being produced now, and 4 or more times
the cycle lifetime, even the small garages doing Plug-in Electric Vehicle
conversions will be able to make a difference.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105.htm
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&id=20105&a=
http://www.lightningcarcompany.com/gallery.php#
Whata Fool
Isn't Globble Warming supposed to kill humans?
See, another self regulating mechanism in nature.
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
A press release or vague claim on a website doesn't make it true. What's happened to Eestor for example ? It's all gone horribly quiet
on that front.
Graham
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
>>>>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
>>>>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
>>>> Largely true.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>> Lousy when people spread the truth, isn't it.
>>
>> It never was true, Auxiliary generators have been available for
>> less than $1000 for many years.
>
>But they are gas powered, that means the car is not on batteries.
>
>>
>> What the general public and apparently the auto engineers don't
>> know is that an electric car with an auxiliary generator can get double
>> the mileage of an ICE car.
>>
>
>And no better than a VW Diesel.
Actually, much better, and I will not be driving a diesel.
>> All the engineers need to do to be convinced is drive their best
>> mileage car for an hour on a closed track at 3000 RPM in highest gear,
>> and then put the car in a test bay with a fan if needed to keep the
>> engine from overheating and run the engine at 3000 RPM for an hour in
>> neutral and see how much difference in fuel is used.
>> It takes more fuel to turn the engine than to overcome rolling
>> and wind resistance.
Having all cars get as good mileage as a VW diesel would be good.
And there is a limit to how much diesel can be made, that is why
diesel is still higher than gasoline.
Whata Fool
>On May 3, 7:26?am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> ?wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:41b1abc8-e7f3-40cf...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> >An interesting piece which highlights the fact that even those who
>> >believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
>> >to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
>> >the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
>> >produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
>> >mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
>> >on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
>> >consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
>> >worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
>>
>> >If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
>> >(let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
>> >then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
>> >effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
>> ><snip>
>> >****************************************************
>>
>> >I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
>> >or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
>> >coal burned to generate power. (But, they make the left "Feel Good", and that's
>> >what counts!)
>>
>> >If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
>> >every year.
>>
>> ? ? ? What did you think she meant by "birth control"?
>
>
>He didn't think anything. Very little birth control, proportionately,
>entails abortion. Most is 'prophylactic' -- creating circumstances in
>which women and girls can avoid conception until that is their active
>choice. The spread of condoms would also have an ancillary benefit --
>reducing the transmission of other fatal or life-altering STIs. AIDS
>alreadul kills a huge number of people and imposes a heavy burden on
>economies (especially in the developing world). Throw in chlamydia,
>gonorrhea, hepatitis, syphilis, and even comparatively banal
>conditions such as candida (which can lead to cervical cancer) and the
>case for empowering women is compelling.
>
>Fran
No thanks, I will stick with abstention, there are a number
of things about monogamous marriages that have great advantages over
liberal promiscuity.
Whata Fool
It is definitely millions per year, although the word must
be getting around that abortion causes mental anguish.
48 million total in the US alone over a 55 year period,
all because a liberal committed perjury in federal court.
Whata Fool
A couple of the new batteries use carbon, and lead, but much less
lead than the traditional lead-acid battery.
And as long as the material can be recycled, the supply will improve,
very few cars have lithium now.
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
> >Whata Fool wrote:
> >>
> >> What the general public and apparently the auto engineers don't
> >> know is that an electric car with an auxiliary generator can get double
> >> the mileage of an ICE car.
> >
> >And no better than a VW Diesel.
>
> Actually, much better, and I will not be driving a diesel.
Any particular reason ?
Graham
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >Whata Fool wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> >Tom Gardner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
> >> >> every year.
> >> >
> >> >Where are these millions of abortions ?
> >> >
> >> >Graham
> >>
> >> All over the world, has to be more than 100 million,
> >> 48 million in the US alone.
> >>
> >> http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
> >
> >48 million abortions every year in the USA ?
> >
> >You're on crack sunshine.
>
> It is definitely millions per year, although the word must
> be getting around that abortion causes mental anguish.
>
> 48 million total in the US alone over a 55 year period,
> all because a liberal committed perjury in federal court.
Would you really rather have had 48 million unwanted children ?
Besides if it's made illegal it simply tends to go 'back street'.
Graham
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ? :) " wrote:
> >
> >> The price of copper may put the brakes on electric cars.
> >
> >And nickel, cadmium and lithium.
> >
> >I wonder if anyone at all has projected how much of certain more exotic raw materials is ever
> >likely to be required to 'replace' the ICE (which itself uses raw materials like iron, steel
> >and aluminium that are wonderfully abundant).
>
> A couple of the new batteries use carbon, and lead, but much less
> lead than the traditional lead-acid battery.
Could you point me to any info on those ?
> And as long as the material can be recycled, the supply will improve,
> very few cars have lithium now.
