More "pie in the sky" alternate fuel nonsense

Anyone remember "fuel cells?" Back in the 1980s, companies
like Ballard Power were going to change the world by producing
vehicles that ran on them. What happened? Not much.
Now it's hydrogen power. Clean, cheap, etc, etc.
What's the catch?
You can't store enough in a car (unless you want a vehicle that looks
like the Mad Max mobile) to go any distance.
So now they are working to develop new materials to store it in some
solid form. Good luck. It's not going to happen this decade, maybe
not this century.

http://www.physorg.com/news4721.html

What WILL happen is that they'll develop ultra high pressure vessels
to store hydrogen in it's traditional liquid form, and when one of
those things runs into a wall, or a car, it won't be like a propane
vehicle leak (which is bad enough)where they have to close down a
whole block for fear of detonation, the hydrogen vehicle will go off
like a small nuclear bomb. Do we really want this kind of thing on
the road? Gasoline is safe. It's not stored under pressure and it
takes a big accident to make it ignite, and when it does ignite,
unlike in the movies, it doesn't go off like 10lbs of dynamite, it
just flares.

RichA wrote:

> Do we really want this kind of thing on
> the road?

We need something because, in case you haven't been paying attention to
oil prices, gasoline is getting scarce, and it's only going to get
scarcer. Sometimes cold, hard facts are tough to face.

The real problem with hydrogen isn't storage or combustibility. Those
can be managed, albeit with some inconvenience and compromise. The
problem is that hydrogen isn't a primary energy source. It doesn't come
from a hole in the ground. It has to be made from something else --
currently either from natural gas, which process is dirty and produces
CO2, or from electrolysis of water, which is expensive, requiring
electrical power.

My vision of our best energy future is safe, modern nuclear plants
(augmented with wind, tidal, solar, and whatever else can be made
economical) that generate electrical power efficiently enough to make
hydrogen feasible. If you crash and explode, so be it. Slow down, at
least in traffic.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

It's presently projected that in another 20 years you will see
hydrogen stations all over the place, just as in the beginning, gas
stations were very rare.

The vehicle designs are moving toward storage in cells throughout the
chassis rather than a single tank in the trunk. Essentially, the cabin
area sits over the propulsion section. There is even talk of a capsule
type cabin much like those used for hydroplanes which, in the event of
an explosion would separate from the propulsion unit.

Electrolysis will continue to be the method of breaking down water.
Hydrogen's waste byproduct is water vapor, which is even safe to
drink right from the exhaust (if you're that hard up for something to
drink). Present hydrogen storage is safer than gasoline according to
the latest crash tests. Hydrogen produces more power per volume
(60-80% vs gasoline's roughly 40%).

As for gasoline being safer... that's relative. True that in "most"
cases, it burns rather than explodes, however, when it does explode it
does so with the equivalence of approximately 12 sticks of dynamite
per gallon (California Department of Justice Crime Lab) depending on
the amount of vapor. Hydrogen tends to dissipate rapidly in air in the
small amounts used for vehicle propulsion, while gasoline will easily
soak clothing, etc, and it's oily properties cause it to adhere, thus
making it harder to get rid of in the event of an ignition.

If you want something to fear.... take one LNP container ship parked
in any port, and have it explode.

If you want cheaper, environmentally friendly, then we are back to
hitching up animals. Of course, they won't be setting any records in
the quarter mile..... I'm waiting for Ron Propeil to come up with
something new to go with the Chop-O-Matic....


On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:10:43 -0400, RichA > wrote:

>Anyone remember "fuel cells?" Back in the 1980s, companies
>like Ballard Power were going to change the world by producing
>vehicles that ran on them. What happened? Not much.
>Now it's hydrogen power. Clean, cheap, etc, etc.
>What's the catch?
>You can't store enough in a car (unless you want a vehicle that looks
>like the Mad Max mobile) to go any distance.
>So now they are working to develop new materials to store it in some
>solid form. Good luck. It's not going to happen this decade, maybe
>not this century.
>
>http://www.physorg.com/news4721.html
>
>What WILL happen is that they'll develop ultra high pressure vessels
>to store hydrogen in it's traditional liquid form, and when one of
>those things runs into a wall, or a car, it won't be like a propane
>vehicle leak (which is bad enough)where they have to close down a
>whole block for fear of detonation, the hydrogen vehicle will go off
>like a small nuclear bomb. Do we really want this kind of thing on
>the road? Gasoline is safe. It's not stored under pressure and it
>takes a big accident to make it ignite, and when it does ignite,
>unlike in the movies, it doesn't go off like 10lbs of dynamite, it
>just flares.
>
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:45:44 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>It's presently projected that in another 20 years you will see
>hydrogen stations all over the place, just as in the beginning, gas
>stations were very rare.
>
You'll have to see them all over, since you'll be filling up every 50
miles.

