Hydriogen Cars SOON!

"Joe S" > wrote in message
news:h232e.34615$oa6.16890@trnddc07...
> Steve W. wrote:
>> "Joe S" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Steve W. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
>>>>>hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that
>>>
>>>does
>>>
>>>>not
>>>>
>>>>>*require* petroleum.
>>>>>
>>>>> > It is made from other sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA
>>>
>>>LPG
>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>>>Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost
>>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>large
>>>>
>>>>>>enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more
>>>>
>>>>energy
>>>>
>>>>>>and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever
>>>
>>>return.
>>>
>>>>>Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being
>>>
>>>spent
>>>
>>>>on
>>>>
>>>>>research without viable plans for production and distribution of
>>>>>hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about
>>>
>>>how
>>>
>>>>>all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at
>>>
>>>all
>>>
>>>>>(because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the
>>>
>>>fuel).
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Joe
>>>>
>>>>Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for
>>
>> USELESS
>>
>>>>research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already.
>>>
>>>How
>>>
>>>>to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
>>>>research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place
>>>
>>>for
>>>
>>>>low cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you think are the ways to create hydrogen that have been tried
>>>but are too expensive, and what are their repsective costs? "Too
>>>expensive" is an absolutely relative term.
>>>
>>>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thermal cracking - Current method using petroleum based items as the
>> base stocks. Has been experimentally used with other base stocks.
>>
>> Electrolytic separation - Experimentally used to produce VERY limited
>> quantities.
>>
>> High pressure catalytic splitting - Experimentally used to produce VERY
>> limited quantities.
>>
>> With regular gasoline priced at $2.25 per gallon and using an equivalent
>> btu amount of hydrogen you get
>>
>> TC - $4.35
>> ES - $8.45 using Nuclear, $9.45 using Hydro, $16.45 using solar
>> Hpcs - last I read it worked out to close to 35.00.
>>
>> These are ALL prior to adding in the distribution and infrastructure
>> systems that do not exist at this time. It also doesn't consider the
>> replacement cost to supply the power that will be lost from those
>> sources that are currently in use.
>
> What is the cost of methanol distribution utilizing an on-vehicle
> reformer?
>
> What would be the cost using power from MCFC or SOFC power plants?
>
>
>> Oh and while you may consider expense to be relative 99% of the world
>> doesn't. If you don't believe price being the prime motivation explain,
>> Wal~Mart, Dollar Tree, All for a dollar and all the CHEAP import stuff.
>
> $6 per gallon (adjusted for units) in Europe and Japan is expensive. $2.50
> per gallon in the US is expensive.
>
> $2.50 per gallon in the US today is "expensive". $5 per gallon in 2008 is
> "expensive".
>
> It's "relative", see?
>
> --
> Joe


Damn Joe.....those blinders you wear must be uncomfortable!!

D. Dub wrote:
> "Joe S" > wrote in message
> news:h232e.34615$oa6.16890@trnddc07...
>
>>Steve W. wrote:
>>
>>>Oh and while you may consider expense to be relative 99% of the world
>>>doesn't. If you don't believe price being the prime motivation explain,
>>>Wal~Mart, Dollar Tree, All for a dollar and all the CHEAP import stuff.
>>
>>$6 per gallon (adjusted for units) in Europe and Japan is expensive. $2.50
>>per gallon in the US is expensive.
>>
>>$2.50 per gallon in the US today is "expensive". $5 per gallon in 2008 is
>>"expensive".
>>
>>It's "relative", see?
>>
>>--
>>Joe
>
>
>
> Damn Joe.....those blinders you wear must be uncomfortable!!
>
>

WTF are you talking about? Here I thought it was completely obvious to
*any* sentient being that "expensive" is relative. I guess I give some
people WAY too much credit.

Here's a pop quiz...which is more expensive, $6 fuel that is available
or gasoline that is not available?


--
Joe

Chad Michael Mallett wrote:

> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
>
> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on Hydrogen, i finally
> got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY yoiu';re wrong in
> blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
>
>
I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil company
(I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my subcompact gets
37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid as my
next car.

However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of energy.