My point is, is there enough of the raw materials around even to make enough batteries for X
hundred million EVs in the first place, never mind the recycling issue.
Graham
Poetic Justice
You know charging lead acid batteries expels hydrogen and hydrogen is
explosive.... and how much acidic vapor will reach the air around us,
will we get acidic lakes?
Diesel is more expensive due to the extra tax on it. Diesel actually
takes less refining to make..... and the VW diesel gets 52 MPG Hwy.
RadicalModerate
> Whata Fool wrote:
>> The problem is, the outhouse rumor grapevine has killed electric
>> cars by spreading the "word" that an electric car can't go more than
>> 30 or 40 miles on it's batteries
> Largely true.
I believe there are many people in the USA who could find a car with 30-40
mile range useful; however it would have to be a 'second' car PLUS there's
the matter of making available public charging stations (huge capital
investment and large ongoing maintenance expense).
What I've had thoughts of is a serial hybrid-oid, that is a small,
lightweight car which uses batteries for motive power but has a small,
lightweight combustion engine/alternator/AC_commpressor set which can be
used for heater/defog/defroster, ventilation and air chilling (HVAC) and
charging when a charging station is not handy. An Auxiliary Power Unit
(APU) if you will.
If power-assisted steering and brakes are required an "elect-draulic" pump
and accumulator would do nicely.
HVAC is something which depletes batteries, from the experience of the
General Motors "EV-1" users and THOSE users were in moderate-to-hot
climates where they wouldn't need a defroster or cabin (comfort) heat.
In addition cold climates have an additional challenge of batteries not
being able to supply their full rated output and charge acceptance unless
they are warmed up.
Nonetheless I don't see why someone couldn't be able to build such a
vehicle and sell it profitably.
It would have to a smaller, more agile outfit then the large carmakers
however.
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Poetic Justice
>
> Fran wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Fran wrote:
>>>> "Tom Gardner" wrote:
>>>>> I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
>>>>> or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
>>>>> coal burned to generate power.
>>>> Misleading. It depends on when the cars are recharged. In most places,
>>>> in practice, vehicles would be recharged from home overnight, when
>>>> peaking rather than baseload plants would be used. Typically, these
>>>> are either gas turbine or hydro and in an increasing number of cases
>>>> wind.
>>> Eh ? Where did you get that idea ? It's the baseload plants that are running
>>> overnight.
>> I apologise for the ambiguity. In Australia, the baseload plants run
>> all the time, but during the off peak the baseload plants is backed
>> off and marginal power tends to be supplied from gas turbine or
>> hydro.
We have turbines that come online during peak load.
RadicalModerate
> As I said in my previous post "what pollution ?". Cars certainly should not
> be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks (you DO have
> annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the emission levels.
I don't know what they're doing in Blighty (I/M 240 maybe?[1]) but in many
parts of the USA instead of testing actual tailpipe emissions, the
emissions inspections rely on an absence of certain fault/trouble codes
from the On Board Diagnostics version 2 (OBD2,began model-year 1996) in
the Powertrain Control Module with 2002 and newer models having 2 extra oxygen
sensors up and downstream of the catalyst(s) to verify proper
operation.
[1] I/M 240 or in some parts of the USA called "Enhanced Inspection and
Maintenance" involves the use of a small chassis dyno to place a varying
test load on the powertrain while the inspector is prompted to simulate a
cycle of urban and freeway/Interstate/motorway driving for about 4 minutes
( 240 sec.) while hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and dioxide and nitrogen
oxides emissions are measured.
Eeyore
RadicalModerate wrote:
That sounds very thorough.
It's actual tailpipe emissions that are measured here.
Graham
Whata Fool
It was over 2 million, and only reduced in the last few years,
but globally, it must be way more than 2 million per year.
A very sad situation, considering the Supreme Court was used and
abused, causing a big mistake, laws of such consequence should not
result from lies.
Whata Fool
Maybe production is sold out,
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/16062/1066/
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/28/3608505.html
See CityZENN.
Whata Fool
It costs 50 cents more than gasoline, the car is more expensive,
I am sensitive to noise and the smell, any VW is too small to suit me,
I never buy a new car, not all gas stations here have diesel, and I will
be driving my 1982 Cadillacs giving 20 MPG indefinitely if I can keep
them running. I am not sure if the 1982 HT4100 DFI is the first
GM production FI car or not.
Whata Fool
>
>
>Whata Fool wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >Whata Fool wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >Tom Gardner wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of abortions
>> >> >> every year.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where are these millions of abortions ?
>> >> >
>> >> >Graham
>> >>
>> >> All over the world, has to be more than 100 million,
>> >> 48 million in the US alone.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html
>> >
>> >48 million abortions every year in the USA ?
>> >
>> >You're on crack sunshine.
>>
>> It is definitely millions per year, although the word must
>> be getting around that abortion causes mental anguish.
>>
>> 48 million total in the US alone over a 55 year period,
>> all because a liberal committed perjury in federal court.