>The vehicle designs are moving toward storage in cells throughout the
>chassis rather than a single tank in the trunk. Essentially, the cabin
>area sits over the propulsion section. There is even talk of a capsule
>type cabin much like those used for hydroplanes which, in the event of
>an explosion would separate from the propulsion unit.
>
>Electrolysis will continue to be the method of breaking down water.
>Hydrogen's waste byproduct is water vapor, which is even safe to
>drink right from the exhaust (if you're that hard up for something to
>drink). Present hydrogen storage is safer than gasoline according to
>the latest crash tests. Hydrogen produces more power per volume
>(60-80% vs gasoline's roughly 40%).

Only because it's on buses where you can afford to use space to
reinforced the tanks. Cars are another matter.
>
>As for gasoline being safer... that's relative. True that in "most"
>cases, it burns rather than explodes, however, when it does explode it
>does so with the equivalence of approximately 12 sticks of dynamite
>per gallon (California Department of Justice Crime Lab) depending on
>the amount of vapor. Hydrogen tends to dissipate rapidly in air in the
>small amounts used for vehicle propulsion, while gasoline will easily
>soak clothing, etc, and it's oily properties cause it to adhere, thus
>making it harder to get rid of in the event of an ignition.
>
>If you want something to fear.... take one LNP container ship parked
>in any port, and have it explode.
>
>If you want cheaper, environmentally friendly, then we are back to
>hitching up animals. Of course, they won't be setting any records in
>the quarter mile..... I'm waiting for Ron Propeil to come up with
>something new to go with the Chop-O-Matic....
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:10:43 -0400, RichA > wrote:
>
>>Anyone remember "fuel cells?" Back in the 1980s, companies
>>like Ballard Power were going to change the world by producing
>>vehicles that ran on them. What happened? Not much.
>>Now it's hydrogen power. Clean, cheap, etc, etc.
>>What's the catch?
>>You can't store enough in a car (unless you want a vehicle that looks
>>like the Mad Max mobile) to go any distance.
>>So now they are working to develop new materials to store it in some
>>solid form. Good luck. It's not going to happen this decade, maybe
>>not this century.
>>
>>http://www.physorg.com/news4721.html
>>
>>What WILL happen is that they'll develop ultra high pressure vessels
>>to store hydrogen in it's traditional liquid form, and when one of
>>those things runs into a wall, or a car, it won't be like a propane
>>vehicle leak (which is bad enough)where they have to close down a
>>whole block for fear of detonation, the hydrogen vehicle will go off
>>like a small nuclear bomb. Do we really want this kind of thing on
>>the road? Gasoline is safe. It's not stored under pressure and it
>>takes a big accident to make it ignite, and when it does ignite,
>>unlike in the movies, it doesn't go off like 10lbs of dynamite, it
>>just flares.
>>
>>
>
>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Like anything else... improvements are constant. The manufacturers
will push the envelope of engineering to exceed limitations because
they know there's no profit in something nobody will buy.

And apparently, you didn't see the prototypes I looked at. The same
cab forward look of the GM types, the interior floor space was pretty
wide open. The propulsion unit with fuel storage (not counting wheel
height) is approximately 8" deep. Apparently for repairs, the cabin
separates from the propulsion unit. Not too bad a concept for
starters.

But, what's the problem? New technologies come along all the time.
They don't spread through the masses overnight. It takes years.
Consider the time it took for computers to go from monsters with less
power than the pocket calculator to the pc and notebooks of today. Or
how long it took Al Gore to create the internet and spread it, with
Bill gates help, around the globe....
>>
>You'll have to see them all over, since you'll be filling up every 50
>miles.
>
>>The vehicle designs are moving toward storage in cells throughout the
>>chassis rather than a single tank in the trunk. Essentially, the cabin
>>area sits over the propulsion section. There is even talk of a capsule
>>type cabin much like those used for hydroplanes which, in the event of
>>an explosion would separate from the propulsion unit.
>>
>>Electrolysis will continue to be the method of breaking down water.
>>Hydrogen's waste byproduct is water vapor, which is even safe to
>>drink right from the exhaust (if you're that hard up for something to
>>drink). Present hydrogen storage is safer than gasoline according to
>>the latest crash tests. Hydrogen produces more power per volume
>>(60-80% vs gasoline's roughly 40%).
>
>Only because it's on buses where you can afford to use space to
>reinforced the tanks. Cars are another matter.
>>
>>As for gasoline being safer... that's relative. True that in "most"
>>cases, it burns rather than explodes, however, when it does explode it
>>does so with the equivalence of approximately 12 sticks of dynamite
>>per gallon (California Department of Justice Crime Lab) depending on
>>the amount of vapor. Hydrogen tends to dissipate rapidly in air in the
>>small amounts used for vehicle propulsion, while gasoline will easily
>>soak clothing, etc, and it's oily properties cause it to adhere, thus
>>making it harder to get rid of in the event of an ignition.
>>
>>If you want something to fear.... take one LNP container ship parked
>>in any port, and have it explode.
>>
>>If you want cheaper, environmentally friendly, then we are back to
>>hitching up animals. Of course, they won't be setting any records in
>>the quarter mile..... I'm waiting for Ron Propeil to come up with
>>something new to go with the Chop-O-Matic....
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:10:43 -0400, RichA > wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone remember "fuel cells?" Back in the 1980s, companies
>>>like Ballard Power were going to change the world by producing
>>>vehicles that ran on them. What happened? Not much.
>>>Now it's hydrogen power. Clean, cheap, etc, etc.
>>>What's the catch?
>>>You can't store enough in a car (unless you want a vehicle that looks
>>>like the Mad Max mobile) to go any distance.
>>>So now they are working to develop new materials to store it in some
>>>solid form. Good luck. It's not going to happen this decade, maybe
>>>not this century.
>>>
>>>http://www.physorg.com/news4721.html
>>>
>>>What WILL happen is that they'll develop ultra high pressure vessels
>>>to store hydrogen in it's traditional liquid form, and when one of
>>>those things runs into a wall, or a car, it won't be like a propane
>>>vehicle leak (which is bad enough)where they have to close down a
>>>whole block for fear of detonation, the hydrogen vehicle will go off
>>>like a small nuclear bomb. Do we really want this kind of thing on
>>>the road? Gasoline is safe. It's not stored under pressure and it
>>>takes a big accident to make it ignite, and when it does ignite,
>>>unlike in the movies, it doesn't go off like 10lbs of dynamite, it
>>>just flares.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Spike wrote:

