Here are a few reasons why hydrogen is the answer to our fuel problems. When will this happen as a widespread answer in the U.S though? There is so much money invested in oil and people that make so much money off of oil that they will fight tooth and nail to keep it going. It's sad really when there is a much better choice at hand.
Huge oil spills are becoming very common, killing all sorts of aquatic life. If hydrogen fuel were spilled in large quantities it would evaporate instantaneously and the only by-product of hydrogen fuel is water.
Pollution from ships, planes, automobiles and factories has created smog all across the U.S. Hydrogen fuel emits no pollutants that contribute to smog.
Depending on the Middle East for oil weakens our national strength. With hydrogen, the U.S. could be energy self-sufficient.
Our government spends billions of dollars each year to defend access to oil in the Middle East and billions more to finance oil exploration.
Oil imports drain $1 billion from the U.S. economy, every week, according to U.S. trade balance sheets.
Changing to a hydrogen-based economy would create thousands of new industrial and scientific jobs. Building plants, manufacturing parts and selling equipment would all be investments that stimulate jobs and growth.
Fossil fuels will eventually run dry. Hydrogen is renewable, therefore it's unlimited.
Hydrogen fuel does not contribute to acid rain, ozone depletion, or global warming.
1-We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies? 2- Life is tough... it's tougher if you're stupid.
quote:Originally posted by sudha: do u ppl know that we can get oil from whales?? infact a lot of whales along the indian coasts are killed for that reason....
Oh no. Don't say that. I love whales.
1-We are all born originals - why is it so many of us die copies? 2- Life is tough... it's tougher if you're stupid.
If anyone is interested in any cool ways to help the enviorment such as the rainforest or ending hunger check out these one click sites. freedonation.com where u can click on each thing 20 times for free to donate and therainforestsite.com or thenonprofits.com or ecologyfund.org.
quote: No considering they havent gotten the bugs in teh safety features worked out, which would point to the fact that they ARE indeed in developement. THe safety features being that when one is in an accident and the car needs to be cut open to free the passengers that they dont get electricuted and so that the fireman cutting does not die in trying.
This is not a good example of a problem that would justify the extra cost of the car. ALL production model cars have bugs to be worked out like this. You were suggesting that there was some sort of major problem that would justify the $2k-3k mark-up on hybrids. This is not the case. The engine technology is very well established. If they're telling you you're paying more for "development" then they're BSing you. All you did was prove that hybrids are electrical deathtraps.
quote:and no, you didnt properly quote, years of posting does not mean that you actualy are good at it, just as someone who says they have painted for years , it does not mean they are any good at it. Its so good to see that you lack ears but have quite a large mouth when it comes to advice.
And we start in with the personal attacks now...sheesh, that was quick. You never said how I did not properly respond to your point that hybrids were the best thing since sliced bread. I don't need to completely repost your whole post because it ends up with giant cumbersome 3 page long responses when things get hot. I did not take anything you said out of context, and I do my best not to.
quote: And tell me how it is that interstate traveling with a hybrid WOULD consume more than but a portion of a gallon?
You said you commute 80 miles a day. After a little http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml I've found that the current highest production model car that could buy only gets 66 MPG. Therefore, if you travel 80 miles, even under ideal circumstances, you *might* just use a little more than a gallon of gas. It's simple mathematics. You said you use a "portion of a gallon". You would obviously have to use more than that. Therefore, you're either mistaken or lying.
quote: i didnt explain to you my entire situation of travel for this i apologise but you still can not assume that it HAS to be atleast close to a lie. Instead ask next time when you dont have all the facts.
Unless you have some sort of magical shortcut and actualy DON'T travel 80 miles a day, then I've got plenty of information and facts to prove my point. But you should know this already...
driving an electrical /gas engine gives the wonder of using electric over gas and if you drive well enough to where you are able to maintain a high speed and coast which i guess i tend to do over the typical driver then you save fuel that would normaly be put in as a part of the whole equation of fuel consuption and travel.