>
>Would you really rather have had 48 million unwanted children ?
I don't know many people that have children that don't love them,
do you think anything changed in 1973 as far as loving one's children?
>Besides if it's made illegal it simply tends to go 'back street'.
>
>Graham
There is lots of heartache either way, I think maybe the admission
of the Roe vs Wade perjury is part of what made the number drop from
2 million way down, maybe they can't rationalize the horror now.
Poetic Justice
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>
>>> Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>>>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>>> What the general public and apparently the auto engineers don't
>>>>> know is that an electric car with an auxiliary generator can get double
>>>>> the mileage of an ICE car.
>>>> And no better than a VW Diesel.
>>> Actually, much better, and I will not be driving a diesel.
>> Any particular reason ?
>>
>> Graham
>
> It costs 50 cents more than gasoline, the car is more expensive,
Tax on diesel is about 45 cents that's maybe 25 cents more for tax.
Diesel was cheaper than gas a number of years ago.
> I am sensitive to noise and the smell, any VW is too small to suit me,
Hybrids are small also.
> I never buy a new car, not all gas stations here have diesel, and I will
> be driving my 1982 Cadillacs giving 20 MPG indefinitely if I can keep
enjoy....
> them running. I am not sure if the 1982 HT4100 DFI is the first
> GM production FI car or not.
Throttle body Fuel Injection was popular in the 80's
? why would I care?
Whata Fool
>
>
>Whata Fool wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >"Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ? :) " wrote:
>> >
>> >> The price of copper may put the brakes on electric cars.
>> >
>> >And nickel, cadmium and lithium.
>> >
>> >I wonder if anyone at all has projected how much of certain more exotic raw materials is ever
>> >likely to be required to 'replace' the ICE (which itself uses raw materials like iron, steel
>> >and aluminium that are wonderfully abundant).
>>
>> A couple of the new batteries use carbon, and lead, but much less
>> lead than the traditional lead-acid battery.
>
>Could you point me to any info on those ?
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273&Itemid=100
Check out the spec sheet, this is a battery that only uses the
carbon foam in one electrode or plate, but it still gives about 4 or 5
times the recharge life of a regular deep cycle (golf cart) battery,
when the next phase with all carbon foam is ready, thousands of
recharges should be possible without degradation.
>> And as long as the material can be recycled, the supply will improve,
>> very few cars have lithium now.
>
>My point is, is there enough of the raw materials around even to make enough batteries for X
>hundred million EVs in the first place, never mind the recycling issue.
>
>Graham
Carbon foam, sure, lead maybe, nickel, too expensive, lithium,
maybe, nano technology, sure, ultracapacitors, probably.
In all the new technologies for personal transport it is
the various different things that will make the difference, one alone
of anything would not be enough.
These carbon foam lead-acid batteries may not look like
a big deal on the spec sheet, but to illustrate the difference they
can make with up to 800 recharge life, a standard cheap car battery
should be replaced if it is run all the way down more than once or
twice, the spiral wound batteries are good for several full discharges,
the old deep cycle batteries are good for maybe 200 discharges with
luck and good maintenance, so 800 discharges is really a big difference,
and if the price is right, just what the electric vehicle needs.
Whata Fool
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >A press release or vague claim on a website doesn't make it true. What's happened to Eestor for >example ? It's all gone horribly
> quieton that front.
> >
> >Graham
>
> Maybe production is sold out,
There is no production AIUI.
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/16062/1066/
>
> http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/3/28/3608505.html
>
> See CityZENN.
Zenn is making excuses for delays associated with the alleged Eestor parts.
Eestor was making remarkable claims that didn't stand up to much scrutiny. There's NOTHING new about using ceramics for capacitors and one
characteristic they have is that capacitance falls with applied voltage which makes their claims even more dubious. I'm highly sceptical.
Graham
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Would you really rather have had 48 million unwanted children ?
>
> I don't know many people that have children that don't love them,
> do you think anything changed in 1973 as far as loving one's children?
I think you need to take off those rose tinted glasses. Never even ever heard of child
abuse ?
Graham
Peter Franks
> According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of
> California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction
> benefits would result from converting the entire California motor
> vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
> technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than
> relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion
> figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global
> warming emissions.
What is an example of a ZEV?
Whata Fool
They measured them in the big city county here until about 5 years
ago, costing $7.00, but so few cars had problems, the testing was
discontinued.
If a catalytic converter is working properly, the cars since
1993 are all digital fuel injected, and the engine light comes on
if any sensor is out of range.
Most cars need a dedicated computer hooked up to see which
sensor is a problem, my 1982 Fleetwoods give a readout at the
climate control display.
Yes, climate change doesn't bother me because I have
climate control.
Poetic Justice
NIKE
Eeyore
Peter Franks wrote:
One that uses false accounting to make the emissions 'go away' ! ;~)
Graham
Fran
e.g. a vehicle powered exclusively from electricity raised from a non-
emitting source such as wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, hydro, OTEC, PV
etc.
