Hydrogen Fuel Cells (a rant) (3821 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 1.13 on 285 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-01-30 18:44:03 EST
Exxon Mobile has just reported $10 BILLION in fourth quarter earnings. That puts Exxon's 2005 earnings higher than any other company in history. That's just another day at the office these days. Hurricanes and unstable middle east conditions have given them the perfect excuse to raise prices to record levels.
I'm actually glad that fuel prices are higher - maybe it will force the powers that control everything to release the technologies they already have available and to make them affordable for the average consumer instead of keeping them under wraps for fear that their oil investments plummet prematurely.
In case you have been living under a rock lately, the climate is getting seriously fucking weird and while we have invented a car that will convert hydrogen to energy, leaving only water as a biproduct, it seems that we're dragging our feet in implementing it.
They tell us that hydrogen cars are "too expensive to produce". Why? What components are going into an H-Car that are so costly? What ways are there to reduce that cost? Why, you ask, doesn't the government try to do something about it? The way I see it, it's a ruse designed to explain away the reasoning behind holding out another 15 years while we're forced to continue using the fossil fuels that companies like Exxon, Halliburton, Chevron, BP, and the like have invested their dollars in searching for and extracting from the earth. As one might expect, they're going to try to do everything in their power to halt or push back the oil-weaning process as much as possible. This is no surprise. What is a surprise is that the people of the world would stand for it.
Actually, knowing people, that's no surprise either. They don't give a shit until it affects them directly. Now with skyrocketing heating costs, it finally is. But will it be enough?
I, for one, DEMAND the hydrogen fuel cells available NOW! I'm sick of this runaround the elite billionaires are giving us behind the scenes. I'm sick of the fucking excuses and I'm sick of the fucking coverups. It's time to fix this bullshit once and for all, and it's up to our representatives in Congress to create bills that address this issue and the president to sign it into law.
Of course, they'll all TALK a great game to throw a bone to the ignorant masses, but what will they actually DO about any of it? My money is on NOTHING.
Our government needs to get its ass in gear and create a nationwide public project to install hydrogen infrastructure in existing service stations, or to subsidize such a conversion. I got an excellent place to start....TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THE OIL COMPANIES WHO ARE RECORDING RECORD PROFITS FOR THE FUNDING! And don't anyone give me this shit about we'll drive away jobs and competition. We're the largest consumer of oil in the fucking world, I think they'll manage.
Bush was recently quoted as saying: "We have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons, oil," Bush explained. "And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can drive _ have different driving habits."
He's also expected to make alternate energies an issue in the State of the Union address, but if his past rhetoric on environmental issues is any indicator, how much of what he says we can expect to be put to practice is going to be slim to none. In fact, I look for him to start drilling in National Parks any time now. My cynicism knows no end when it comes to Mr. Bush. I can't imagine why.
Mr. Bush, if you're listening, you can go a long way toward regaining my confidence if you do something to expedite the switch to Hydrogen. That still won't absolve you from your NSA wiretapping scandal, but it'll go a long way toward softening the blow. The projected 2020 date for a showroom production model of an H-Car is ridiculous, not to mention completely fictitious and fabricated.
Call me naive, but I just don't understand how I can turn on my television and see someone driving around a test course at 65mph in a prototype H-Car and it not be ready for large-scale production by 2008. They say the car costs $1 million dollars right now. You know why? Because they have to build the fucking thing from scratch. It's a fucking prototype! OF COURSE it's going to cost more if you have to custom fabricate every part of the engine and drive train, not to mention the research and development costs which are surely being thrown in there as well to offset the comany's initial investment. This is why we have to create some incentives to make it worthwhile for automobile manufacturers to retool their factories and venture into the hydrogen market. It also wouldn't hurt if we got the ball rolling by creating incentives for oil companies to retrofit their fuelling stations with hydrogen capabilities
I understand that our way of life demands that companies remain profitable. I understand the way economics work. But when you're talking about something as important as the cessation of our carbon-based energy consumption as a species, that's right up there with going to the moon on the scale of human history.
As our species has advanced along the pathway of evolution, we have overcome our share of formidable obstacles. We created tools, communication, writing, art, agriculture, and sanitation. As our curiousity guided us further, we learned to harness nuclear fission, we went to the moon, we've sent probes to the outer reaches of our solar system and beyond, we created a computer network that allows us to instantly communicate with anyone on the face of the planet in seconds. Now we're faced with with a situation where we are experiencing climate changes on a global scale the end results of which are uncertain at best and dire at worst. I have no doubt that humankind can arise to meet this challenge, but not if we continue to let our corporations, who are traditionally more concerned with their own bottom line than the betterment of mankind, direct our world's policy decisions.
We've simply come too far now to allow our progress to be our demise.
More reading: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/car-tech-05a.html
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:29:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"It will probably be available only to a small group of alternative fuel loyalists and devotees, and likely only in Japan or possibly California"
Still not enough.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:16:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://cars.blogs.ca/2006/02/06/hydrogen-powered-honda-fcx-to-go-into-production/
Now SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!!!
Submitted by ParlorTrick (user info) at 2006-02-03 14:05:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sprouting wings.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-02-03 13:57:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i agree with going to alternative energy as soon as possible. partly for the climate, but mainly so we can give a big hearty fuck you to the assholes in the middle east. and corporate oilamerica.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-02-03 12:34:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
When did they invent horseless carriages? I'm going to have to read up on this.
Submitted by Calios (user info) at 2006-02-03 03:44:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This provokes the question, why not any other form of electric car? Why do we need a combustion engine, be it for gasoline or hydrogen?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Because while we may care about the environment,
it doesn't mean we want to sell the souped-up old v8
that is lurking in the garage, even if we have to
convert it to hydro.
i'm not getting a Prius. fuck that.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 23:27:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"The combustion engines are pretty dangerous in collisions. That's part of the reason it has taken so long to develop Hydrogen based engines. The safest way to use it is in the fuel cell form. "
--------------
I heard that Hydrogen fuel is safer than current fossil fuels as the Hydrogen is highly volatile, i.e. it escapes into the environment incredibly quickly if the tank is compromised. Maybe not quick enough for a high-speed collision, do you have a link to back that up?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:54:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:35:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think BMW are pushing the Combustion type:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r2.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combustion engines are pretty dangerous in collisions. That's part of the reason it has taken so long to develop Hydrogen based engines. The safest way to use it is in the fuel cell form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:28:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't know how the engines worked till then, but still, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and unless we are willing to invest heavily in solar and wind power it will never be a better alternative. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to use solar and wind more, but until we are willing to establish enough of a source for it to obtain all the necessary hydrogen to power all the cars on the planet, Ethanol will be a better alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol is the easiest/cheapest thing to do right now. Most modern engines wouldn't need drastic alterations to them for the induction of Ethanol.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:48:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
if only there was a way that Mr. Fusion could power the engine AND the flux capacitor...
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:44:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice post, better thread
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:35:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think BMW are pushing the Combustion type:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r2.htm
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:28:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:20:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
"I say we just go with Ethanol.
Alcohol burns cleaner, its renewable, and it'll help support farmers. "
_____________________
Doesn't that stuff corrode or damage the engine if you use more than 5-10% in the fuel?
---------------------------
In certain engines I believe it does.
