http://www.audittcca.com/polls

Vote now!

Jake

Hybrids are not the answer to any environmental problems.....

A good diesel gets better mileage than a hybrid.

Not as long as diesel is implicated in significantly higher cancer incidence AND still burns hydrocarbons.

Hybrids are not really much of an answer, either... they still burn gas.
Ethanol is perhaps the stupidest answer, nothing more than a way to divert federal money to corn growing states, all the arable land in the world can not provide enough ethanol to replace oil... and ethanol still adds to carbon loading.

The answer has to be clean sources of electricity and hydrogen. A hydrogen economy would go a long way toward solving warming, AND it would end dependance on foreign oil... If we really want to defeat islamic terrorism, getting off oil will be far more effective than any other approach.



Give me a next gen Hyrdogen/electric TT with a separate electric motor in each wheel... able to distribute power to the wheels in any combination that will maximize performance...

My concern is more along the lines of air pollution (I breath air) and fuel economy, not because I give a crap how much fuel a car burns, its that we purchase most of our fuel from people that don't like us (which is not our fault). If we could ensure that the air was clean and we could produce our own sources of fuel. I don't care how much fuel you burn.

Modern diesels for passenger cars that burn very expensive ultra-low sulfur fuel are "extremely" clean....but they still do burn hydrocarbons which we purchase from people that largely don't like us. The new BMW 520 diesel gets better mileage than a Toyota Prius. And it’s not a clown car and doesn't have any batteries.

Ethanol is stupid beyond belief. We should eat the corn and burn the gas. The production cost of ethanol and the LARGE reduction in fuel economy in vehicles that use it,  completely negates any of the stated benefits we were suppose to gain from using it. As a matter a fact we’re probably in the hole on ethanol (it’s worse than burning straight gas, for those of you in Rio Lindo). Not to mention the impact on the cost of food in this and other countries.

Hydrogen is almost as stupid as ethanol. The plans for providing the so called "Hydrogen Economy" are based on taking Hydrocarbon based fuel and extracting the Hydrogen for fuel. This requires a tremendous amount of energy to break the Hydrogen from the rest of the molecule so it can be used as fuel. The fuel that is going to power this transformation is a Hydrocarbon based fuel. Under present plans to provide Hydrogen as fuel we will take Natural gas and burn that to make electricity, we'll take the electricity and use that to break hydrogen off of more natural gas (BTW: what do you do with all the leftover carbon? For you global warmists). Then we'll take the hydrogen and pump that into a fuel cell to make electricity. By the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, we lose some energy in every transformation. Doesn't it make more sense either to burn the natural gas (or other hydrocarbon fuel) directly in a clean efficient engine OR to create electricity and charge a direct electric car? Now if you want to start building about 50 Nuclear Power plants in the USA right now, to power your Hydrogen Economy…..we might have something to discuss. However, if we did that….we’d still be better off charging electric cars with the electricity from the power plants.

Now….does anyone want to discuss the horrible environmental impact of producing batteries for electric cars (and hybrids)?

Your description of Hydrogen based economy is not accurate.

While there have been some ridiculous ideas put forth about cracking hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels... that is not the solution I am speaking of.
I am speaking of using electricity to split hydrogen and water... and doing so without burning fossil fuels to get the electricity.

( today's electrical cars, for example, simply transfer the burning of fuels from the engine, to the power utility.)


Currently, electrical generation is inefficient because it take hours to bring generators on and off line... therefore, electrical plants keep more generators turning than they need during low power demand, so that they can respond quickly enough during peak demand.

This is wasteful because we can not "bank" excess electrical power.... Some generators have huge flywheels, to store some excess power... but not nearly enough to really attain efficiency.

However, if we used excess electrical power to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, we could then store that hydrogen in large quantities, and burn it as needed to meet peak power demands.

More importantly, unlike flywheel storage, liquid hydrogen can be transported... piped to places far from the shoreline power sources where it is made... piped to places inland where it can be burned in smaller, highly efficient local stations to help meet peaks in demand.

Because liquid hydrogen is super cold, it can make the very pipe you pump it thru into a super conductor.... thus, a nationwide system of distributing hydrogen would also form the backbone of a newer super conducting power distribution grid.

Long distance transmission of electricity loses 20% or more of its power thru resistance. So a super-conducting grid, in itself, would yield 20% more power in and of itself.

This ability to pipe liquid hydrogen to wherever it is needed, and more efficiently distribute electricity on the grid, would have to be coupled with a dismantling of all oil, coal and gas fired generators... Primary electrical production would have to be Clean sources.... geothermal, solar, tidal, wind, and, most importantly, nuclear.

Nuclear is still a far safer form of electrical generation than coal, oil and gas.... when you consider the health effects of pollution, mining operations, water contamination thru mine tailings, acidification of lakes,rivers and farm soild... etc.)
While there is a lot of unwarranted hysteria over nuclear power and the radiological waste it produces.... I would point out that the amount of that waste is astonishingly small... ALL the nuclear waste produced in 40 years of nuclear plant operations is currently being stored ON SITE.... that is not a lot of waste.... and as to long term storage... I would point out that Americans are ridiculously over fearful of radioactivity.
ALL the radioactive materials we use were dug up out of the ground.... they have always been there... and, sure, we have purified them considerably... but its a lot easier and cheaper to Unpurify something than it is to purify it.




Thus, A true hydrogen economy would have the lowest possible carbon footprint, provide the cleanest air and water quality, and liberate us from foreign energy suppliers...

And I don't really care if it means I have to stop and fill my tank more often...if the only thing preventing hydrogen cars from entering the market is that they can't go 300 miles between fill ups.... so what?


But seriously... Hydrogen is the ONLY fuel that burns entirely clean, Producing only water. If we can secure a clean source of hydrogen, then we have the problem beat.
Sooner or later we are going to have to go for hydrogen.... why waste effort and time with temporary solutions like Hybrid technology? Ethanol? and other NON solutions.

Why not focus on the true goal and re-tool our world just once?