While it's true that some emissions are associated with constructing
these power sources, and to some extent, the manufacturing processes
associated withe vehicle and especially its battery, there are no
emissions associated with operation of the vehicle.
Fran
Whata Fool
Not by husband or wife, it is usually by a boy friend or
somebody other than mother or father.
I can't justify 48 million abortions because a kid gets hurt,
but then that is just me, I do think abortion is a bad decision.
Fran
wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> > > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
>
> > >> > I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come
> > >> > from nuclear or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and
> > >> > make the left "Feel Good", and that's what counts!)
>
> > >> You are claiming the power sources are dirtier on average than gasoline
> > >> combustion? Be interesting to see that proven. We have a nuclear power
> > >> station about 30 miles away.
>
> > > He said COAL fired stations are dirtier, which they certainly are.
>
> > I understand his point, but it would take a bit of research among coal fired
> > plants to see the amount of pollution per KW/hr because I'm sure it varies a
> > lot!
>
> Yes it absolutely will do according to the technology used and indeed the
> 'quality' of the coal.
>
> Nevertheless, a gasoline engine will invariable be 'cleaner' than ANY coal fired
> power station. NO harmful particulates for starters. No CO to talk of either.
> Not sure how the NOx compares.
That's not quite so. As a matter of practice, substantial emissions
are associated with the period of operation prior to the catalytic
converter becoming warm enough to operate at full efficiency. Even
then, a continuous stream of aerosols is emitted including CO, SO2,
NOx, N2O, formaldehyde ...
Moreover, bearing in mind that catalytic converters are now essential
to vehicle operation, proper analysis must include emissions
associated with the lifecycle of production of catalytic converters.
SO2 associated with this process is very substantial.
Morevever, a range of rare materials including rhodium, palladium,
gold and platinum are used in the manufacture of cat converters, so
all of the emissions and waste associated with the harvest and
refinement of these materials must be included in the petroleum-
fuelled engine's profile.
Fran
Whata Fool
A hydrogen fuel cell or even a hydrogen powered ICE would
qualify as a ZEV, as only water is supposed to be emitted.
Fran
wrote:
> Poetic Justice wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> > >>> Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> > >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> > >>>>> Fran wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Even allowing that there might be some who
> > >>>>>> through paranoia about government or failure to be able to work out
> > >>>>>> who is telling the truth about CO2's role in forcing climate
> > >>>>>> change, who in their right mind thinks polluting the air with the
> > >>>>>> stuff that pours out of car exhausts
> > >>>>> What pollution ?
>
> > >>>>> Even the relatively ancient Saab 9000 was able to advertise that its
> > >>>>> exhaust fumes could be cleaner than inner city air ! It was one of
> > >>>>> the first cars that could actually clean the air as it was driven
> > >>>>> along.
> > >>>> Did you have a relevant point?
> > >>> should not be a big problem any more as long as their annual checks
> > >>> (you DO have annual checks where you live don't you ?) test the
> > >>> emission levels.
>
> > put out some CO2.
>
>
> Even us humans exhale CO2 for God's sake. So kill all humans and solve the
> frigging 'global warming problem' FFS !
Yes, but there are two important differences here, one of which you
touch upon in your rhetorical response.
a) the CO2 exhaled by humans was drawn from our own respiration cycle
rather than the harvest of carbon sources hitherto sequestered from
the air.
b) the purpose of mitigating CO2 concentration is, ultimately, to
serve human interests. Whether we are net emitters or not is moot. We
are an end in ourselves, and what we want to do is to devise a scheme
which allows us to live as well as we can for as long as is possible
on the back of resources we can contrive or harvest. Accordingly, our
challenge is to find ways of reconciling the oxidation of carbon
central to our existences with the need to avoid running up
inventories of CO2 stored in marine and terrestrial sinks because at
some point in the indefinite future these sinks will become saturated
and new CO2 will simply accumulate in the atmosphere, to our direct
and immediate detriment.
Continually using energy to dig up the energy treasure of the
carboniferous era and oxiding this cannot continue indefinitely
without humanity paying a serious price in its wellbeing at some point
in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it's clear from the original post
that we are already paying a serious price in human health for resort
to this form of energy for reasons that are tangential to our
principal energy harvest processes. Global warming is already
prejudicing biodiversity, and triggering desertification, crop
failures through drought, heat waves, more intense storms and so
forth. It is already forcing us to reconsider the design of coastal
developments, the configuration and location of port infrastructure,
systems for the delivery of water and much more.
This is likely to get quite a bit worse before (if ever) it gets
better, and the sooner we begin to take serious steps to live
ecologically within our means, harvesting from the biospheric cycle
rather than on the capital of past geological ages, the sooner we will
begin to mitigate the problems associated withy climate change.