I remember something about it warping alluminum engines, but they can make engines that withstand a higher concentration of it. Its a very viable alternative.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:21:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
As I stated earlier in this post, or this one:http://www.ubersite.com/m/83260,
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles do not combust. They are driven by electric motors.
Please read this:http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/fuel-vehl.html
I agree with using Ethanol in the short run, but fuel cells are a good long term solution.
-------------------------
Didn't know how the engines worked till then, but still, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere, and unless we are willing to invest heavily in solar and wind power it will never be a better alternative. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to use solar and wind more, but until we are willing to establish enough of a source for it to obtain all the necessary hydrogen to power all the cars on the planet, Ethanol will be a better alternative.
Sorry I didn't catch your post earlier Oxy, this has been most heated for awhile, alot of shit has been said.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:21:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
As I stated earlier in this post, or this one:http://www.ubersite.com/m/83260,
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles do not combust. They are driven by electric motors.
Please read this:http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/fuel-vehl.html
I agree with using Ethanol in the short run, but fuel cells are a good long term solution.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:20:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"I say we just go with Ethanol.
Alcohol burns cleaner, its renewable, and it'll help support farmers. "
_____________________
Doesn't that stuff corrode or damage the engine if you use more than 5-10% in the fuel?
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:16:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I say we just go with Ethanol.
Alcohol burns cleaner, its renewable, and it'll help support farmers.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:14:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"This provokes the question, why not any other form of electric car"
---------
Very true, I guess a Hydrogen combustion car is more powerful. But hey, maybe that's just propaganda, I really don't know.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:10:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:08:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
"AND FOR CHRIST SAKE HYDROGEN FUEL WILL NOT WORK!!! YOU TALK ABOUT THIS LIKE ITS A PERPETUAL ENERGY MACHINE!!!
To seperate the atoms of hydrogen, it takes a set ammount of energy, and odds are they will want to fully remove the hydrogen, so they will use an excess of energy. The hydrogen, then, when burning, (for those that don't know, burning involves O2, and some other gas producing H20 and usually CO2, but since its burning hydrogen it'll just be H20) will only be capable of releasing an equal ammount of energy as to what it took to seperate it from the oxygen.
Alternative ways to get hydrogen? And those won't take energy? Those won't be depleted?
This concept is flawed, ignorant, and inefficient. "
--------------------------------
Producing energy in a large fossil fuel power plant which is 'converted' and stored as hydrogen for burning in cars, is more efficient than burning fosil fuels in a car due to the nature of the engine. This will also centralise the power production which can be improved in stage two, using technologies such as geothermic power/ hot rocks etc.
--------------------------------------------
This provokes the question, why not any other form of electric car? Why do we need a combustion engine, be it for gasoline or hydrogen?
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:08:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"AND FOR CHRIST SAKE HYDROGEN FUEL WILL NOT WORK!!! YOU TALK ABOUT THIS LIKE ITS A PERPETUAL ENERGY MACHINE!!!
To seperate the atoms of hydrogen, it takes a set ammount of energy, and odds are they will want to fully remove the hydrogen, so they will use an excess of energy. The hydrogen, then, when burning, (for those that don't know, burning involves O2, and some other gas producing H20 and usually CO2, but since its burning hydrogen it'll just be H20) will only be capable of releasing an equal ammount of energy as to what it took to seperate it from the oxygen.
Alternative ways to get hydrogen? And those won't take energy? Those won't be depleted?
This concept is flawed, ignorant, and inefficient. "
--------------------------------
Producing energy in a large fossil fuel power plant which is 'converted' and stored as hydrogen for burning in cars, is more efficient than burning fosil fuels in a car due to the nature of the engine. This will also centralise the power production which can be improved in stage two, using technologies such as geothermic power/ hot rocks etc.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:06:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:04:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
"If the water being used is undergoing hydrolysis to extract the fucking hydrogen, why does it mater how the water is anyway?" - Good point, I wonder if this effects the process and what could be done with the left over salt.
In regards to relevance, these are all factors that need to be taken into consideration when discussing a timeline for implementing H-cars.
-------------
H-cars will not work. Its an ignorant plan.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:04:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"If the water being used is undergoing hydrolysis to extract the fucking hydrogen, why does it mater how the water is anyway?" - Good point, I wonder if this effects the process and what could be done with the left over salt.
In regards to relevance, these are all factors that need to be taken into consideration when discussing a timeline for implementing H-cars.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 22:02:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
AND FOR CHRIST SAKE HYDROGEN FUEL WILL NOT WORK!!! YOU TALK ABOUT THIS LIKE ITS A PERPETUAL ENERGY MACHINE!!!
To seperate the atoms of hydrogen, it takes a set ammount of energy, and odds are they will want to fully remove the hydrogen, so they will use an excess of energy. The hydrogen, then, when burning, (for those that don't know, burning involves O2, and some other gas producing H20 and usually CO2, but since its burning hydrogen it'll just be H20) will only be capable of releasing an equal ammount of energy as to what it took to seperate it from the oxygen.
Alternative ways to get hydrogen? And those won't take energy? Those won't be depleted?
This concept is flawed, ignorant, and inefficient.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:59:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The recent plans for a desalinisation plant describe a plant that will take in sea water from the ocean and convert it to fresh water. This is not dealing with water within the country that has been contaminated by farming.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:58:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:49:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anyone who knows basic Australian history, say, the shit you learn in sixth grade, knows why there has to be desalinization plants.
----------------------------------
Maybe because you guys live in the middle of a fucking ocean?
If the water being used is undergoing hydrolysis to extract the fucking hydrogen, why does it mater how the water is anyway? I don't even know what the fuck any of this has to do with any of the current discussion.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:49:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Anyone who knows basic Australian history, say, the shit you learn in sixth grade, knows why there has to be desalinization plants. The systems used by farmers caused most of the water in NSW to be heavily salinized..."
That's my point, just because the water is never created or destoryed, doesn't mean that it will always be easily usable, gradually it will require more energy for decontamination.
Submitted by El_Jeffe (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:43:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 19:55:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
"PS: Why are you all fixating on water running out? Haven't you ever heard of the water cycle? THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER COMES OUT AS YOU PUT IN. Same goes for hydrogen fuel cells."
"There has been and always will be about the same amount of water on our planet as there was at the start, just because it evaporates doesn't mean its gone away, if you would have paid attention in 8th grade science you would know about this things called phase changes."
Why then in the state of NSW in Australia is the government proposing to put in a very expensive, very environmentally unfriendly, very energy draining desalinisation plant to obtain water due to a crippling water shortage? Could it be that only 1% of the world's water is actually fresh and drinkable? Could it be that fresh water can be evaporated into the air on a hot country and then dumped in the sea where it becomes salty and unusable? If these cars do not collect the water and return it to the source efficiently won't it end up being dispersed throughout cities, where it becomes contaminated?
Sure, the water is never created or destroyed, but it can be rendered useless through gradual contamination.
Anyone who made it beyond the 8th grade would know this. Some people are just so F**king stupid is Sh*ts me to tears!