Yes hybrids are death traps for the idiotic driver and those that only have the training of a person who learns from experience and from their parents or their highschool teacher has taught them. Which i guess would entail that the majority of people shouldnt drive it making it a bad general consumer form of transportation. And is dangerous still to someone who knows what they are doing but wihtout those drivers willing to take the risk they wont develope very quikly now will they?
And no nobody is bsing me saying that the car is still in developement, can you sriously tell me that after two years of consumer availablity and not that of test vehicles that the car model will be at tht production level that it should be in comparrison to other vehicles? Typicaly if a new model comes out then you want to wait atleast a year for the new model to come out so that it has been modified from whatever problems occured in the older one. And with this engine and it only being used by consumers for just acouple of years other than someone testing it to see if it explodes or something when used on the street. That it would indeed be out of the developement stage?
the whole risk of driving something new in form and technology with money to spare i guess. and if i said the car was safe which i dont remember doing then i am sorry i ment that it was simply good for fuel consumption and drives well which in a sense makes it safe until you have the occurance of an accident.
quote: Another bad on my part i did not specify in what money you save when i intended to. I ment money that goes towards gas which in effect lowers the consumption of gasoline.
But you lose money in the big picture, so what's the point? Hybrid cars will probably actually COST you money.
quote:My purpose for posting this is obvious, why would you even ask about it and especialy in such an irate way that is unjustified? And no i was not speaking about vegetarianism when this post was originaly ment for the problems of fuel consmption. And i refuse to saysomething that is in my opinion when it has already been stated in the thread
The vegetarian stuff was clearly not directed at you since I quoted gayquestionare's post, and not yours.
And as for reposting your ideas... If we don't get them, then maybe you didn't express them effectively the first time.
yes and this is why i apologised and restated them so you could. BUt as someone attempting to debate or converse about issues if you dont get what someone is saying either dont respond or ask what it is that they are trying to say instead of making assumptions.
Generaly when something is unclear it may be that the person posting thought quicker than he/she could type; or does not know what they are talking about and in that case you just ignore them after you ask a question of what they mean and they display this lack of depth in their opinion.
and i again apologise i am getting used to the odd format of this forum and how you placed two replies in one post when generaly i am used to people posting one reply at a time.
quote: Another bad on my part i did not specify in what money you save when i intended to. I ment money that goes towards gas which in effect lowers the consumption of gasoline.
But you lose money in the big picture, so what's the point? Hybrid cars will probably actually COST you money.
quote:My purpose for posting this is obvious, why would you even ask about it and especialy in such an irate way that is unjustified? And no i was not speaking about vegetarianism when this post was originaly ment for the problems of fuel consmption. And i refuse to saysomething that is in my opinion when it has already been stated in the thread
The vegetarian stuff was clearly not directed at you since I quoted gayquestionare's post, and not yours.
And as for reposting your ideas... If we don't get them, then maybe you didn't express them effectively the first time.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
quote: No considering they havent gotten the bugs in teh safety features worked out, which would point to the fact that they ARE indeed in developement. THe safety features being that when one is in an accident and the car needs to be cut open to free the passengers that they dont get electricuted and so that the fireman cutting does not die in trying.
This is not a good example of a problem that would justify the extra cost of the car. ALL production model cars have bugs to be worked out like this. You were suggesting that there was some sort of major problem that would justify the $2k-3k mark-up on hybrids. This is not the case. The engine technology is very well established. If they're telling you you're paying more for "development" then they're BSing you. All you did was prove that hybrids are electrical deathtraps.
quote:and no, you didnt properly quote, years of posting does not mean that you actualy are good at it, just as someone who says they have painted for years , it does not mean they are any good at it. Its so good to see that you lack ears but have quite a large mouth when it comes to advice.