What the article above shows is that we need not await precise data on
how much harm and in what periodicity we will be harmed by climate
change. Acting now will give us tangible benefits within the window of
our own lifetimes, while laying a platform for future generations to
avoid bearing the cost of our current energy folly.
Fran
Fran
wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Tom Gardner wrote:
> > > > "Eeyore" wrote
>
> > > > >> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of
> > > > >> abortions every year.
>
> > > > > Where are these millions of abortions ?
>
>
> > > Would you care to get closer than 'planet' ? Maybe you could name a country
>
> > In many countries abortion stats include involuntary miscarriages,
> > seriously prejudicing the figures upwards.
>
> Do they really ? That's obviously utterly ridiculous.
>
> Also makes you wonder why 'God' wanted those kids to be aborted ! ;~)
>
If you're religious, you can always find a justification.
The broader point is that abortions are not murder. From a biological
point of view, the embryo/fetus is a parasite with the potential to
become a human being. No person ought to be compelled to tolerate a
parasite in their body.
I respect the right to life of those who have become human beings, but
it seems to me that there isn't any intrinsic right to *become* a
human being.
I'm more concerned with practical human wellbeing. I see no intrinsic
virtue in having offspring. If the offspring will, as a matter of
practice, have very poor quality of life and/or very poor life chances
and/or lower the life chances of the living then I can see a
persuasive argument for preventing them on the grounds of abating
suffering. Ideally, effective action would be taken to foreclose
conception, because terminations are inherently risky to the mother
and costly to the populace, particularly in places where health care
is sub-optimal and the country is poor.
One might wonder what the bill in human misery would have been if all
those children aborted had lived -- Very considerable, statistically,
given the socio-economic distribution patterns of unwanted pregnancy.
Fran
Fran
> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
It depends on how the hydrogen was raised. Most is currently raised
from methane, so that's not zero emissions. In an ICE, H2 has to be
allowed to be boiled off to the atmosphere, although that's not
harmful, just costly.
The fuel cells require noble metals, the production of which is
obviously not emission free. Hydrogen has to be transported and that's
not emission free either.
There are no emissions associated with transmission of electricity,
except, arguably, the cost in energy-realted emissions associated with
line maintenance.
Fran
Whata Fool
>On May 4, 3:15?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> ? ? ? A hydrogen fuel cell or even a hydrogen powered ICE would
>> qualify as a ZEV, as only water is supposed to be emitted.
>
>It depends on how the hydrogen was raised. Most is currently raised
>from methane, so that's not zero emissions. In an ICE, H2 has to be
>allowed to be boiled off to the atmosphere, although that's not
>harmful, just costly.
Do you know what you are talking about? Why would H2
have to be allowed to boil off, the answer should be a good laugh.
>The fuel cells require noble metals, the production of which is
>obviously not emission free. Hydrogen has to be transported and that's
>not emission free either.
>
>There are no emissions associated with transmission of electricity,
>except, arguably, the cost in energy-realted emissions associated with
>line maintenance.
>
>Fran
Did you ever have a wrench in your hand?
Fran
> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 4, 3:15?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> ? ? ? A hydrogen fuel cell or even a hydrogen powered ICE would
> >> qualify as a ZEV, as only water is supposed to be emitted.
>
> >It depends on how the hydrogen was raised. Most is currently raised
> >from methane, so that's not zero emissions. In an ICE, H2 has to be
> >allowed to be boiled off to the atmosphere, although that's not
> >harmful, just costly.
>
> Do you know what you are talking about? Why would H2
> have to be allowed to boil off, the answer should be a good laugh.
>
||||
The other difference, if you got down here, this is what we call our
boil-off management system or BMS. These are not exhaust pipes, those
are over there, but because hydrogen is always evaporating in liquid
form and if you allow the gas to keep evaporating inside the tank and
if you didn't have a way for that gas to escape, the hydrogen tank
could be a bit of a problem. So they've built in this boil-off
management system, and what happens is...let's say the car is
stationary for 17 hours, the boil-off management system automatically
kicks in, brings air in through the hydrogen tank and then creates a
vacuum. The gaseous hydrogen then comes out of the other side, that
other expulsion area down there, in the form of water droplets, and
that's as much emission as you would have.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2201804.htm
|||
> >The fuel cells require noble metals, the production of which is
> >obviously not emission free. Hydrogen has to be transported and that's
> >not emission free either.
>
> >There are no emissions associated with transmission of electricity,
> >except, arguably, the cost in energy-realted emissions associated with
> >line maintenance.
>
> >Fran
>
> Did you ever have a wrench in your hand?
Yes. Your point being?
Fran
Fran
> >> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> ?wrote:
>
> >> >"Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:41b1abc8-e7f3-40cf...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >An interesting piece which highlights the fact that even those who
> >> >believe that 'the jury is still out' on AGW and climate change ought
> >> >to support the mitigation measures on other grounds. Far from wrecking
> >> >the economy or being a waste of money, the mitigation measures would
> >> >produce measurable benefits above and beyond those associated with
> >> >mitigation of GHG-driven climate change. So acting now is not a gamble
> >> >on the science being right, but an investment, the positve
> >> >consequences of which (in the minds of 'skeptics') will either be very
> >> >worthwhile, or crucial to humanity's well being.