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Chad Michael Mallett wrote:
>
>> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
>>
>> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on Hydrogen, i
>> finally got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY yoiu';re
>> wrong in blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
>>
> I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil company
> (I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my subcompact gets
> 37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid as my
> next car.
>
> However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of energy.


You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine burning
wood or coal.

What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for energy
that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have to be
spent to create it.

--
Joe

> From: "Marco Licetti" >
> GM's revolutionary fuel cell vehicle, Hy-wire, has no internal
> combustion engine, instrument panel, brake or accelerator pedals

With no instrument panel, how does the driver/operator know when the
fuel cell is in need of recharging, or when some fault has occurred
which needs repair before it could cause a terrible incident, or how
fast the vehicle is moving so as to comply with speed limits?

With no brake pedal, how is the driver/operator supposed to quickly
stop the vehicle when necessary to avoid a collision with something
that has gotten into the roadway ahead of the vehicle?

In message .com>, Joe
S > writes
>
>Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>> Joe S wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's the starting point...gasoline/diesel requires petroleum. The
>job
>> > is to develop a way to power vehicles that does not require
>petroluem.
>> >
>> > Hydrogen fuel cell technology is one. Others are have been and are
>being
>> > explored.
>> >
>>
>> But the point I am trying to make is that we don't NEED fuel cells to
>
>> burn hydrogen. The existing IC engine can burn it with some simple
>> modifications. There are a lot of cars running around burning
>natural
>> gas. Almost the same mods that enable that can also be used to burn
>> hydrogen. Now, hydrogen is a very low octane, so the compression
>ratio
>> may need to be lowered, or spark severely retarded. But it seems to
>me
>> that these mods are minor compared to developing affordable fuel
>cells
>> (they are quite expensive right now).
>
>Compare and contrast hydrogen combustion vs. fuel cell esp with regards
>to efficiency and resulting chemicals. I haven't done so, but it sounds
>like you have, so can you short-cut it for me?
>
>
>> Further, whether it is fuel cells or modified IC engines, the REAL
>> problem is how to produce hydrogen economically and in an
>> environmentally friendly way. THIS is the problem that folks should
>be
>> spending the R & D dollars on.
>
>Well, contrary to some others who insist that the global vehicle power
>industry is ignoring the "fact" that hydrogen fuel production and
>distribution is not feasible, I believe that there exists concrete
>plans to address this issue, even if I don't personally know what the
>plans are.
>
>But I could be wrong....
>
>
>Joe
>
The global financial interests are in a "hard place" to maximse cash
flow some sort of fuel must flow.
They will back all horses.
Hydrogen is not a favourite , conversion must be inefficient and
polluting.
Better to burn a primary fuel within the vehicle with greater
efficiency, greater efficiency achieved through complexity such as a
hybrid system.


--
dd

"Joe S" > wrote in message
news:hXd2e.36045$oa6.12296@trnddc07...
> Don Stauffer wrote:
> > Chad Michael Mallett wrote:
> >
> >> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
> >>
> >> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on Hydrogen, i
> >> finally got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY
yoiu';re
> >> wrong in blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
> >>
> > I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil
company
> > (I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my subcompact
gets
> > 37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid as
my
> > next car.
> >
> > However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of energy.
>
>
> You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
> energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine burning
> wood or coal.
>
> What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for
energy
> that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have to
be
> spent to create it.
>
> --
> Joe

Then you don't know how a producer gas system works. There are countries
that use Coal and Wood to power their cars. By burning the fuel and
processing the gasses that come off of it they have fuel.
Been around MUCH longer than just about every other fuel source.

As for working for a petroleum company I WISH...



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve W. wrote:
> "Joe S" > wrote in message
> news:hXd2e.36045$oa6.12296@trnddc07...
> > Don Stauffer wrote:
> > > Chad Michael Mallett wrote:
> > >
> > >> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
> > >>
> > >> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on Hydrogen,
i
> > >> finally got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY
> yoiu';re
> > >> wrong in blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
> > >>
> > > I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil
> company
> > > (I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my subcompact
> gets
> > > 37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid
as
> my
> > > next car.
> > >
> > > However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of energy.
> >
> >
> > You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
> > energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine
burning
> > wood or coal.
> >
> > What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for
> energy
> > that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have
to
> be
> > spent to create it.
> >
> > --
> > Joe
>
> Then you don't know how a producer gas system works. There are
countries
> that use Coal and Wood to power their cars. By burning the fuel and
> processing the gasses that come off of it they have fuel.