------
Anyone who knows basic Australian history, say, the shit you learn in sixth grade, knows why there has to be desalinization plants. The systems used by farmers caused most of the water in NSW to be heavily salinized, dumbshit. Get with the fucking program and pay a-fucking-tention.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-02 21:27:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-02 20:49:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
It doesn't matter. Car insurance will still cost me 4,000 dollars a year, so I still won't be driving. All you bright minds out there, ditch this hydro car shit and make me some healthy smokes. I want cigs to make me run like a Kenyan and make my jizz taste like lemonade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, couldn't find lemonade flavored jizz, hope banana is ok....why do you care what your cum tastes like, anyways?
http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/inhaledcorticosteroids.html
http://www.askmen.com/love/dzimmer_60/79_love_answers.html
http://www.eclipse.rjrt.com/RJR/dtc_certify.jsp?brand=ECL&from_Jeeves=true
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-02 20:49:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It doesn't matter. Car insurance will still cost me 4,000 dollars a year, so I still won't be driving. All you bright minds out there, ditch this hydro car shit and make me some healthy smokes. I want cigs to make me run like a Kenyan and make my jizz taste like lemonade.
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2006-02-02 19:59:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I think, at least currently, that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than it does gasoline...and by energy I mean fossil fuels.
So you'll probablly get your wish seeing as how Bush is all about burning up as much oil as possible so that he can keep driving the prices up and making more for his buddies.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 19:55:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"PS: Why are you all fixating on water running out? Haven't you ever heard of the water cycle? THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER COMES OUT AS YOU PUT IN. Same goes for hydrogen fuel cells."
"There has been and always will be about the same amount of water on our planet as there was at the start, just because it evaporates doesn't mean its gone away, if you would have paid attention in 8th grade science you would know about this things called phase changes."
Why then in the state of NSW in Australia is the government proposing to put in a very expensive, very environmentally unfriendly, very energy draining desalinisation plant to obtain water due to a crippling water shortage? Could it be that only 1% of the world's water is actually fresh and drinkable? Could it be that fresh water can be evaporated into the air on a hot country and then dumped in the sea where it becomes salty and unusable? If these cars do not collect the water and return it to the source efficiently won't it end up being dispersed throughout cities, where it becomes contaminated?
Sure, the water is never created or destroyed, but it can be rendered useless through gradual contamination.
Anyone who made it beyond the 8th grade would know this. Some people are just so F**king stupid is Sh*ts me to tears!
Submitted by remote_narcotic (user info) at 2006-02-02 15:28:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, that would rule.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-02 14:31:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 14:19:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't tell me what I will and will not do. You don't know me.
-------------------
Fine you can't get a technical degree. And you can't get into the peace corps. You don't have the brains or the balls.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 14:19:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't tell me what I will and will not do. You don't know me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-02 07:25:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:18:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja: What the fuck is your problem? My 'conspiracy theory' (which happens to be reality) hasn't changed; your interpretation has. Another reason the conspiracy makes perfect sense is because the auto manufacturers haven't wanted to spend the money to retool and reorganize because of legislation just as much as the oil companies don't want to give up their cash cow. They are perfect bedfellows.
------------------------
Conspiracy theory 1) http://www.ubersite.com/m/83260
"We'd like you to halt your hydrogen research and go slowly toward hybrid first," or "If you wait another 15 years before you introduce hydrogen into the market, we'll give you X% of our net profits, or we'll scratch your back in other ways."
-Straight up payments to offset the cost of not taking of an opportunity in the market. Looks like you are implying it is for all auto makers since none of them are selling hydrogen cars. Makes no sense because oil companies are not always making enough money to stop car manufacturers from going after a potentially lucrative market (they probably aren't making enough now), and it would be impossible to hide the transfer of that much money.
Conspiracy theory 2) http://www.ubersite.com/m/83260#1815982
"Who says the money is going back into the company itself and not a few distinguished pockets at the top? The bottom line is, unless you're the CEO or the CFO of the company, you're probably not going to know about anything I've described there because there are ways to hide the money. Besides...Ford and GM are not going under, my friend; they are shutting down expensive American plants PRECISELY BECUASE they have refused to lead the Hybrid and Hydrogen charge for so long. They realize they can't compete right now, so they're reorganizing."
-Select payments to top people in auto industry. You seem to imply that it is only American companies that were taking the bribe since now their sales are hurting for not having hybrids and hydrogen cars soon enough, but the japanese are doing okay because they are trying to make them. Makes no sense because of the hundreds of heads of companies that would have to be paid off over the past 20 years, and if it was only the americans who weren't going after this why are they only a year or two behind the japanese?
It isn't reality, but I am not suprised you believe it. You are like a child afraid of the thunder. You can't understand it so you make up outrageous theories.
You didn't tell me what you were going to study when you went back to school, so you can shake up the man with your zero emmission car? You will never in a million years get a technical degree. Just like you are never going to join the peace corp. You are never going to do anything other than write dumb conspiracy theories on a web site, and pretend anyone who points out your errors is a plant by Bush/oil companies.
I am middle aged if by middle aged you mean 28. I did work for oil companies, but I left over a year ago. Unlike you I wanted to see the world, work hard and make some money. It was a great opportunity and I don't regret a minute of it.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-02 03:23:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-02-02 03:20:00 (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/82231
===
I'm fairly sure Captain Thorns owes me some money for that.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-02-02 03:20:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/82231
:)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-02-02 03:19:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
OMG YOU FUCKIONG LIBERAL WEENIE
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:18:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja: What the fuck is your problem? My 'conspiracy theory' (which happens to be reality) hasn't changed; your interpretation has. Another reason the conspiracy makes perfect sense is because the auto manufacturers haven't wanted to spend the money to retool and reorganize because of legislation just as much as the oil companies don't want to give up their cash cow. They are perfect bedfellows.
Yes, it IS a fucking conspiracy, and our politicians get kickbacks every fucking day to look the other way and make up excuses why it's "not a good idea for us right now".... Have you SEEN the list of the top lobbyists in America lately? Here are a few of the Top 100 since 1998. It's no fucking wonder we're at war, we're paying out our asses for healthcare, gasoline/heating costs are skyrocketing while alternate technologies are underfunded and shelved, and the mainstream media says FUCK ALL about it.
American Medical Association $92,560,000
Northrop Grumman Corp. $83,405,691
American Hospital Association & State Affiliates $79,205,772
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $72,720,000
ExxonMobil Corp. $59,672,742
Lockheed Martin $55,373,840
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and state affiliates $48,790,000
General Motors Corp. $48,260,000
Pfizer Inc. $43,522,720
Ford Motor Co. $41,350,808
Merck & Co. $40,710,294
ChevronTexaco $32,803,755
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. $32,544,033
GlaxoSmithKline $32,427,000
DaimlerChrysler Corp. $32,413,997
Textron Inc. $32,390,000
United Services Automobile Association Group $29,629,318
Advanced Medical Technology Association $29,510,000
Time Warner $29,215,000
Marathon Oil Corp. $29,190,000
American Association of Health Plans $27,935,342
BP p.l.c. (BP Amoco) $26,793,984
Shell Oil Co. $26,608,088
That not enough? Let's look at the top 25 companies in revenue for 2004 and see if we can see a little trend here. (Note: this is not even the record breaking 2005 year...those numbers haven't come out yet and are expected to shatter these numbers in the oil department.):
Rank / Company / 500 revenues rank / 2004 Profits($ millions) / Profits % Change From 2003
1 Exxon Mobil 3 25,330.0 17.8
2 Royal Dutch/Shell Group 4 18,183.0 45.5
3 Citigroup 16 17,046.0 -4.5
4 General Electric 9 16,819.0 10.4
5 BP 2 15,371.0 49.7
6 Bank of America Corp. 52 14,143.0 30.8
7 ChevronTexaco 11 13,328.0 84.3
8 Total 10 11,955.0 50.4
9 HSBC Holdings 36 11,840.0 34.9
10 Pfizer 75 11,361.0 190.6
11 Toyota Motor 7 10,898.2 5.9
12 Wal-Mart Stores 1 10,267.0 13.4
13 American Intl. Group 19 9,731.0 21.5
14 Samsung Electronics 39 9,419.5 88.2
15 Altria Group 50 9,416.0 2.3
16 Petronas 133 9,356.9 50.3
17 ENI 33 9,047.1 43.1
18 China National Petroleum 46 8,757.1 101.3
19 Johnson & Johnson 88 8,509.0 18.2
20 Intl. Business Machines 20 8,430.0 11.2
If you want to keep living in the dark, go ahead. Just don't go dragging all of us with you.