>
> >> >If $100 billion can be saved in California alone just in lung disease
> >> >(let's not mention the 360 premature deaths, lost productivity etc)
> >> >then what would the world figure be like? What about acid rain's
> >> >effects on buildings and forests? The oceans?
> >> ><snip>
> >> >****************************************************
>
> >> >I'm a big fan of electric cars but, if the electricity doesn't come from nuclear
> >> >or hydro, the electric car causes MORE pollution and MORE CO2 because of the
> >> >coal burned to generate power. (But, they make the left "Feel Good", and that's
> >> >what counts!)
>
> >> >every year.
>
>
> >He didn't think anything. Very little birth control, proportionately,
> >entails abortion. Most is 'prophylactic' -- creating circumstances in
> >which women and girls can avoid conception until that is their active
> >choice. The spread of condoms would also have an ancillary benefit --
> >reducing the transmission of other fatal or life-altering STIs. AIDS
> >alreadul kills a huge number of people and imposes a heavy burden on
> >economies (especially in the developing world). Throw in chlamydia,
> >gonorrhea, hepatitis, syphilis, and even comparatively banal
> >conditions such as candida (which can lead to cervical cancer) and the
> >case for empowering women is compelling.
>
> >Fran
>
> No thanks, I will stick with abstention
Here, unwittingly, you put your finger on the problem. Abstention is a
perfectly valid choice for those whose circumstances permit it. You
are a middle class American male. You are in a fundamentally different
position to women and girls in general, poor women and girls in
particular and women and girls in the developing world even more so.
While it's fair enough to tell them they ought to be able to say no,
the practical reality is that in many cases, they are in no position
to do more than negotiate the terms of their sexual service. That's
the unpleasant reality. It simply isn't open, for example, to married
women to decide they've had enough children or enough sex.
Improving the staus of women and girls, especially in the developing
world is a basis both for policies which facilitate the possibility of
abstention and the opportunity to use condoms, and if necessary,
agents such as RU486, and if it comes to that, surgical abortions.
The other fact is that Bush admin policies favouring chastity have
simply failed to make any measurable headway.
> there are a number
> of things about monogamous marriages that have great advantages over
> liberal promiscuity
That may well be so, but even monogamous marriages can produce a lot
more children than a family cn support, and has anyone ever heard of
people who favour monogamous marriages sleeping about? I'm sure I've
read about it somewhere ... ;-)
Men who expect faithful wives don't always remain faithful themselves,
oddly enough. Condoms, and to a lesser extent, contraception, can at
least reduce some of the backwash from the more typical usages of
life.
Fran
Peter Franks
Nope. Use of those results in the emission of so-called greenhouse gases.
Peter Franks
> On May 4, 12:09 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of
>>> California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction
>>> benefits would result from converting the entire California motor
>>> vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
>>> technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than
>>> relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion
>>> figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global
>>> warming emissions.
>> What is an example of a ZEV?
>
> e.g. a vehicle powered exclusively from electricity raised from a non-
> emitting source such as wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, hydro, OTEC, PV
> etc.
Or nuclear, right?
Poetic Justice
The emission from hydrogen fuel is steam.... isn't that creating
greenhouse gas. If it comes out of the air as rain then it will erode
more soil and have a cooling affect on the planet as more clouds and
more rain?
pollution is a wide net to cast, soil erosion by water vapor from man
made machines is pollution is it not?
Poetic Justice
> On May 3, 11:11 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> "Eeyore" wrote
>>>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>> If you're concerned about death, campaign to prevent the millions of
>>>>>>> abortions every year.
>>>>>> Where are these millions of abortions ?
>>>>> What planet do YOU call home?
>>>> Would you care to get closer than 'planet' ? Maybe you could name a country
>>> In many countries abortion stats include involuntary miscarriages,
>>> seriously prejudicing the figures upwards.
>> Do they really ? That's obviously utterly ridiculous.
>>
>> Also makes you wonder why 'God' wanted those kids to be aborted ! ;~)
>>
>
> If you're religious, you can always find a justification.
No, but if you're insane you can.
Fran
That's a fair description of your fundamentalist religionists.
Fran
Fran
No, because mining uranium/thorium and operating a nuclear plant has
emissions associated with it, although per unit of power delivered,
they would be very low compared with a coal plant.
But as I noted to Vaughan above, even wind plants probably can't, on
the strictest definition, count as *zero* emissions although their
emissions are correlated with time rather than output.
Strictly speaking then I should have stuck with my usual terminology
"low emissions" low carbon footprint" etc.
Fran.