And we start in with the personal attacks now...sheesh, that was quick. You never said how I did not properly respond to your point that hybrids were the best thing since sliced bread. I don't need to completely repost your whole post because it ends up with giant cumbersome 3 page long responses when things get hot. I did not take anything you said out of context, and I do my best not to.
quote: And tell me how it is that interstate traveling with a hybrid WOULD consume more than but a portion of a gallon?
You said you commute 80 miles a day. After a little research I've found that the current highest production model car that could buy only gets 66 MPG. Therefore, if you travel 80 miles, even under ideal circumstances, you *might* just use a little more than a gallon of gas. It's simple mathematics. You said you use a "portion of a gallon". You would obviously have to use more than that. Therefore, you're either mistaken or lying.
quote: i didnt explain to you my entire situation of travel for this i apologise but you still can not assume that it HAS to be atleast close to a lie. Instead ask next time when you dont have all the facts.
Unless you have some sort of magical shortcut and actualy DON'T travel 80 miles a day, then I've got plenty of information and facts to prove my point. But you should know this already...
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
quote: While quoting someone for a rebuttle you have to quote the entire thought otherwise it is not substantial for a rebuttle and you are simply quoting a coin phrase that could have any connection you wish to make of it.
I quoted everything that was relevent to the hybrid issue in your post. I've been one messegeboards for well over 3 years now (over two on this one). I'm quite adept at proper quoting. Thank you for your time.
quote: i have to commute 80 miles a day and i use but a portion of a gallon. Which saves money.
The best hybrids out there get 80 mpg under ideal conditions. Saying you use "a portion of a gallon" is either false, or just nearly false.
And if you would look at my previous post you'll find out that you saved NOTHING because you could have bought a much cheaper conventional car with decenet fuel economy and the cost difference would have far outstripped whatever reletively small amount you save on gas.
quote: They cost more but that is because they are still inthe developmental stage for any new technology it will be a given that it will be more expensive.
Hybrids are far from the develeopmental stage. There are many production models out there right now. They cost more simply because they are more complex vehicles and there's a "hey hybrids are cool" sheik about them that allows the company to squeeze a few more bucks out of you.
No considering they havent gotten the bugs in teh safety features worked out, which would point to the fact that they ARE indeed in developement. THe safety features being that when one is in an accident and the car needs to be cut open to free the passengers that they dont get electricuted and so that the fireman cutting does not die in trying.
and no, you didnt properly quote, years of posting does not mean that you actualy are good at it, just as someone who says they have painted for years , it does not mean they are any good at it. Its so good to see that you lack ears but have quite a large mouth when it comes to advice.
And tell me how it is that interstate traveling with a hybrid WOULD consume more than but a portion of a gallon? i didnt explain to you my entire situation of travel for this i apologise but you still can not assume that it HAS to be atleast close to a lie. Instead ask next time when you dont have all the facts.
Another bad on my part i did not specify in what money you save when i intended to. I ment money that goes towards gas which in effect lowers the consumption of gasoline.
My purpose for posting this is obvious, why would you even ask about it and especialy in such an irate way that is unjustified? And no i was not speaking about vegetarianism when this post was originaly ment for the problems of fuel consmption. And i refuse to saysomething that is in my opinion when it has already been stated in the thread
quote: While quoting someone for a rebuttle you have to quote the entire thought otherwise it is not substantial for a rebuttle and you are simply quoting a coin phrase that could have any connection you wish to make of it.
I quoted everything that was relevent to the hybrid issue in your post. I've been one messegeboards for well over 3 years now (over two on this one). I'm quite adept at proper quoting. Thank you for your time.
quote: i have to commute 80 miles a day and i use but a portion of a gallon. Which saves money.
The best hybrids out there get 80 mpg under ideal conditions. Saying you use "a portion of a gallon" is either false, or just nearly false.
And if you would look at my previous post you'll find out that you saved NOTHING because you could have bought a much cheaper conventional car with decenet fuel economy and the cost difference would have far outstripped whatever reletively small amount you save on gas.
quote: They cost more but that is because they are still inthe developmental stage for any new technology it will be a given that it will be more expensive.