<snicker> I know <snicker> that you *could*, but who does use wood and
coal for cars? What makes have wood-burning engines? Care to name a
few? I'd like to <snicker> buy one.


> Been around MUCH longer than just about every other fuel source.

Yes...in the olden days when your great grandpappy was a youngin'. How
many have you owned?



Joe

"Joe S" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steve W. wrote:
> > "Joe S" > wrote in message
> > news:hXd2e.36045$oa6.12296@trnddc07...
> > > Don Stauffer wrote:
> > > > Chad Michael Mallett wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.
> > > >>
> > > >> Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on
Hydrogen,
> i
> > > >> finally got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY
> > yoiu';re
> > > >> wrong in blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon
> > > >>
> > > > I agree with Steve a lot on this issue. I don't work for an oil
> > company
> > > > (I am in fact retired now). I don't own a guzzler- my
subcompact
> > gets
> > > > 37-38 mpg on highway. I still will definitely consider a hybrid
> as
> > my
> > > > next car.
> > > >
> > > > However, hydrogen on Earth is not a significant SOURCE of
energy.
> > >
> > >
> > > You must admit that there is virtually nothing that is a SOURCE of
> > > energy that's appropriate to power a vehicle. I can't imagine
> burning
> > > wood or coal.
> > >
> > > What's being sought are more significant delivery mechanisms for
> > energy
> > > that can be efficiently utilized, accepting that energy will have
> to
> > be
> > > spent to create it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe
> >
> > Then you don't know how a producer gas system works. There are
> countries
> > that use Coal and Wood to power their cars. By burning the fuel and
> > processing the gasses that come off of it they have fuel.
>
> <snicker> I know <snicker> that you *could*, but who does use wood and
> coal for cars? What makes have wood-burning engines? Care to name a
> few? I'd like to <snicker> buy one.
>
>
> > Been around MUCH longer than just about every other fuel source.
>
> Yes...in the olden days when your great grandpappy was a youngin'. How
> many have you owned?
>
>
>
> Joe

You think it's funny... Maybe you should learn about technology that has
been in use for over 100 years before you think it's funny.

Actually I own a 1986 GM product that has a gas producer I built in it.
Uses wood in the burner and the producer feeds into the carb. It is just
like running a vehicle on Hydrogen or Propane or Natural gas. The
difference is it carries it's own gas plant with it, and it burns wood
OR coal. Oh and the way it uses it's fuel the emmisions out of it are
only ash. The "smoke" is what is converted into the fuel.

http://www.heritageresearch.com/manufactured_gas_P.htm
http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/ref...m1/p01264a.htm
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks4/mathot/
http://members.tripod.com/cturare/his.htm
http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.htm
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/producer/
http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/g...il/004081.html
http://www.ch2bc.org/Tech_Corner.htm
http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/history/history_30s.htm
http://www.hotel.ymex.net/~s-20222/gengas/kg_eng.html

I also have a few other items in the shop that are laughable according
to you. Namely a 1941 made water turbine. I am restoring it for use as a
power generator for a friend who is living off the grid. There is an
acetylene generator in there as well. That works using calcium carbide
and water to create useable acetylene.

Maybe all these folks who think that we HAVE to developed new technology
should read a history book or two. Might get a shock to discover it has
ALL been done before. Guess what happened GASOLINE and OIL won the war.
















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve W. wrote:
> There are countries that use Coal and Wood to power their cars.


Please address this statement only. Don't obfuscate with information
about days gone by and antique resotrations and "off-the-grid" power
generation. I want to know about whole countries that use Coal and Wood
to power their cars.

Are there, or are there not, entire countries that use Coal and Wood to
power their cars. If so, what are the countries and who makes the cars


Joe