Peter Franks
> On May 5, 2:59 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On May 4, 12:09 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Fran wrote:
>>>>> According to a study sponsored by the American Lung Association of
>>>>> California, $142 billion in human health and global warming reduction
>>>>> benefits would result from converting the entire California motor
>>>>> vehicle fleet from gasoline vehicles to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
>>>>> technologies in the 2010-2030 time frame, or $96 billion more than
>>>>> relying on the lowest emitting gasoline technologies. The $142 billion
>>>>> figure includes $38 billion in benefits to society from reduced global
>>>>> warming emissions.
>>>> What is an example of a ZEV?
>>> e.g. a vehicle powered exclusively from electricity raised from a non-
>>> emitting source such as wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, hydro, OTEC, PV
>>> etc.
>> Or nuclear, right?-
>
>
> No, because mining uranium/thorium and operating a nuclear plant has
> emissions associated with it, although per unit of power delivered,
> they would be very low compared with a coal plant.
Mining of the resources to create and maintain the technologies you
enumerated have emissions associated with them.
> But as I noted to Vaughan above, even wind plants probably can't, on
> the strictest definition, count as *zero* emissions although their
> emissions are correlated with time rather than output.
>
> Strictly speaking then I should have stuck with my usual terminology
> "low emissions" low carbon footprint" etc.
Ok, so there is no such thing as a ZEV.
Whata Fool
>On May 4, 4:09?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> ?wrote:
>> >On May 4, 3:15?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> >> ? ? ? A hydrogen fuel cell or even a hydrogen powered ICE would
>> >> qualify as a ZEV, as only water is supposed to be emitted.
>>
>> >It depends on how the hydrogen was raised. Most is currently raised
>> >from methane, so that's not zero emissions. In an ICE, H2 has to be
>> >allowed to be boiled off to the atmosphere, although that's not
>> >harmful, just costly.
>>
>
>
>> ? ? ? Do you know what you are talking about? ? ?Why would H2
>> have to be allowed to boil off, the answer should be a good laugh.
>>
>||||
>The other difference, if you got down here, this is what we call our
>boil-off management system or BMS. These are not exhaust pipes, those
>are over there, but because hydrogen is always evaporating in liquid
>form and if you allow the gas to keep evaporating inside the tank and
>if you didn't have a way for that gas to escape, the hydrogen tank
>could be a bit of a problem. So they've built in this boil-off
>management system, and what happens is...let's say the car is
>stationary for 17 hours, the boil-off management system automatically
>kicks in, brings air in through the hydrogen tank and then creates a
>vacuum. The gaseous hydrogen then comes out of the other side, that
>other expulsion area down there, in the form of water droplets, and
>that's as much emission as you would have.
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2201804.htm
>|||
I suppose it could be different in OZ, but here, the hydrogen
tanks are built to take high pressure, the link describes the BMW
dual fuel car which costs 2 Million. The difference is about
10,000 PSI, the cryogenic tank stays cold because the evaporation
keeps it cool as long as there is fuel to boil, at only 30 or 40
pounds pressure.
Using a system where the fuel can't be stored indefinitely
is not a good idea. Also, each pound of hydrogen allowed to
boil off and combine with oxygen (in air) produces 60,000 BTU,
and the whole tank of hydrogen would boil off in 2 or 3 weeks.
>> >The fuel cells require noble metals, the production of which is
>> >obviously not emission free. Hydrogen has to be transported and that's
>> >not emission free either.
>>
>> >There are no emissions associated with transmission of electricity,
>> >except, arguably, the cost in energy-realted emissions associated with
>> >line maintenance.
>>
>> >Fran
>>
>> ? ? ? Did you ever have a wrench in your hand?
>
>
>Yes. Your point being?
>
>Fran
I have to admit you may have as much know-how as the people
designing a car that uses cryogenic oxygen tanks.
Maybe their slogan will be "use it, or lose it".
I think BMW has a problem that needs abandoned.
Fran
Strictly speaking, yes. I must admit, this is the first time I've
heard the term.
Fran
Peter Franks
Ok then.
With that in mind, nuclear power is a viable option, right?
Fran
> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
I heard a figure of 17 days cited though I'm not sure if this was for
half a tank or the whole tank.
>
> >> ? ? ? Did you ever have a wrench in your hand?
>
> >Yes. Your point being?
>
> >Fran
>
> I have to admit you may have as much know-how as the people
> designing a car that uses cryogenic oxygen tanks.
One would hope not, as I'm no engineer.
> Maybe their slogan will be "use it, or lose it".
>
> I think BMW has a problem that needs abandoned
I can't see how hydrogen could ever be a cost- or operationally
feasible energy medium. There's the chicken and egg problem. Nobody is
going to retool to build hydrogen cars at commercial volume -- (say
several million per year) until there is adequate distribution
infrastructure and vice versa. Why would retailers go to the expense
of putting in the expensive equipment needed to deliver it if there
were hardly any buyers?