> Or
> how long it took Al Gore to create the internet and spread it, with
> Bill gates help, around the globe....

This never fails to **** me off. Gore never claimed any such thing. It's
a big ****ing wing-nut LIE! Gore took credit, rightfully, for
shedherding the Internet through the government and opening it to the
public, when just about everyone else in government was completely
uninterested and clueless. All of us who use the Internet owe him a lot
of gratitude. People who actually DID invent the Internet, like Vinton
G. Cerf, give Gore a great deal of credit. If you're interested in the
true story, and not the stupid, dishonest wing-nut spin, see:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

BTW, Bill Gates had nothing to do with the Internet. He thought it was
oversold and overhyped, and he was dead wrong.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

My personal belief is that we will see more and more diesels on the road...
biodiesel well in excess of 50% will become normal. Fuel cell technology is
still pricey while biodiesel (5% ) is a reality.

Who knows what we may wake up to in the morning? Whatever, I think it will
be nothing less than interesting.

I wonder why it is that it's OK to make jokes about the president, or
even to slander, but say something against Al Gore and it's like
spitting on the Pope. Why are his supporters so darn defensive.
Is it because they know he is a flake? They must have watched those
Uncle Adolf speeches. I'd vote for Ted kennedy before I'd vote for
Gore.... and that's going wayyyyyyyy off the deep end. And, no, I'm
not a Republican either.


On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:19:51 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>
>> Or
>> how long it took Al Gore to create the internet and spread it, with
>> Bill gates help, around the globe....
>
>This never fails to **** me off. Gore never claimed any such thing. It's
>a big ****ing wing-nut LIE! Gore took credit, rightfully, for
>shedherding the Internet through the government and opening it to the
>public, when just about everyone else in government was completely
>uninterested and clueless. All of us who use the Internet owe him a lot
>of gratitude. People who actually DID invent the Internet, like Vinton
>G. Cerf, give Gore a great deal of credit. If you're interested in the
>true story, and not the stupid, dishonest wing-nut spin, see:
>
>http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
>
>BTW, Bill Gates had nothing to do with the Internet. He thought it was
>oversold and overhyped, and he was dead wrong.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

rw wrote:
> Spike wrote:
>
>> Or
>> how long it took Al Gore to create the internet and spread it, with
>> Bill gates help, around the globe....
>
>
> This never fails to **** me off. Gore never claimed any such thing. It's
> a big ****ing wing-nut LIE! Gore took credit, rightfully, for
> shedherding the Internet through the government and opening it to the
> public, when just about everyone else in government was completely
> uninterested and clueless. All of us who use the Internet owe him a lot
> of gratitude. People who actually DID invent the Internet, like Vinton
> G. Cerf, give Gore a great deal of credit. If you're interested in the
> true story, and not the stupid, dishonest wing-nut spin, see:
>
> http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
>
> BTW, Bill Gates had nothing to do with the Internet. He thought it was
> oversold and overhyped, and he was dead wrong.
>

I think when Gore made that comment he was being self serving. Just as
he was when he halted the presidential election of 2000.
here's an e-mail from Vinton G. Cerf
http://web.archive.org/web/200001250...904/vcerf.html

RichA wrote:
> Anyone remember "fuel cells?" Back in the 1980s, companies
> like Ballard Power were going to change the world by producing
> vehicles that ran on them. What happened? Not much.
> Now it's hydrogen power. Clean, cheap, etc, etc.
> What's the catch?
> You can't store enough in a car (unless you want a vehicle that looks
> like the Mad Max mobile) to go any distance.
> So now they are working to develop new materials to store it in some
> solid form. Good luck. It's not going to happen this decade, maybe
> not this century.
>

Actually a fuel cell is powered by Hydrogen and fuel cells have
been in use by NASA for years. I've read an article about small home
generators being run by them. Running a car won't be much farther away.

--
"Network management is like trying to herd cats."
-- Unknown

"I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges?"
-- TazAmd - Humor Section Gettingtogather.com