NationStates Jolt Archive

7 bucks a gallon by the end of summer? Yesh. Will only get worse here and we can't continue to pay it. So the question I have been looking around for an answer is which form of alternate fuel is better? Fuel Cell or Ethanol. Those Fuel Cell cars cost an arm and a leg, not to mention the Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell only last 50k miles. What do you do after that? Can it be replaced easily? Where the hell do you fill these damn things up anyway?

Yes, its true fuel cells are tremendously expensive but as you know all too wall so is petroleum. Ethanol is manufactured with mostly corn, and with a quickly growing world population food will be getting much more expensive in the future. Fuel cells are expensive because they are not mainstream and are not mass produced. Over time fuel celss should drop in price just like hidef TV's and other commodities, although this could take some time. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells also have the added benefit of only producing water as a byproduct, eliminating greenhouse emissions.

With public funding and/or incentives, cars with fuel cells will have lower prices. Of course, this is only after the technology is improved, which can take up to a decade.

Ethanol is great and all, but Afternau and I share the shame concerns.

Personally, I think the best option is to drill more and build more refineries, while searching for better ways to power our nation. I don't really see a point in stopping oil drilling. We've gone this far, so why not just finish it off?

Yes, its true fuel cells are tremendously expensive but as you know all too wall so is petroleum. Ethanol is manufactured with mostly corn, and with a quickly growing world population food will be getting much more expensive in the future. Fuel cells are expensive because they are not mainstream and are not mass produced. Over time fuel celss should drop in price just like hidef TV's and other commodities, although this could take some time. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells also have the added benefit of only producing water as a byproduct, eliminating greenhouse emissions.



Where do you refill these things? Thats the one of the things I wondered. Where do you fill up Fuel Cells and how much.

Hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure isn't yet completely in place. I believe BMW has about 100 7 series that run on hydrogen tooling around SoCal to test them.

In the Bay Area you can get 100% biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil at a station in San Mateo, there's another in Ben Lomond near (surprise!) Santa Cruz, along with an ethanol station that gets its ethanol from wood chips. The ways are out there, but you really have to look for them because only a handful of cars comparatively run on alternate fuels.

There are sustainable, non-food crop ways to get ethanol that really need to be pursued, because for many many reasons getting it from the sources we are now, especially corn, is just a bad idea.

The real problem is looking for a magic wand solution. Oil has fucked our thinking in that regard. Oil has been this catch all magic elixar and now we tend to force ourselves into looking for that kind of one stop shop for its replacement. Well, part of oil's problem is how completely reliant on it we are.

There is a place for bio fuels and fuel cells, as well as readdressing the way we organize our lives and move about our world (read:conservation).

It will take a variety of solutions, I guess is the short version of that.

The use of ethanol as fuel is inefficient, requires large areas of land and increases world hunger. It is not a viable option, except in the minds of some people that wish to abuse it as propaganda "to make the USA independent of foreign oil".

More research into alternative fuels is needed. Donate now.

The use of ethanol as fuel is inefficient, requires large areas of land and increases world hunger. It is not a viable option, except in the minds of some people that wish to abuse it as propaganda "to make the USA independent of foreign oil".

More research into alternative fuels is needed. Donate now.

There are plenty of non-food crop ethanol sources. That we're not using them currently is the issue, not ethanol itself.

Moon Knight;13798061']7 bucks a gallon by the end of summer? Yesh. Will only get worse here and we can't continue to pay it.

Yes you can, and you will. If you need fuel, then you'll buy it, no matter how much it costs. Otherwise, it's like saying that you're going to stop buying food because it's too expensive.

As for alternatives, how many years and hundreds of thousands of miles would you have to cover in one before you start to gain any financial benefit from it? Even petrol-diesel takes about 50,000 miles to get in the black, when you consider how much more a diesel engine costs in the first place.

That's not to say you shouldn't look at alternatives, but doing it for purely financial reasons seems a bit crazy.

Yes you can, and you will. If you need fuel, then you'll buy it, no matter how much it costs. Otherwise, it's like saying that you're going to stop buying food because it's too expensive.