In theory, it sounds great, but the practical hurdles are likely to
remain an absolute bar. Maybe you could use it run run heavy freight
trains where there are no overhead lines, or heavy shipping since the
storage question isn't going to be as big an issue as with cars.
Fran
Eeyore
Fran wrote:
> Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >
> > I have to admit you may have as much know-how as the people
> > designing a car that uses cryogenic oxygen tanks.
>
> One would hope not, as I'm no engineer.
I suspect Fran knows at least as much about it as the average usenet poster
(if not more in fact), some of whom seem to think you only need 'green faerie
magic' to make things work !
> > Maybe their slogan will be "use it, or lose it".
> >
> > I think BMW has a problem that needs abandoned
>
> I can't see how hydrogen could ever be a cost- or operationally
> feasible energy medium.
Me neither. There will *always be a better way. The overall efficiency of
hydrogen to get energy from A to B is truly lousy before you even factor in
all the problems regarding carting liquid or high pressure H2 around.
> There's the chicken and egg problem. Nobody is
> going to retool to build hydrogen cars at commercial volume -- (say
> several million per year) until there is adequate distribution
> infrastructure and vice versa. Why would retailers go to the expense
> of putting in the expensive equipment needed to deliver it if there
> were hardly any buyers?
And who wants to drive a bomb ?
> In theory, it sounds great, but the practical hurdles are likely to
> remain an absolute bar. Maybe you could use it run run heavy freight
> trains where there are no overhead lines, or heavy shipping since the
> storage question isn't going to be as big an issue as with cars.
Big ships already get 50% efficiency from their large diesel engines.
Hydrogen could *never* compete with that.
Graham
Whata Fool
>I can't see how hydrogen could ever be a cost- or operationally
>feasible energy medium. There's the chicken and egg problem. Nobody is
>going to retool to build hydrogen cars at commercial volume -- (say
>several million per year) until there is adequate distribution
>infrastructure and vice versa. Why would retailers go to the expense
>of putting in the expensive equipment needed to deliver it if there
>were hardly any buyers?
>
>In theory, it sounds great, but the practical hurdles are likely to
>remain an absolute bar. Maybe you could use it run run heavy freight
>trains where there are no overhead lines, or heavy shipping since the
>storage question isn't going to be as big an issue as with cars.
>
>Fran
Any non-polluting means of transport has a use in certain
locations, even marginal energy systems like compressed air or
manufactured hydrogen. Los Angeles County should have had
something like trackless trolleys, but I don't remember seeing
a single one in 1965.
Hydrogen is good for a place like LA where the problem
is caused more by the area being a closed valley (part of it on
three sides with an offshore breeze).
But cryogenic tanks is hardly a reasonable system, too
expensive, too high tech, too wasteful of fuel while parked,
and a silly fuel to use in an ICE.
Hydrogen should only be used in fuel cells to power
Electric Vehicles, that could easily fit the term ZEV.
Cryogenic hydrogen cars is so silly I thought you were
even more daffy than usual.
Whata Fool
>Big ships already get 50% efficiency from their large diesel engines.
>Hydrogen could *never* compete with that.
>
>Graham
I think diesel engines will run on hydrogen. :-)
If a diesel will run on 90 percent natural gas,
I see no reason it wouldn't run on 90 percent diesel.
http://www.energyconversions.com/products.htm
Fran
I've long said so. I believe Thorium Oxide is the more feasible fuel
source, all things considered especially with a number of plants
approaching replacement time and non-proliferation a concern, and
bearing in mind that India has substantial supplies of thorium but not
uranium and is not an NNPT signatory.
It seems to me that nuclear must be a component in any low carbon
footprint energy mix, along with all the other suspects..
Fran
Fran
wrote:
Maybe not, but wouldn't a large cargo ship be up to carrying an MCFC,
perhaps running in combined cycle mode? Wouldn't the electric engine
it powered be more efficient than even the best diesel engine?
Wouldn't it be possible, at least in theory, to electrolyse seawater
in transit using either some sort of PV-based or wind turbine based
system?
Wouldn't it be something if you could create your fuel even as the
ship was in progress? Or maybe you could have a VLFS sitting out there
in a shipping lane cracking seawater and refueling ships.
As I said, I think hydrogen is at best of dubious feasibility, but I
was just trying to conceive of some setting in which it might be
viable.
Fran
Eeyore
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Big ships already get 50% efficiency from their large diesel engines.
> >Hydrogen could *never* compete with that.
> >
> >Graham
>
> I think diesel engines will run on hydrogen. :-)
I'm not sure they can actually.
> If a diesel will run on 90 percent natural gas,
> I see no reason it wouldn't run on 90 percent diesel.
They are completely different fuels with different burning
characteristics.
Graham
Poetic Justice
>>> Hydrogen could *never* compete with that.
It will be free and harmless and we'll all have lots of money and
everyone will be your friend, we'll have cars that fly and the
government will take care of us from diapers to Depends.