Everyone already knows what business you're in, Mr. Oil Man, so fuck you and piss off. You're one of the people I'm talking about as far as I'm concerned...a middle aged guy whose ways are set, a lifelong worker in the oil and gas industries, and a brainwashed ambassador for their crooked culture.
Like I said...my family are all coal miners. I KNOW the kind of propaganda she used to come home with...newsletters, videos, profit reports...blah blah blah.
Save it, dude. Just when I think we're starting to have pretty decent discussions here, you have to go insulting my intelligence... The man who can't properly formulate a sentence or spell properly half the fucking time is insulting MY intelligence! I think the diversity and depth of my submissions speak for themselves. What the fuck have YOU done lately?
PS: Why are you all fixating on water running out? Haven't you ever heard of the water cycle? THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER COMES OUT AS YOU PUT IN. Same goes for hydrogen fuel cells.
Submitted by Gods_Imaginary_Friend (user info) at 2006-02-02 00:24:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Please excuse me if this has already been said by someone (too many replies to check).
I agree that the H-Car is the first step on the path of averting climate chaos, however, where is the Hydrogen going to come from? What effect will that amount of water vapour by-product have on the environment?
As I understand it the chemical reaction method of obtaining Hydrogen, even the one that relies on sunlight, produces really nasty zinc compounds as by-products. The clearest way to derive the fuel would be electrolysis, however this requires electricity to begin with, which is being produced at fossil burning, or nuclear plants (geothermic, solar and wind power will take a long, long time to proliferate). Using electricity to create the Hydrogen is still better than burning fuel in the car as the plants that produce electricity are much more efficient at doing it, even if 60% is lost on the grid in transport.
So if Hydrogen cars started to sell well, how will the energy drain be handled for production of the Hydrogen (when many countries barely handle it now). How will the water be sourced? There is very little clean water available in the world and the salt water after desalinisation leaves behind lethal salt slurry that kills any vegetation it comes into contact with. Even if the cars collect the water as a by-product, how will the re-collection of that water be policed?
Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is probably why 2020 is the estimate, and even that is highly unlikely.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-02 00:20:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by malkavian (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:02:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
hmmm...here's a flas news for you: Water isn't doing well either. We do have way more than we need here in North America, but it won't last forever.
Now I don't know much about energy, but I would rather prefer another solution like that ethanol thing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Lake Michigan is empty, THEN I will start to worry.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2006-02-01 23:58:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I have had that exact same rant many times over.
Unfortunately, I also work in politics.
They will never adequately develop alternate energy sources until the absolute crisis point, and the simple reason is that there is a hell of a lot of money wrapped up in a) the automotive industry and b) oil. (Duh.) It's similar to the much-loved government concept of keeping things thriving by declaring a "war" on them. War on Drugs? Lots of money spent on it. Forward progress? Anyone? Right, it's still a Whac-a-mole game. War on Homelessness? I am guaranteeing that within minor-league pitching distance of any government building in DC there are at least 3 homeless people. On and on...too much money for calm heads to prevail.
Now, if there was something that the powers that be or society as a whole really really wanted, it would happen. But we're lazy, too, don't forget. Do YOU want to go out and buy new, more energy efficient cars? Detroit sinks a lot of money into making sure that the legislation governing alternate resource development has no teeth. And Bush saying he wants it done means exactly jack shit.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:32:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by malkavian (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:02:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
hmmm...here's a flas news for you: Water isn't doing well either. We do have way more than we need here in North America, but it won't last forever.
Now I don't know much about energy, but I would rather prefer another solution like that ethanol thing.
==========================
There has been and always will be about the same ammount of water on our planet as there was at the start, just because it evaporates doesn't mean its gone away, if you would have paid attention in 8th grade science you would know about this things called phase changes.
And hell, if you believe in global warming, as soon as those ice caps melt we'll have a hell of a lot more water.
Ethanol was mentioned earlier on here, by me and several others(although I hadn't a clue as to what it was called so I named it the "Grain thingy"), and I agree. Only reason they don't use it yet... well I don't know why the don't, but Ford is setting up its cars slowly to use more and more ethanol in their fuel.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:20:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
save energy, fart in a jar
Submitted by malkavian (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:02:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hmmm...here's a flas news for you: Water isn't doing well either. We do have way more than we need here in North America, but it won't last forever.
Now I don't know much about energy, but I would rather prefer another solution like that ethanol thing...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 21:02:44 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 19:28:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
deepmichael: http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html#
http://www.theaircar.com/conrod.html
That illustrates the workings of what I consider one of the most revolutionary aspects of that system, the rods. They've designed it so that it pauses at the peak rest point, allowing for the maximum amount of force in the cylinder. Interesting...
------------------------------
You realize you are an idiot don't you?
In your head does this sound smart?
Ripping lines from websites you probably don't understand?
"MDI registered a patent on its revolutionary con-rod which allows the retention of the piston at top dead centre during 70º of the rotation of the crankshaft."
It is amazing and insightful that you think it is revolutionary, especially since it is almost verbatim what the website says.
You don't need a degree in engineering to understand this, but spending an hour and a half on the internet looking up "eco friendly" doesn't mean you have the foggiest Idea what you are talking about.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 19:28:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
deepmichael: http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html#
http://www.theaircar.com/conrod.html
That illustrates the workings of what I consider one of the most revolutionary aspects of that system, the rods. They've designed it so that it pauses at the peak rest point, allowing for the maximum amount of force in the cylinder. Interesting...
The ENGINEERS on this site should take a look at this. They'd find it interesting as well.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:46:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:48:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:45:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:24:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
My understanding is that at this point the process of producing the hydrogen would use more energy than it saved. I agree that there are probably some alterior motives at work, but anything that would get consumers off of oil would make a ton of money and thus SOMEBODY could get it one no matter which industry or political forces were running interference.
______________
It's spelled "ulterior", not alterior. "Ulter" being the root of the word "ultra", meaning beyond, or outside. Hence ulterior motives...motives beyond those considered.
--------------
Thanks. My mistake, but I appreciate your incite.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
------------------
HAHAHAHAHA...