This post here is scary. It must be nice to be a rich elitist that can handle to drop big bucks on gas. Guess what? millions can't. It has come to were millions have to choose between filling up their cars or buying food, or people above the poverty line are now below it because of gas. This is NOT propagand, because I AM one of those people. How would you know what it's like to cut your grocery shopping to put gas in your car? You don't know now do you? Ever lived off of less than 50 bucks for 2 weeks and almost starved because of it? No! Ever had to eat taco cheese because you didn't have anything else and didn't have the money to buy it? NO. So don't you EVER tell me what I can and cannot buy again. The FACT is WE cannot continue to pay for this, it's screwing everybody over, you obviously don't feel it nor care, but there are millions who DO feel it and DO care.

As for alternatives, how many years and hundreds of thousands of miles would you have to cover in one before you start to gain any financial benefit from it? Even petrol-diesel takes about 50,000 miles to get in the black, when you consider how much more a diesel engine costs in the first place.


What are you talking about? Do you even know? What does diesel have to do with Fuel Cell? Do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? I'd guess not.

That's not to say you shouldn't look at alternatives, but doing it for purely financial reasons seems a bit crazy.



Crazy? Must be nice to be able to pay 200 bucks for gas a month when you make less then 1500. Again do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? How about Ethanol? Did you know that your gas bills go down and your mileage can go up by converting your car to run on Water and Gas? Go look it up buddy, its a fact.

Yes, its true fuel cells are tremendously expensive but as you know all too wall so is petroleum. Ethanol is manufactured with mostly corn, and with a quickly growing world population food will be getting much more expensive in the future. Fuel cells are expensive because they are not mainstream and are not mass produced. Over time fuel celss should drop in price just like hidef TV's and other commodities, although this could take some time. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells also have the added benefit of only producing water as a byproduct, eliminating greenhouse emissions.

i'm backing fuel cells

Moon Knight;13798061']7 bucks a gallon by the end of summer? Yesh. Will only get worse here and we can't continue to pay it.

i just worked that out as 92 pence per litre. we're on 130 pence per litre here...

i just worked that out as 92 pence per litre. we're on 130 pence per litre here...


You do know a lot of that comes from taxes right? Just thought I'd point that out. Of course are you hinting that americans should pay this with a smile? I don't think any of us are smiling.

Moon Knight;13798152']You do know a lot of that comes from taxes right? Just thought I'd point that out. Of course are you hinting that americans should pay this with a smile? I don't think any of us are smiling.
That a huge slice of fuel prices at the pump here are taxes is irrelevant. Our taxes are high, yes, but the point is that people still pay for the fuel because there is simply no other option.

I have a wild idea that you neglected to consider: electricity.

A BEV or PHEV (battery electric/plugin-hybrid electric) is significantly more efficient than either, and here's why.

Lets take the tesla roadster. Representitive of all future EV's? No. Good example for present technology? Sure, why not.

The battery on the Roadster takes about 53 kW-h to charge. In my native New York, the average spot price of electricity is $.1685 per kWh, damn near the highest in the country. In terms of pure cost (i.e. factoring out transmission and distribution charges), it would cost $8.9305 to fully charge this sports car.

A Hydrogen-powered vehicle is inefficient for the sole reason that it adds an extra step in the "well-to-wheel" ladder: formation and storage of hydrogen. Instead of directly storing the electricity in a power pack that is then transmitted directly to the wheels, you have the electricity splitting and storing hydrogen; an efficiency loss; and then reforming hydrogen.

Batteries are simpler and more efficient, and don't require any kind of infrastructure that doesn't already exist.

The use of ethanol as fuel is inefficient, requires large areas of land and increases world hunger.

Only because of the corn lobby. Tell those assholes to go fuck themselves and switch to something that has a better ethanol return and isn't a food crop and doesn't need to be grown on farmland and you are set.

buy a more fuel efficient car? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kZx3zYEhHzQ)

Well ethanol has to be the answer, just because to make hydrogen you expend energy,which you get from power plants. So at the moment there as eco-friendly as any other car, maybe less than some. Ethanol is carbon neutral, it comes from plants that get the CO2 from air, and after some distilling you release it back, also it will be a boon to alcoholics wanting a cheep drink

im backing fuel cells in the long run but ethanol in the short run because current technology can be easily converted to run on ethanol from what i understand and it should get us to where fuel cell technology is cheap enough to be mass produced giving us limitless almost free energy because all we need to do is electrolise that useless water in the oceans (funly enough seawater electrolises better than fresh water) using wave power or solar power if you are a hippy or neculear if you want to give oceainas economy a boost by selling uarinium to you lot

Get a Diesel engine and use used McDonald's frying oil...
Obviously you have to filter the oil before using it ;)

Get a Diesel engine and use used McDonald's frying oil...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N9mntfkBbTY :D

Nice, but I was thinking more on the lines of this http://youtube.com/watch?v=eJFL_zGcbd8
or this http://youtube.com/watch?v=s2WGEyAEZyY.

