The real danger of allowing GM and Ford to go bankrupt . . .

Ted B. wrote:
> (as that is where both are headed)
>
> If the U.S. economy is to remain intact into the 22nd century, we will have
> to convert from a oil-based economy to a (most likely) hydrogen-based
> economy. Oil is running out, period. We need to use what is left for
> manufacturing and lubrication of vehicles that do not run on gasoline (or
> any other oil-based product). The U.S. still has an ideal infrastructure to

what makes it ideal?

> support the real innovation that it will take to convert all gasoline
> powered vehicles (don't forget airplanes) into something powered by a
> resource that will last longer than a few decades. (not necessarily
> limitless or renewable, but something that will last longer than the
> remaining oil reserves)
>
> We still need major automobile manufacturers who have their main corporate
> offices located on U.S. soil. Why? Because no other country will be
> motivated to solve the problem of (oil reserves disappearing FAST) before
> the U.S. will.

No other country is as unmotivated as the US is.

> When oil starts disappearing, no new company will have the
> infrastructure needed to tackle the problem (its scale will SQUASH any
> would-be upstart). Our best hope is to convert huge domestic automobile
> factories to produce vehicles of all types that do not run on gasoline. In
> fact, this may be our ONLY hope.
>
> But if GM and Ford both go bankrupt before this happens, well, I guess we'll
> all starve to death. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. -Dave

If GM and Ford are bailed out, they will have no motivation to change.

Never mind that the hydrogen idea is just plain stupid.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:07:49 -0400, Ted B. , said the following in
rec.autos.driving...


> As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid condensed
> forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
> hydrogen. It shouldn't be that hard to find.

All you need to do is to seperate the oxygen molecules from the hydrogen.
Last time I checked that required energy to do.

>> I'm not saying no other country COULD do it. Of course other countries
>> could. None will be motivated to do it as quickly as the U.S. will,
>> though.
>> The loss of oil is going to hit the U.S. the hardest. Thus, even if the
>> U.S. is behind the learning curve of alternate technologies, it is still
>> likely that the U.S. will find the most viable solution first. -Dave
>
> Have you noticed the huge oil reserves Japan has? You haven't? Hmmmm...
> I wonder why that is...
>

What's your point? That Japan will be less motivated to find a solution to
the oil crisis? I thought I just SAID that. -Dave

>
> If GM and Ford are bailed out, they will have no motivation to change.
>
> Never mind that the hydrogen idea is just plain stupid.
>

Again with the hydrogen is stupid. Your house burns down. Do you build a
new one? Nawwww. . . that would be "stupid". People are arguing against
hydrogen as if there is a CHOICE, but nobody can seem to come up with a
better solution. So when the oil runs out, I guess we're all going to
starve to death? Somehow, hydrogen doesn't seem as "stupid" as starving to
death. -Dave

>> As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid condensed
>> forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
>> hydrogen. It shouldn't be that hard to find.
>
> All you need to do is to seperate the oxygen molecules from the hydrogen.
> Last time I checked that required energy to do.
>

Yes, and it requires LESS energy than the hydrogen will create.
Interesting, eh? -Dave

"Dave" > wrote
>>> As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid
>>> condensed
>>> forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
>>> hydrogen. It shouldn't be that hard to find.
>>
>> All you need to do is to seperate the oxygen molecules from the hydrogen.
>> Last time I checked that required energy to do.
>>
> Yes, and it requires LESS energy than the hydrogen will create.
> Interesting, eh? -Dave

Oh, so you're claiming to have invented a process that dis-obeys the
2nd law of thermo-dynamics? Lots of those guys around, but last
time I looked they were all proved wrong.

Floyd

In article . net>,
"Dave" > wrote:

> >> I'm not saying no other country COULD do it. Of course other countries
> >> could. None will be motivated to do it as quickly as the U.S. will,
> >> though.
> >> The loss of oil is going to hit the U.S. the hardest. Thus, even if the
> >> U.S. is behind the learning curve of alternate technologies, it is still
> >> likely that the U.S. will find the most viable solution first. -Dave
> >
> > Have you noticed the huge oil reserves Japan has? You haven't? Hmmmm...
> > I wonder why that is...
> >
>
> What's your point? That Japan will be less motivated to find a solution to
> the oil crisis? I thought I just SAID that. -Dave

No.

That Japan will be at least as motivated to find a solution because they
are in at least as bad a situation, if not worse.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Dave wrote:
> >
> > If GM and Ford are bailed out, they will have no motivation to change.
> >
> > Never mind that the hydrogen idea is just plain stupid.
> >
>
> Again with the hydrogen is stupid. Your house burns down. Do you build a
> new one? Nawwww. . . that would be "stupid". People are arguing against
> hydrogen as if there is a CHOICE, but nobody can seem to come up with a
> better solution. So when the oil runs out, I guess we're all going to
> starve to death? Somehow, hydrogen doesn't seem as "stupid" as starving to
> death. -Dave

How do you make hydrogen? You apply energy to water. So you have input
energy (whatever you applied to the water) and output energy (the
hydrogen). You'll always have to apply more input energy than you will
get in output energy. If you just skipped the hydrogen production
process you'd have more energy for food production.

OTH if you rely on hydrogen you'll still starve when oil runs out.
There'll be no oil to produce hydrogen. Then the whole food system
will crash. Of course, because of your misplaced reliance on hydrogen
you won't even have thought of a real replacement for oil.

Dave wrote:
> >> As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid condensed
> >> forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
> >> hydrogen. It shouldn't be that hard to find.
> >
> > All you need to do is to seperate the oxygen molecules from the hydrogen.
> > Last time I checked that required energy to do.
> >
>
> Yes, and it requires LESS energy than the hydrogen will create.
> Interesting, eh? -Dave

If you figured this crap out, I don't understand why you aren't a
multigazillionaire. I certainly would be if I had your knowledge.

I would start with a cup of water. Then I would separate the oxygen
molecules from the hydrogen. Then I would use the hydrogen to power an
electricty generator. I would take the exhaust (a cup of water) and
repeat the process. This will generate large amounts of virtually free
electricity which I will sell at slightly below market rates.

That's what I would do. I don't understand why you aren't doing it.
What is the matter, you don't like billion dollar homes, fancy cars,
and bimbos?

>> Yes, and it requires LESS energy than the hydrogen will create.
>> Interesting, eh? -Dave
>
> If you figured this crap out, I don't understand why you aren't a
> multigazillionaire. I certainly would be if I had your knowledge.
>

Yeah, If I could figure out the problems that exist, I'd be a gazillionaire.

Everybody likes to argue against hydrogen. But nobody seems to have a
better idea. Oil is going to be gone soon. What's going to replace it?
You think hydrogen is a bad idea? Well, so is starving to death. It takes
energy to create food and transport it to the local grocery store. Where is
that energy going to come from? Not from oil or oil-based products.

Nobody said you had to use hydrogen to create hydrogen, btw. Electrolysis
can be powered by solar or wind energy. And electrolysis is just one method
of creating hydrogen. -Dave