Ok, that was gude.
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:48:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:45:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:24:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
My understanding is that at this point the process of producing the hydrogen would use more energy than it saved. I agree that there are probably some alterior motives at work, but anything that would get consumers off of oil would make a ton of money and thus SOMEBODY could get it one no matter which industry or political forces were running interference.
______________
It's spelled "ulterior", not alterior. "Ulter" being the root of the word "ultra", meaning beyond, or outside. Hence ulterior motives...motives beyond those considered.
--------------
Thanks. My mistake, but I appreciate your incite.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Submitted by deepmichael (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:32:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
check out the air car.
http://www.theaircar.com/
too bad it seems like they've died and haven't done anything since 2003.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:45:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:24:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
My understanding is that at this point the process of producing the hydrogen would use more energy than it saved. I agree that there are probably some alterior motives at work, but anything that would get consumers off of oil would make a ton of money and thus SOMEBODY could get it one no matter which industry or political forces were running interference.
______________
It's spelled "ulterior", not alterior. "Ulter" being the root of the word "ultra", meaning beyond, or outside. Hence ulterior motives...motives beyond those considered.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 11:20:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 10:20:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
What stake does Ford have in BP?
-----------------------
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83260
I just dedicated half my next post giving you your answer.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-02-01 11:07:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think what ETS is trying to say is, they have the ability to bring the hydrogen car out far sooner than they expect to, if they wanted to, and that they should tax the oil companies that are making insane amounts of money. In a nutshell.
I concur.
Now, I don't know about getting it done withen a year, but sooner than 2020 sounds like an attainable goal to me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 10:20:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-02-01 09:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Because the whole fucking auto industry has stake in different oil companies. Gee, indoninja, you seem to know everything else about everything, why is this this different?
-------------------------------
What stake does Ford have in BP? They have cross promotions, so what? Shoe companies have cross promotions with magazines at movie premieres. I was watching Sci-Fi last week and they were saying dominoes goes great with the movie, does that mean sci-fi is keeping down other food delivery companies? If oil companies folded because a new engine didn't need gas the car companies would still be making money.
If by stake you mean auto companies owning oil companies, then I think you probably have it backwards,I think the oil companies are larger, and might own shares in some auto companies. But I doubt it, if that were the case I am sure it would be in the papers. And unless oil companies controlled EVERY auto company one of them would be making a ultra high mpg car.
Do you think a struggling auto maker would not release a high mpg car that would sell well and make them money because oil says no? Or does it make more sense that the cars don't sell.
Find the name of that toyota and I am sure you can track down the sales for it, if it was making them money they would still have it. I know Toyota isn't owned by oil companies, and I highly doubt that they have large investments with oil companies.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-02-01 09:26:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 07:33:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-01-31 21:52:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I read this and some of the reviews yesterday or the day before. I don't know if anyone mentioned it or not, but Toyota used to have a car with a three-cylinder engine that got about the same gas mileage as the new hybrid cars do. Took it off because it didn't make the oil industry money.
When I went to fill my new car with gas last month, the first time I looked at the gas cap it said "Ford recommends BP products." The whole thing's sickening.
---------------------------------
Can anyone give me a single reason pleasing Oil companies would help a car company? Anytime gas prices get higher regular people start looking at more efficient cars. Tree huggers are always looking for more effecient cars? If the market demanded cars with better fuel effeciency, if cars with good MPG sold well, no auto company is going to stop making them.
***
Because the whole fucking auto industry has stake in different oil companies. Gee, indoninja, you seem to know everything else about everything, why is this this different?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-01 09:16:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:43:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:47:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ethanol.org/ -
Ethanol is the best current answer.
-----------------------
Corn Country thanks you for your kind words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:41:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
it's ExxonMobil.
Not Exxon Mobile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wondered when Mr. Big Oil himself would chime in. You guys want to know the TRUTH? You want to know who's REALLY behind the suppression of alternate fuel technology? You need look no further than Uber's own APOLLO88!!
Dun-Dun-DUUUUUUUUUUN!
Now that I've revealed his terrible secret, this may be my last communique. They are no doubt aware of my location now. I will try to evade them for a while longer, but my safety is less important than the fact that now the Truth is out there. Spread the message brothers and sisters! Spread the Truth! Bring down Mr. "I live in Houston and It's called ExxonMobil, not Exxon Mobile" and his supporters in the BUSH family and Halliburton!
Sorry. Had to be done.
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-02-01 08:57:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh and I will by that.... if they make a Jeep Wrangler version.
With monster tires and a winch of course.
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-02-01 08:56:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF??? My ratings dropped without additional hits or reviews!!
I CALL SHENANNIGANS!!!!
Read my new stuff... Come on.... I never post... you know you want to.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83247
Who broke Uber?? I'm guessing it was Method.... or all these Tigerlilly posts.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 08:18:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-01 08:06:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, here we go: http://www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/airAndClimate/BPAmocoAffiliation.htm
It seems they teamed up for good things, I guess. Of course, according to poly, it seems they did it so Ford would advertise for them, as well. I don't know, man.
I'm going back to my policy of DTA
-----------------------------------
I can see them working together for better gas mileage, cars will sell better, and oil companies look like they care.
I just don't see any plausible way that oil companies can put pressure on car companies not to make efficient cars.
I have no idea why I capitilized Oil companies. I think just because so many headlines have been "Oil Companies Have Record Profits" and I got lazy after the first "O".
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-01 08:06:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, here we go: http://www.ford.com/en/goodWorks/environment/airAndClimate/BPAmocoAffiliation.htm
It seems they teamed up for good things, I guess. Of course, according to poly, it seems they did it so Ford would advertise for them, as well. I don't know, man.
I'm going back to my policy of DTA
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-02-01 07:54:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Can anyone give me a single reason pleasing Oil companies would help a car company?""
Can you give me a single reason why you capitalize "Oil"?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Because many of them have the same interests. Car companies know that no matter what alternatives they come up with, oil will still be the mainstay for a long time to come. It should really be the other way around, though so I think I get what you're saying. Oil companies would seem to have much more to gain by trying to please car companies. Aren't Ford and BP interconnected in some way? I thought they were doing some type of research together at one point. I may be completely wrong on that, as I often am.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 07:33:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-01-31 21:52:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I read this and some of the reviews yesterday or the day before. I don't know if anyone mentioned it or not, but Toyota used to have a car with a three-cylinder engine that got about the same gas mileage as the new hybrid cars do. Took it off because it didn't make the oil industry money.
When I went to fill my new car with gas last month, the first time I looked at the gas cap it said "Ford recommends BP products." The whole thing's sickening.
---------------------------------
Can anyone give me a single reason pleasing Oil companies would help a car company? Anytime gas prices get higher regular people start looking at more efficient cars. Tree huggers are always looking for more effecient cars? If the market demanded cars with better fuel effeciency, if cars with good MPG sold well, no auto company is going to stop making them.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2006-02-01 06:49:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think everyone should get a Hyundai like me.
It wouldn't improve anything except make me feel better about myself.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-02-01 05:23:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
you can have the 5.4L 550 hp V8 Ford GT that gets 13mpg (look it up yourself... it burns more fuel than the space shuttle....)