Flintstone cars. Solves the fuel crisis and the obesity epidemic in one fell, sweaty swoop.

Long term:
Battery.
long distance, longer life, and cheaper.
and can be from sources that are not a net energy drain.



Short term:
Those yeast or bacteria that crap out gasoline.
No need to change infrastructure.

Here's an idea: let's get rid of cars altogether.

Gasp, you say? Impossible, you say? Nay.

It would require a major retooling of cities, as well as introducing a large amount of mass transit forms, such as trains, busses, and so on, but it would eliminate a vast amount of oil usage, and once mass transit moves on to alternative fuels it would also remove a vast amount of CO2 production and other forms of pollution.

Sure, we'd be a little bit more limited in our freedom and would have to walk a lot of places, but that can only be good for us health-wise, right?

Moon Knight;13798074']Where do you refill these things? Thats the one of the things I wondered. Where do you fill up Fuel Cells and how much.

I think you just replace them, not "fill" them.

Yes you can, and you will. If you need fuel, then you'll buy it, no matter how much it costs. Otherwise, it's like saying that you're going to stop buying food because it's too expensive.
It's 8-10 bucks a gallon in Europe. They pay it. We'll pay it.

Moon Knight;13798134']This post here is scary. It must be nice to be a rich elitist that can handle to drop big bucks on gas. Guess what? millions can't. It has come to were millions have to choose between filling up their cars or buying food, or people above the poverty line are now below it because of gas. This is NOT propagand, because I AM one of those people. How would you know what it's like to cut your grocery shopping to put gas in your car? You don't know now do you? Ever lived off of less than 50 bucks for 2 weeks and almost starved because of it? No! Ever had to eat taco cheese because you didn't have anything else and didn't have the money to buy it? NO. So don't you EVER tell me what I can and cannot buy again. The FACT is WE cannot continue to pay for this, it's screwing everybody over, you obviously don't feel it nor care, but there are millions who DO feel it and DO care.




What are you talking about? Do you even know? What does diesel have to do with Fuel Cell? Do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? I'd guess not.





Crazy? Must be nice to be able to pay 200 bucks for gas a month when you make less then 1500. Again do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? How about Ethanol? Did you know that your gas bills go down and your mileage can go up by converting your car to run on Water and Gas? Go look it up buddy, its a fact.

A car is a luxury. People should have the sense to put food in their bellies before they put gas in their tanks.
There's the bus, walking, bicycles, inline skates...

I have a wild idea that you neglected to consider: electricity.

A BEV or PHEV (battery electric/plugin-hybrid electric) is significantly more efficient than either, and here's why.

Lets take the tesla roadster. Representitive of all future EV's? No. Good example for present technology? Sure, why not.

The battery on the Roadster takes about 53 kW-h to charge. In my native New York, the average spot price of electricity is $.1685 per kWh, damn near the highest in the country. In terms of pure cost (i.e. factoring out transmission and distribution charges), it would cost $8.9305 to fully charge this sports car.

A Hydrogen-powered vehicle is inefficient for the sole reason that it adds an extra step in the "well-to-wheel" ladder: formation and storage of hydrogen. Instead of directly storing the electricity in a power pack that is then transmitted directly to the wheels, you have the electricity splitting and storing hydrogen; an efficiency loss; and then reforming hydrogen.

Batteries are simpler and more efficient, and don't require any kind of infrastructure that doesn't already exist.


This man has sense. Listen to this man.

THIS MAN FOR PRESIDENT.

Buy a small diesel for now, its fuel economy will actually be better than any hybrid currently available.

Wow, the sky is falling again.