Hybrids are far from the develeopmental stage. There are many production models out there right now. They cost more simply because they are more complex vehicles and there's a "hey hybrids are cool" sheik about them that allows the company to squeeze a few more bucks out of you.
quote: DrStrangeLove...my ideal of a vegetarian society is of course only that. An ideal. To suggest that the entire world would begin a vegetarian diet IS ludacris. However the point I was trying to make is absolutely valid. And so are all of the arguments therein. Like I said probability and possibility are two different things.
I like to chose my ideals based upon whether or not they are actually fesible and rational. The point you made is valid but completely irrelevent in this thread. We're talking about energy concerns here. If your not going to claim that vegetarism should be implemented soceity wide (which is the ONLY way it would have any signifigant effect on energy consumption) then why the hell did you bring up the point in this thread?
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
DrStrangeLove...my ideal of a vegetarian society is of course only that. An ideal. To suggest that the entire world would begin a vegetarian diet IS ludacris. However the point I was trying to make is absolutely valid. And so are all of the arguments therein. Like I said probability and possibility are two different things.
In my lifetime I have been to bed with men, women, and odd pieces of furniture....Oh and my avatar says "The only abnormality is the inability to LOVE!"
quote:then look at this, the new hybrid cars are awesome to drive and save loads of money, imagine if they were entirely electric or some cheaper fuel that isnt consumed as fast as our current.
quote: The new hybrid cars are not "awesome" to drive. They're not even economical. Thier performance is mediocre compared to other cars in thier size class, and they tend to cost several thousand dollars more. You won't even save any money by buying one. In order to make up the cost of buying the hybrid (vs the cost of a conventional economy car) through savings on gas, you have to drive something like 120,000 miles. That's about 6-7 years worth of driving. Then you're breaking even.
Hybrids are not the answer. We need another source of energy all together.
This we do but you did not read my argument clearly. While quoting someone for a rebuttle you have to quote the entire thought otherwise it is not substantial for a rebuttle and you are simply quoting a coin phrase that could have any connection you wish to make of it.
I would repost it but its is but a few posts down; scrolling down wont hurt.
And yes for my case hybrid cars are great to drive. i have to commute 80 miles a day and i use but a portion of a gallon. Which saves money. They cost more but that is because they are still inthe developmental stage for any new technology it will be a given that it will be more expensive.
quote:For some reason I am not surprised. Anyways it was a tangent but you get the point initiated.
Just so you know I've posted MANY intelligent and thorough arguments on the pro-meat side of the argument. I just go tired of repeating them. Go dig them up if you're really interested. I'll be glad when we finally get fusion running so I can stop listening to these crazy and misleading numbers. "the meat industry takes up too much energy from our free and near-infinite energy supplies!" You really care about energy efficency, each person can do a HELL of a lot more help by slightly modifying thier lifestyle as opposed to quitting meat. You buy a car that gets 30 mpg as opposed to 0 mpg and you'll wipe out the energy needed by the meat industry several times over. To suggest vegetarianism is a fesible way to reduce energy consumption is ludicrous.
quote:hen look at this, the new hybrid cars are awesome to drive and save loads of money, imagine if they were entirely electric or some cheaper fuel that isnt consumed as fast as our current.
The new hybrid cars are not "awesome" to drive. They're not even economical. Thier performance is mediocre compared to other cars in thier size class, and they tend to cost several thousand dollars more. You won't even save any money by buying one. In order to make up the cost of buying the hybrid (vs the cost of a conventional economy car) through savings on gas, you have to drive something like 120,000 miles. That's about 6-7 years worth of driving. Then you're breaking even.