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2006&make=Ford&model=GT&src=LeftNav
when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. alt-fuel engines are fine for minivans, ricer civics and mini-coopers. theres nothing like the sound of well tuned unthethered gass-guzzling power.
the cold-stored hydrogen cells are getting better, hell the C6 Corvette has an available dual fuel system for both hydrogen AND gas, with a switch for it and a refit for the engine so it can run on either. but--- i'm not sure i wanna give up my car (not quite a GT) until we work on the proformance a bit.
Submitted by TonyMontana (user info) at 2006-02-01 04:18:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a really great post. You made a lot of interesting and relevant points, but I still think it's a little far fetched to believe there is a massive governmental conspiracy (I realize those weren't your words exactly but the tone of the post seemed to suggest it) against the introduction of hydrogen cell cars. Many of the worlds largest auto producers are not American and have a much, much less vested interest in keeping oil prices high. High oil prices only benefit a handful of companies and hurt pretty much the entire economy at large so it doesn't even benefit the United States in any way, short or long term.
The government may be slow to be bringing about Hydrogen cell vehicles but I believe it's because of gross inefficiency and a muted sense of fear about future environmental concerns...plus a drastically limited budget with the war on terror, baby boomers social security and medicare drug coverage, and a wicked natural disaster season coinciding all at once.
Give it some time...them japanese niggas will come out with something sweet I'm sure.
Submitted by Calios (user info) at 2006-02-01 03:05:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's not fuel cell- its internal combustion,
but mazda has had a rotor running on hydrogen for years..
i believe they even have it as an option on rx8's in japan
take water, split it, take O2 and H, burn it, out comes... yep you guessed it. WATER.
it's the circle of life man!
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-02-01 02:27:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Capatilism rewards greed. Capatilism will be our downfall. I welcome it.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-02-01 01:12:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
In the words of Mr. Bush:
"AMURCA IS ADDICTED...TO AWL!" Which I believe he has a substantial holding in, as does his father and likely the rest of his family. However, not everyone in Texas can be so lucky.
If we could figure out how to run cars on Asians we'd be going a long way in curbing overpopulation.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 22:34:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They should have had Obama give the response from the comments he is making now. I sure don't agree with some of his views, but he is a damn good speaker and doesn't sound too terribly negative in the way he talks.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 22:28:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey ETS,
The "democratic response" to the president's State of the Union speech is the same ole' rehashed bullshit. They picked a "moderate" democrat to give the same ole' message nobody cares about. What a lost fuckin' cause the democrat party is. They could have done soooo much better.
By the way, if the president says all this positive stuff about looking to the future with hope... and the democrats come in and say a doom and gloom story, that goes against simple human nature and not going to help them.
I am just stunned...fucking stunned... that they sound just like John Kerry a year ago. I wish they'd just shut up and say what they stand for and give a POSITIVE message about the future with THEM in charge. Fuckin' democrats... pathetic.
He is starting to admit good things now...so I'll just keep listening.
Although the arugement about the economy and "our children's debt" is flat out stupid since our grandfathers left us with a debt to GDP ratio that was out of this world. It needs to be put under control, but ... I think the USA is devaluing the dollar for a reason. It costs less to pay back the debt, for one. Oh well...this is comments made for another post.
(He is ending strong so I'll cut him some slack...he mentioned "cronie-ism" which is bush 100%.) But some of the same ole' rehashed garbage. This guy sure isn't going to win any presidential election. I'd put McCain against him and steal democrat votes! Hahaha. (He sounded like a preacher a little bit..that turns off the left wingers!)
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-01-31 22:01:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Must've been yesterday.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2006-01-31 21:52:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I read this and some of the reviews yesterday or the day before. I don't know if anyone mentioned it or not, but Toyota used to have a car with a three-cylinder engine that got about the same gas mileage as the new hybrid cars do. Took it off because it didn't make the oil industry money.
When I went to fill my new car with gas last month, the first time I looked at the gas cap it said "Ford recommends BP products." The whole thing's sickening.
If I win the lottery on Wednesday I'll purchase a hydrogen car.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-01-31 19:40:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 19:05:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not?! Really?! holy shit, I guess I can stop building that Hangar in my backyard.
_________________________________________________________
Hangar? Hanger? Who cares how you hold up yer clothes?
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-01-31 19:18:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 just for pushing that Tigerlilly/Badassmofo shit off the top slot.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 19:05:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not?! Really?! holy shit, I guess I can stop building that Hangar in my backyard.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:56:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:05:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:53:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd make it priority #1 to develop H-cars for sale before my competitors. Being first to market is not only a feather in your cap, but distinguishes you as a company on the cutting edge. Cars that allow the consumer to be immune from the uncertainty of gasoline would sell themselves.
===============================================================
Secondly, hydrogen is pretty volatile, and I'm not sure (I could be dead wrong) that they've worked out all of the dangers and uncertainties in putting into what is essentially a 2000 pound bullet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have worked out all the Hindeberg type problems. They did all the tests at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had some class mates do an internship there, and they got to see them do the tests. It's the equivalent to shooting an anti tank gun at a propane tank. Except no boom.
___________________________________________________________
The gas tank in an H car is nowhere near the capacity of the Hindenberg, regardless of
the fact that hydrogen is much more combustible than gasoline.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:43:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:47:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ethanol.org/ -
Ethanol is the best current answer.
-----------------------
Thank you, someone finally mentions it.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:41:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it's ExxonMobil.
Not Exxon Mobile.
Submitted by Quint (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:24:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My understanding is that at this point the process of producing the hydrogen would use more energy than it saved. I agree that there are probably some alterior motives at work, but anything that would get consumers off of oil would make a ton of money and thus SOMEBODY could get it one no matter which industry or political forces were running interference.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:18:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Auto -2 for lying.
Submitted by j0andre1 (user info) at 2006-01-31 17:15:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-01-30 19:01:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Mr. Bush, if you're listening..."
GW reads Uber. Pass it on.
___________________________________________
http://www.cnn.com/
Apparantly, the organsmatron is a connected Uber-entity.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-01-31 16:42:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
If I remember correctly, there are several H-Buses in Vancouver. If that can be done, why the hell can't they be mass produced?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:05:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:53:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd make it priority #1 to develop H-cars for sale before my competitors. Being first to market is not only a feather in your cap, but distinguishes you as a company on the cutting edge. Cars that allow the consumer to be immune from the uncertainty of gasoline would sell themselves.
===============================================================
Secondly, hydrogen is pretty volatile, and I'm not sure (I could be dead wrong) that they've worked out all of the dangers and uncertainties in putting into what is essentially a 2000 pound bullet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have worked out all the Hindeberg type problems. They did all the tests at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had some class mates do an internship there, and they got to see them do the tests. It's the equivalent to shooting an anti tank gun at a propane tank. Except no boom.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:04:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:55:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
I could also be way off base on this one, but I remember reading a few years back that the energy consumed while refining the hydrogen gas for a vehicle like this would end up being nearly what a gasoline powered car would consume.
But, I could be completely and totally wrong on that one.
-------------------
No, you probably did read that. Indo has pointed that out on numerous occasions on this post.
I pointed him to this site: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
That site seems to have a lot of concentrated information on the current state of the technology of hydrogen creation, and while I haven't perused the entire site yet, there are a lot of alternatives listed there that offer a lot of hope for creating hydrogen that's entirely clean and renewable.