Let's see. The average American drives 15,000 miles a year. The average car gets about 20 mpg. That's 62.5 gallons of gas per month. When the price was $2 a gallon that was $125 a month in gas. Now it's $4 so that's $250 a month. So for the additional $125.00 a month, there are a few things you can do. #1. Eat out less. #2. Bump the AC back a few notches. #3. Get rid of your cell phone. (This has the added benefit of less morons on the road not paying attention) #4. Get rid of cable TV. #5. Stop making trips to the store every 5 minutes, rather make a list and PLAN. #6. Get a more efficient car that's cheaper.

I find it comical that people get so worked up over an extra $125 a month but most of those people spend $100 on cable, $75 on a cell phone, drive $30,000-$40,000 cars when they could get by on a far cheaper one.. people aren't mad about gas prices, they're mad because the gas prices are having an effect on their want lists. Add to that the fact that if you live in the US and you are forced to choose between food and gas.. maybe you shouldn't have a car to begin with. Maybe you should make some different choices in careers. Maybe you should get off of your duff and get a second job. Ride a bike. Oh hell, just go on welfare, the rest of us can afford the extra taxes. :headbang: I find it funny how the same people throwing a fit about gas prices are the first in line to create more Government programs to help the "needy", as if $2.4 trillion a year on health and human services wasn't enough.

Add to that the fact that if you live in the US and you are forced to choose between food and gas.. maybe you shouldn't have a car to begin with.
Since you make a point of addressing that it is the US, maybe I should bring up the fact that there are very, very, very, did I say very?, very few places that you can live without a car. The US is full of suburbs and rural areas where you have to have a personal car and even most of the biggest cities don't have major public transportation systems.

Since you make a point of addressing that it is the US, maybe I should bring up the fact that there are very, very, very, did I say very?, very few places that you can live without a car. The US is full of suburbs and rural areas where you have to have a personal car and even most of the biggest cities don't have major public transportation systems.

rural area. Currently the rural areas are doing very well. with the increase of food prices they are turning record profits. Few if any people are in the position of needing to pick between Gas and food.

suburbs. Why do you live in the suburbs if you poor. the suburbs are most often for middle class types. though if you want to get technical most suburbs are served by the main cities mass transit system. (even Dallas which has a crappy mass transit system)

Since you make a point of addressing that it is the US, maybe I should bring up the fact that there are very, very, very, did I say very?, very few places that you can live without a car. The US is full of suburbs and rural areas where you have to have a personal car and even most of the biggest cities don't have major public transportation systems.

True but there are other methods than a car. Buy a motorcycle, find a way to car pool, etc. There are ways to lower your driving and honestly, if you're making wages as low as the person stated, get a job close to you and walk. I had a lady at the gas pump next to me a few days ago say that she hoped gas prices didn't go any higher because she just couldn't afford it anymore. The best part.. she was driving a ~$45,000 Expedition complete with DVD screens. I said "Well, guess you'll have to find something a little cheaper to drive huh?".. I got a dirty look. :D

Hydrogen is not a power source. It's a battery. You have to get hydrogen from somewhere to power it, and the only feasible way to do it is to crack water.

That takes electricity, and a lot of it.

Let's see. The average American drives 15,000 miles a year. The average car gets about 20 mpg.
20 miles per gallon? What the fuck do you guys drive about, Abrams tanks or something?

I don't think there's much on the British roads outside of things with 'Rover' on the end (Land, esp ex-Army, with 24V electrics, and Range, whose low MPG is to show how wealthy you are because you have to fill the bastards up every 50 miles) which are that fuel-inefficient.

20 miles per gallon? What the fuck do you guys drive about, Abrams tanks or something?

I don't think there's much on the British roads outside of things with 'Rover' on the end (Land, esp ex-Army, with 24V electrics, and Range, whose low MPG is to show how wealthy you are because you have to fill the bastards up every 50 miles) which are that fuel-inefficient.

I drive a T-55. I get ribbed for driving an import everywhere I go. :(

Moon Knight;13798134']-snip-

Congratulations, you've just won the 'crazy, misguided rant of the month' award.

Congratulations, you've just won the 'crazy, misguided rant of the month' award.


You won that one champ. All I did was put you in your place. You made a stupid comment and got it shoved down your throat. Go back to your mansion.

Since you make a point of addressing that it is the US, maybe I should bring up the fact that there are very, very, very, did I say very?, very few places that you can live without a car. The US is full of suburbs and rural areas where you have to have a personal car and even most of the biggest cities don't have major public transportation systems.

