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

>> > Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
>> > viable, those other options will start to be more common.
>> >
>> > nate
>> >
>>
>> Define "start". The infrastructure will take decades to develop. By the
>> time the price of gas goes up, those "other options" will be decades TOO
>> LATE in coming. -Dave
>
> It wouldn't be too difficult to convert the existing petro-fuel
> infrastructure to accomodate a different liquid fuel, say alcohol,
> should improvements be made to the production of alcohol to the point
> where it was a viable energy source. An alcohol-eating fuel cell might
> offer some real promise, as even though the energy density of alcohol
> is much lower than current petrofuels, the theoretical efficiency of a
> fuel cell/electric motor combination is higher than that of an IC
> engine/mechanical drive.

So we'll be OK if someone can invent a car that runs on alcohol sometime in
the next few years. I feel SO much better now. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I'd rather change the batteries. I fear batteries a lot
> > less than I do hydrogen.
> >
> > nate
> >
>
> Interesting. You've been driving a gasoline powered vehicle for how long
> now? And you are afraid of a hydrogen powered vehicle? Why? -Dave

Gasoline is a liquid, not a gas, and it's relatively easy to tell when
you've spilled some or have a leak.

I fear alcohol a little bit for some of the same reasons. Ever see a
methanol-powered race car on fire? Frightening stuff.

nate

Ted B. wrote:
> >> > Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
> >> > viable, those other options will start to be more common.
> >> >
> >> > nate
> >> >
> >>
> >> Define "start". The infrastructure will take decades to develop. By the
> >> time the price of gas goes up, those "other options" will be decades TOO
> >> LATE in coming. -Dave
> >
> > It wouldn't be too difficult to convert the existing petro-fuel
> > infrastructure to accomodate a different liquid fuel, say alcohol,
> > should improvements be made to the production of alcohol to the point
> > where it was a viable energy source. An alcohol-eating fuel cell might
> > offer some real promise, as even though the energy density of alcohol
> > is much lower than current petrofuels, the theoretical efficiency of a
> > fuel cell/electric motor combination is higher than that of an IC
> > engine/mechanical drive.
>
> So we'll be OK if someone can invent a car that runs on alcohol sometime in
> the next few years. I feel SO much better now. -Dave

Alcohol-fueled cars already exist. It's the alcohol *production* that
is the current problem. (similar to hydrogen in that respect, but
alcohol is a better fuel.)

nate

"N8N" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
>
> Ted B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You do understand that the U.S. economy will collapse decades
>> >> before the oil actually runs out, right? -Dave
>> >
>> > Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
>> > viable, those other options will start to be more common.
>> >
>> > nate
>> >
>>
>> Define "start". The infrastructure will take decades to develop. By
>> the time the price of gas goes up, those "other options" will be
>> decades TOO LATE in coming. -Dave
>
> It wouldn't be too difficult to convert the existing petro-fuel
> infrastructure to accomodate a different liquid fuel, say alcohol,
> should improvements be made to the production of alcohol to the point
> where it was a viable energy source. An alcohol-eating fuel cell
> might offer some real promise, as even though the energy density of
> alcohol is much lower than current petrofuels, the theoretical
> efficiency of a fuel cell/electric motor combination is higher than
> that of an IC engine/mechanical drive. Should that technology be
> developed, and there *are* people working on it, I'm sure the next big
> project would be a push towards developing a renewable source of
> alcohol with a positive energy balance. (I'd be surprised if there
> wasn't already R&D going on in that respect as well.) A nice side
> benefit is that existing petro-fuel vehicles can be converted to run
> on alcohol, gasoline, or a mix of the two (and in fact such vehicles
> are already commercially available.)
>
> Likewise, pure electric production and transmission is a well
> understood discipline; should that turn out to be the way to go, it
> would simply be a matter of adding more transmission capability and
> power plants. Also might become more common for homeowners to have
> home windmills or solar panels.
>
> The infrastructure required for the safe transport or distribution of
> H2 however would be completely different from anything currently done
> on a large scale...