This was kinda the purpose of this post, though. I think it's time to take the arguments against hydrogen and seal them up by CREATING filling stations, doing DEFINITIVE STUDIES on the safe handling of the element, beginning to acclimate the public to the idea of hydrogen vehicles and their importance in our progress as a nation and as a species. We can't let the oil companies drag us away from it any longer. It's time for our government to take serious action, IMO.
I know Bush is going to touch on this in his State of the Union speech tonight, so I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out in actual policy. Mr. Bush, like I said, can really regain a good deal of my support if he is serious and committed in this endeavor. He could really work to pull himself out of a slump politically if he moves a little to the middle on the environment and starts taking some action and responsibility here.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:03:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ha, can you imagine getting in an accident, and being like, "Fuck, now all of my hydrogen is going to evaporate!!!"
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:02:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah but on the other hand...if theres a crash and a leak the H ain't gonna pool around waiting for an open flame its off up into the atmosphere, I recon it would be safer but to be honest thats just a guess.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:00:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think hydrogen cars are going to work, the amount of energy required to make the hydrogen...it isn't any cheaper or better for the environment. It's worse and more expensive.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:58:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I understand that gasoline (or petrol or whatever the hell you guys call it on the other side of the pond) is volatile as well, but lighting a gallon of gasoline on fire and lighting a gallon of compressed hydrogen on fire have two pretty distinct outcomes.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:57:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Petrol isn't exactly safe either gascs.
And I agree with Teph******h it is a pleasant surprise that I have actually discovered a sensible discussion on uber.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:55:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:50:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
It makes me happy that the rhetoric on this one is at manageable levels and people from opposite ends of the political spectrum are thinking as one group (for the most part) toward a realistic alternative for fossil fuels.
----------------------
Yea, this is probably one of my favorite posts I've ever written for that reason alone. The post is probably just mediocre, but the reviews coming from such politically diverse people as Stabby, Indo, Bubba, Me, You, who have traditionally been at each other's throats are intelligent and thoughtful, I think.
That's a breath of fresh air.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:55:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I could also be way off base on this one, but I remember reading a few years back that the energy consumed while refining the hydrogen gas for a vehicle like this would end up being nearly what a gasoline powered car would consume.
But, I could be completely and totally wrong on that one.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:53:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd make it priority #1 to develop H-cars for sale before my competitors. Being first to market is not only a feather in your cap, but distinguishes you as a company on the cutting edge. Cars that allow the consumer to be immune from the uncertainty of gasoline would sell themselves.
===============================================================
Again, I want to reiterate that I think that Hydrogen powered cars are a great idea, but there are two problems here.
One, for large companies, being "first to market" is usually a really bad strategy. Large companies are almost always followers, because more often than not, you lose money on big bets like this. It is better suited to small companies to be innovators, because the the whole small company is sort of a risk. Let "Hydrogen Technologies International, LLC" put together some VC and prove the concept, then sell it to Ford or GM (or, more than likely, have the technology copied or stolen, or have all of their scientists hired away for their secrets).
Two, being immune from the uncertainty of gasoline is great, but the uncertainty of hydrogen might be no better. First off, where do you go to get a brand new tank of hydrogen? They don't exactly serve that at the corner BP. Secondly, hydrogen is pretty volatile, and I'm not sure (I could be dead wrong) that they've worked out all of the dangers and uncertainties in putting into what is essentially a 2000 pound bullet.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:50:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It makes me happy that the rhetoric on this one is at manageable levels and people from opposite ends of the political spectrum are thinking as one group (for the most part) toward a realistic alternative for fossil fuels.
<massive, massive bong rip>
<passes 'pon de left hand side>
'ere.
<coughs>
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:47:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:22:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm interested to see where you got the statistic that the profits are the greatest of any company in history. I know that the profit was Exxon's highest ever quarterly profit, but I'm not completely convinced that they've outearned every company EVER.
If it was, though, Exxon's market cap is about $300B, which makes them one of the largest companies ever, so it's not too hard to believe.
The problem facing hydrogen cars (and any alternative fuel source vehicle, for that matter) is that there's no industry set up around them. Ford & GM know that there are plenty of gas stations and that they can continue to sell regular-ass gasoline based cars. It basically comes down to money. They're not exactly jumping at the opportunity to risk large sums of money developing an industry that may or may not pan out and may or may not lead to any acceptable profit.
When it comes down to it, it's all about money. I guess the question I'd ask is, "Would you, personally, be willing to give up everything you've worked for, be willing to risk becoming absolutely and completely destitute, just for the *chance* at improving the environment, when you very well may get trounced by the competition that is selling a product that is much, much worse for the environment?"
It's kind of a tough question to answer honestly in the affirmative.
-------------------------
To answer your question...ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY.
The move to hydrogen is inevitable. It's happening right now. I'd say if I were the president of a car company right now, I'd make it priority #1 to develop H-cars for sale before my competitors. Being first to market is not only a feather in your cap, but distinguishes you as a company on the cutting edge. Cars that allow the consumer to be immune from the uncertainty of gasoline would sell themselves.
Plus, you have to understand the sheer power of optimism over the buying public. If you're optimistic and you passionately believe in the product you're selling, they will sell. There is not a risk in venturing into hydrogen. The risk right now, as I see it, is being left in the dust by the competition who will soon be vying for the exploding hydrogen market. (no pun intended)
Hell just think of the cool names you could come up with for the hydrogen powered vehicles....
Chevy H-Bomb
Ford Fallout
Toyota Mushroom Cloud
Hell, I'm sold already!
I jest, but actually I'm partially being serious. Image means a lot to the buying public, and if they see this technology as the NEATEST THING THEY'VE EVER FUCKING SEEN, then that's really about all you need.
As for Exxon's profits, I may have misquoted slightly. NPR reported yesterday that Exxon's fourth quarter profits were the largest of any company in history. I'm not sure about the total for the year. I have to believe if they weren't, they were close. I apologise for the confusion.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:45:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd be a little cautious about buying anything from http://www.partsonsale.com/ .
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:40:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good point ETS, Solar panels would reduce energy consumption and production. My Aunt and Uncle have panels on their house, PG&E actually pays THEM for the extra electricity they produce.
I know everyone reading this would rather recieve a check from their Utilities company, rather than a bill.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:39:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
2.16 peak DC kW (2,160 DC Watt Peak Solar Array) system
You think you can run your house off of that system? fat chance.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:39:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"For example, in California buy this complete 2.16 peak DC kW (2,160 DC Watt Peak Solar Array) system, including top of the line Mitsubishi solar panels, inverter, racks, wire, MC connectors and disconnect from us for only $11,275.00 and get a $5,043.43 CASH REBATE and up to a $2,000.00 tax credit from the Feds ! *
After applying the State cash rebate and Federal tax credit, your final cost for this system is approximately:
$4,231.57*"
===========================================================
That seems quite a bit cheap... I did a ton of research into this last semester and the average cost of a system (including installation) was about $18,000, and at best, it would only reduce your electric bills by a little more than half. For a lot of good information on residential solar, the site solarbuzz.com has a some good resources. They have an index of prices for systems and whatnot at http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarindices.htm .