Hybrids are not the answer. We need another source of energy all together.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
Hydrogen fuel does not contribute to acid rain, ozone depletion, or global warming.
some forms of acid rain are natural, if i could remember the lecture from my mother's organic chem course i would tell you how it is so but basicly it deals with the natural properties of the ozone layer. there is a new theory of ozone depletion and it is that the ozone is basicly like a bag and with the more contents that fill it the less gas mixture there will be able to fit in it. THe bag does not expand so naturaly "holes" are created in the weak points for this gas to escape in effect letting the suns harmful rays go through and damage us. I dont really agree with this theory beacuse you would think that the more conents on a planet would produce more gravitational pull but i figured i would share it. and ofcourse like usual i cant remember the source that i got that fromfor i read it awhile ago.
We were on the road to federal funding to develope new technologies for altrenative fuel sources but now the main concern is how not to have the attack that was made unintelligeably and too soon on Iraq not backfire on us completely. Unfortunately now that we are there we cant just leave, meaning funds are drained from other places.. alternative fuel sources being one of them. The damage done by an idiotic administration will go beyond the four years that it has been appointed to already and will require alot of sweep up. Its too bad that the bush admin can only think in the terms of months and not even close to years. The environment which has been put back seat when actualy it should be in the passenger seat if not the driver's is not a concern for the nation of paranoia. One thing though, if you dont give a damn about saving the environment( even though it happens to be what we all depend on) then look at this, the new hybrid cars are awesome to drive and save loads of money, imagine if they were entirely electric or some cheaper fuel that isnt consumed as fast as our current. So really we were denied progress in technology and the way of living by this.
quote: Meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes pretty damn good.
For some reason I am not surprised. Anyways it was a tangent but you get the point initiated.
Improbable doesn't mean impossible. And it makes a lot of sense, meat production being so much more expensive, if you really think about it.
In my lifetime I have been to bed with men, women, and odd pieces of furniture....Oh and my avatar says "The only abnormality is the inability to LOVE!"
quote:As long as we are talking about wasted government money. It costs roughly five times more to produce a pound of meat versus a pound of wheat and uses 20 times more land and 100 times more water. And while we're talking about fossile fuels it take enough gas to drive a small car 20 miles to produce a single hamburger patty. The gross part...the meat industry produces about 86,600 pounds of excrement a second, 130 times more than humans. Which is all put into water ways. How lovely.
Blarg, I really, really wish people would stop regurgitating these overblown numbers. Especially in a thread about ALTERNATIVE FUEL. Meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes pretty damn good.
Anyway, back on topic.
quote: True Dr.StrangeLove but if we are going to fill the air with nasty hydrocarbons it might as well be our nasty hydrocarbons until we find something better. It was only a thought anyhoo.
See, I'd rather suck up all the resources from around the world first. Then when everyone is scrambling to find more resources, we can sell them ours!
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
Wow, I'm extremely confused by all this intellectual talk, but I have to say that I have learned a few things.
I do believe that sooner or later, we will run out of oil and I think it's time to stop trading with other countries and find our own way to make these damn cars run!
quote: Our government spends billions of dollars each year to defend access to oil in the Middle East and billions more to finance oil exploration.
Oil imports drain $1 billion from the U.S. economy, every week, according to U.S. trade balance sheets.
As long as we are talking about wasted government money. It costs roughly five times more to produce a pound of meat versus a pound of wheat and uses 20 times more land and 100 times more water. And while we're talking about fossile fuels it take enough gas to drive a small car 20 miles to produce a single hamburger patty. The gross part...the meat industry produces about 86,600 pounds of excrement a second, 130 times more than humans. Which is all put into water ways. How lovely.
In my lifetime I have been to bed with men, women, and odd pieces of furniture....Oh and my avatar says "The only abnormality is the inability to LOVE!"
The only problem is it isn't yet equitable to produce such forms of energy for vehicles or it would be done. The cost/income ratio is just too high to produce them with any hope of making a return.
In my lifetime I have been to bed with men, women, and odd pieces of furniture....Oh and my avatar says "The only abnormality is the inability to LOVE!"
Topics 
