On 5 May 2007 at 20:04, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
> > That's not really a help. The power comes from mostly fossil-fuel > > burning power stations, > > It doesn't have to. Here in Texas, we lead the US in wind power > production and we do have nukes.....nukes that are being expanded as > we speak. If you want to get away from fossil fuels and oil cartel > influence, then automobiles are a good place to start. (Even though > they account for only 10% of carbon emissions.) Yea, in one area perhaps. Globally? Um. Sure, I'm pro-nuclear power. > > >and the car performance really suffers. > > Where do you get that idea? In every aspect but range, electrics offer > superior performance. And range is on it's way to being conquered. Until the performance is comparable it'll suffer in terms of perception. Even then, the problem is that it needs charging - you start needing things like swap-out replacement battery packs if you're going on a long trip. That gets expensive. > > > Hydrogen-leeching fuel cells now, that extract hydrogen from petrol > > (and can thus use the existing infrastructure), to get roughly twice > > the efficientcy...THAT is a tech to push development of IMO. > > > The problem with fuel cells is that they are expensive, glitchy, and > certain to be problematic for your average end user. I like fuel > cells, but I see a lot of high hurdles for them to overcome. Currently, sure. But fast progress is being made. And using hydrogen direct is a pain for the end user, yes, that's why as I said the hydrogen-leeching ones... > Impurities in fuels can ruin them. You have to deal with the process > leftovers (What do you do with the leftover carbon from your daily > commute?). A minor adaption (a waste pipe) at fueling stations. My father works at the company which services a lot of the fueling stations in the UK, and he thinks it'd be a minor adaption as well. And the hydrogen- leeching designs are significantly less vulnrable to fuel impurities. > The worst thing about the kind of fuel cells you are promoting is that > they are only a little better than ICengines and you are still > importing oil. Except they're practical on a mass scale. This is my acid test. With funding, they're no more than two to a worst four years from being viable. Then, you blanket mandate their usage in new cars. Short timescale, real effect, and a marginal price bump for new cars. (Probably less than that for catalytic converters) AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