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:32:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:07:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
But it doesn't negate the fact that for decades the oil companies have sought to squelch alternate technologies wherever they have cropped up. Public awareness, as evidenced by the discussion on this very page, has made it increasingly difficult for them to maintain that tactic in the face of public scrutiny.
--------------------
Why does Japan not have hydro cars on the road?
What about Norway, arguably the most progressive as far as alternate energy they only get 15% (could be wrong going from memory) from alternative sources (mainly wind turbines, but they don't have politicians like kerry and kennedy who say they are for them, but are against them if they can see them).
The greenest nations in the world aren't that far ahead of us. It isn't a big conspiracy. It is people being cheap, and not caring about the future, and not wanting anything in their back yard.
I know the technology looks great, but I remember earthday 15 years ago when we would all have solar cars. How many people do you even know who have solar panels on their house?
----------------------
Yet another great point. The simple installation of solar panels on every home in the US would make a HUGELY noticable dent in our carbon output and consumption. So would building more homes underground. Underground homes require almost NO climate control.
Live in the midwest in August? Try stepping in a cave sometime. It'll feel like you're in air conditioning. Worried about the efficiency of your insulation in your house? Nothing works better than good 'ol dirt as an insulator.
These are the things all of us, especially planners and engineers, need to keep in mind as we struggle with these important issues.
Also of note...solar panels haven't traditionally been cheap. But they are an investment that pay for themselves over time. The following is a figure I just plucked from one website that sells solar panel setups for homes:
"For example, in California buy this complete 2.16 peak DC kW (2,160 DC Watt Peak Solar Array) system, including top of the line Mitsubishi solar panels, inverter, racks, wire, MC connectors and disconnect from us for only $11,275.00 and get a $5,043.43 CASH REBATE and up to a $2,000.00 tax credit from the Feds ! *
After applying the State cash rebate and Federal tax credit, your final cost for this system is approximately:
$4,231.57*"
That's more than worth looking into. The sun spits out free energy on the world everyday, and used to supplement traditional forms of energy, it can cut or even eliminate your electric bill. Add in a couple windmills on your property like Silvrwolf and you've got a scheme where you can actually MAKE money by selling back the energy you don't use to the electric company's grid.
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:22:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm interested to see where you got the statistic that the profits are the greatest of any company in history. I know that the profit was Exxon's highest ever quarterly profit, but I'm not completely convinced that they've outearned every company EVER.
If it was, though, Exxon's market cap is about $300B, which makes them one of the largest companies ever, so it's not too hard to believe.
The problem facing hydrogen cars (and any alternative fuel source vehicle, for that matter) is that there's no industry set up around them. Ford & GM know that there are plenty of gas stations and that they can continue to sell regular-ass gasoline based cars. It basically comes down to money. They're not exactly jumping at the opportunity to risk large sums of money developing an industry that may or may not pan out and may or may not lead to any acceptable profit.
When it comes down to it, it's all about money. I guess the question I'd ask is, "Would you, personally, be willing to give up everything you've worked for, be willing to risk becoming absolutely and completely destitute, just for the *chance* at improving the environment, when you very well may get trounced by the competition that is selling a product that is much, much worse for the environment?"
It's kind of a tough question to answer honestly in the affirmative.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:10:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:56:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
We could start walking again too.
--------------------
You've said a mouthfull right there.
The problem is most of our medium to smaller cities aren't designed for walking. There are few sidewalks in the suburbs, and people live in more ranch-style houses in sprawling neighborhoods than in urban apartment complexes in these cities.
A lot more attention should be given to city planning instead of just rezoning with a big red pen and allowing companies to build there without maximizing accessability by foot. Building stores closer together would be one obvious way to promote more walking. Not having to cross a four lane highway to get to another store would be a good incentive. More sidewalks are also a must. Most of the streets on the outskirts of in Evansville, Indiana, where I live, for instance, the businesses are separated by large parking lots and busy streets. There are no sidewalks, only grass dividers. Many US cities are like this. This is 9/10ths of our problem right here.
Great fucking point.
Problem is, we're not going to bulldoze all these new business districts. We're stuck with them, so if we can introduce a way of getting around that puts out nothing but water as exhaust, and decreases our dependency on oil, I'm excited about that.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:10:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That car is a homosexual.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:07:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But it doesn't negate the fact that for decades the oil companies have sought to squelch alternate technologies wherever they have cropped up. Public awareness, as evidenced by the discussion on this very page, has made it increasingly difficult for them to maintain that tactic in the face of public scrutiny.
--------------------
Why does Japan not have hydro cars on the road?
What about Norway, arguably the most progressive as far as alternate energy they only get 15% (could be wrong going from memory) from alternative sources (mainly wind turbines, but they don't have politicians like kerry and kennedy who say they are for them, but are against them if they can see them).
The greenest nations in the world aren't that far ahead of us. It isn't a big conspiracy. It is people being cheap, and not caring about the future, and not wanting anything in their back yard.
I know the technology looks great, but I remember earthday 15 years ago when we would all have solar cars. How many people do you even know who have solar panels on their house?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:06:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:01:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:53:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll never catch up with the reviews on this.
--------------------
The reviews are actually a better read than the post itself. I'm really happy with the reviews I've received on this post. I can't remember so many diversely-minded people all leaving such thoughtful and intelligent responses.
This post has been a pleasure to camp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+2 for having something most of us don't...Class
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:03:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Holy hits, ETS, you've done it again.
How the hell do you manage to make Most Heated so often? And only having been back for DAYS?!?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:01:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:53:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll never catch up with the reviews on this.
--------------------
The reviews are actually a better read than the post itself. I'm really happy with the reviews I've received on this post. I can't remember so many diversely-minded people all leaving such thoughtful and intelligent responses.
This post has been a pleasure to camp.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:59:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:29:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow, this really turned into somethin.
I've done some of my own research on Biodiesel, and have come to the conclusion that it's a cheap alternative for now. As soon as it goes mainstream, the free fryer oil will disappear. Vegetable oil is far more expensive to make than refining diesel. You have to remember that diesel is already in oil, it just needs to be seperated by bowling the oil. Vegetable oil is a processed product, not refined. There are far more steps to get the oil out of corn, safflower, canola, etc, than there is with diesel. The price of Diesel, even at current $3.00/gallon is still 1/3 of the price of veggie oil.
Price not being an issue, Vegetable oil, even Biodiesel at a 80/20 mix, produces far more solid pollutants, and similar hydrocarbon pollutants as diesel. These solid pollutants are what causes smog, pollutes rivers, streams, water supplies. Not to mention NOx. Nitric Oxide is the number one ozone damaging pollutant produced by diesel engines. It's the only thing that the EPA even cares about with diesel exhaust. Engines running on Biodiesel have shown to produce as much as 50% more NOx in their exhaust. In 2007 when CA. enacts it's Diesel smog program, Biodiesel will not be able to meet these new requirements.
For those saying, It may cost more, but at least we won't be reliant on M.E. oil anymore. I say this, Drill in ANWR. There are 9,000,000 acres of land there, only 2,000 are needed to refine all the oil in the deposit. Pelican Bay(not the prison) has shown since the late 70's that oil can be drilled, and refined without any affect to the environmet whatsoever, in almost identical conditions.
Fuel cells do not produce enough power to make them feasabl