No, it would not be "completely different". Handling flammable gases
safely is very well understood.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

"N8N" > wrote in news:1119018278.527383.246580
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Dave wrote:
>> > Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
>> > are incremental.
>> >
>>
>> Besides which, what is easier to do . . . change hundreds of pounds of
>> batteries or refill a tank of hydrogen? -Dave
>
> Personally, I'd rather change the batteries. I fear batteries a lot
> less than I do hydrogen.

That is an ignorant position.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

>>
>> Interesting. You've been driving a gasoline powered vehicle for how long
>> now? And you are afraid of a hydrogen powered vehicle? Why? -Dave
>
> Gasoline is a liquid, not a gas, and it's relatively easy to tell when
> you've spilled some or have a leak.
>

Hydrogen can be stored in three different ways. The first one (gas) is not
practical, as the compression required to get enough of it in (gas) form is
unbelievably high. There are a couple of other different forms that
hydrogen can be stored in. One is water. I don't know if this is the form
that will be best for fueling hydrogen cars of the future, but it's more
likely to be practical (eventually) than the (gas) form, for many reasons .
.. . not the least of which is safety. If your fuel tank full of water
springs a leak, OH WELL. But I can see it now. There will be a warning on
the fuel tank that if the contents leak, drowning is possible. (!) The
third form is solid. I don't see that being practical, unless cars of the
future are going to have stokers on board, like the old coal-fired
locomotives. -Dave

>
> Alcohol-fueled cars already exist. It's the alcohol *production* that
> is the current problem. (similar to hydrogen in that respect, but
> alcohol is a better fuel.)
>
> nate
>

OK, so are we going to waste a lot of our fertile land producing fuel in the
future? That doesn't seem like such a great idea, when we are already
having a problem producing enough food to feed everybody in the
orld. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting. You've been driving a gasoline powered vehicle for how long
> >> now? And you are afraid of a hydrogen powered vehicle? Why? -Dave
> >
> > Gasoline is a liquid, not a gas, and it's relatively easy to tell when
> > you've spilled some or have a leak.
> >
>
> Hydrogen can be stored in three different ways. The first one (gas) is not
> practical, as the compression required to get enough of it in (gas) form is
> unbelievably high. There are a couple of other different forms that
> hydrogen can be stored in. One is water. I don't know if this is the form
> that will be best for fueling hydrogen cars of the future, but it's more
> likely to be practical (eventually) than the (gas) form, for many reasons .
> . . not the least of which is safety. If your fuel tank full of water
> springs a leak, OH WELL. But I can see it now. There will be a warning on
> the fuel tank that if the contents leak, drowning is possible. (!) The
> third form is solid. I don't see that being practical, unless cars of the
> future are going to have stokers on board, like the old coal-fired
> locomotives. -Dave

???

You're not honestly suggesting that the cracking of water into H2 and
O2 be done IN THE VEHICLE are you???

If you have enough energy available to do that, you have enough energy
available to simply power an electric car, at a higher overall
efficiency than getting water, hydrogen, or any of that stuff involved.
In fact, water is the WASTE PRODUCT of a H2 powered vehicle. Were you
planning on inventing the perpetual motion machine in the next couple
years?

(shakes head in disbelief)

I thought you were a crackpot before, now it's confirmed.

nate

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:
>"N8N" > wrote in
roups.com:
>>
>> The infrastructure required for the safe transport or distribution of
>> H2 however would be completely different from anything currently done
>> on a large scale...
>
>No, it would not be "completely different". Handling flammable gases
>safely is very well understood.

Hydrogen is a whole different ballgame than propane or natural gas.
It _is_ completely different.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ws.net>,
Ted B. > wrote:
>
>Hydrogen can be stored in three different ways. The first one (gas) is not
>practical, as the compression required to get enough of it in (gas) form is
>unbelievably high. There are a couple of other different forms that
>hydrogen can be stored in. One is water.

Water is hydrogen ash. Suggesting storing hydrogen fuel as water is
as ignorant as suggesting storing exhaust fumes for use in
gasoline-powered cars.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.