I'm in one of those areas. The store I go to is about 15 to 20 miles away, so it's clear I can't walk to do my shopping.

20 miles per gallon? What the fuck do you guys drive about, Abrams tanks or something?

I don't think there's much on the British roads outside of things with 'Rover' on the end (Land, esp ex-Army, with 24V electrics, and Range, whose low MPG is to show how wealthy you are because you have to fill the bastards up every 50 miles) which are that fuel-inefficient.



My car gets close to 30 mpg. Pretty good mileage.

I have to say im goin for Ethanol, its already in most of the Fuel Infrastructure, Hell it IS the Fuel Infrastructure in Brazil, cant fuckin believe that BRAZIL is beating the USofA in the Fuel Market, damn shame...

But, more to the point, regardless of what you think of it purely as a fuel, unlike Big Oil, Farmers are under the Thumb of the Government so if they screw us over like the large Oil Conglomerates we can actually DO something about it instead of just letting a few Speculators make more money at the expense of the populace...

Moon Knight;13798630']My car gets close to 30 mpg. Pretty good mileage.

Mine gets 50. We drive all over the place, and it only costs me about $15 a week to keep gas in the tank.

Moon Knight;13798625']You won that one champ. All I did was put you in your place. You made a stupid comment and got it shoved down your throat. Go back to your mansion.

Actually, kiddo, you completely misinterpreted what was a fairly clear comment on my part and made yourself look foolish by ranting.

Mine gets 50. We drive all over the place, and it only costs me about $15 a week to keep gas in the tank.


I mean 30 is good for American terms. :)

Actually, kiddo, you completely misinterpreted what was a fairly clear comment on my part and made yourself look foolish by ranting.


Riiiiigggggghhhhtttt. :rolleyes:

Moon Knight;13798646']I mean 30 is good for American terms. :)

Which is really fucking pathetic.

This predicament wouldn't even be such a huge problem if most U.S. cities were like the Northern ones, which actually have mass transit systems... NYC and Chicago being the best examples of this.

Moon Knight;13798134']How would you know what it's like to cut your grocery shopping to put gas in your car?

Wasn't that exactly his point?

Which is really fucking pathetic.

This predicament wouldn't even be such a huge problem if most U.S. cities were like the Northern ones, which actually have mass transit systems... NYC and Chicago being the best examples of this.



Smaller places can't really get away with that. Better mileage is a start. There a lot of suburbs in America, my city(If you can call it that) at best as bus transit system. Not much else we can get.

Which is really fucking pathetic.

This predicament wouldn't even be such a huge problem if most U.S. cities were like the Northern ones, which actually have mass transit systems... NYC and Chicago being the best examples of this.

Problem is that most American Cities dont have the Money, Population, Population Density, and Infrastructure of NYC and Chicago...

Its the same reason you cant compare US fuel Costs to European ones you could drive from one end of England for example to the other in a few hours, but itd take the same amount of time, money and energy to drive the distance of say MS and AL much less the Entire US...

Wasn't that exactly his point?


No. Read it again.

Moon Knight;13798655']Smaller places can't really get away with that. Better mileage is a start. There a lot of suburbs in America, my city(If you can call it that) at best as bus transit system. Not much else we can get.

It's not just the smaller cities, it's big ones, too. I live in the Houston area (ugh), and the most we've got is an absolutely abominable bus system that takes people who have no money to places where they couldn't even hope to spend it.

And don't even get me started about the light rail line... Hahahahaha.

Moon Knight;13798660']No. Read it again.

I've read it a few times.
Philosopy: You will pay for gas, no matter what it costs. It's essential.
Moon Knight: I've had to cut my food budget for gas, etc!

It's not just the smaller cities, it's big ones, too. I live in the Houston area (ugh), and the most we've got is an absolutely abominable bus system that takes people who have no money to places where they couldn't even hope to spend it.

And don't even get me started about the light rail line... Hahahahaha.



Then you need to complain, for a city the size of Houston or surrounding areas not to have a better transit system is well.....Ignorant. I live in a suburb of Riverside CA, we can get away with it because this area is so small, but what is your mayors excuse?

Problem is that most American Cities dont have the Money, Population, Population Density, and Infrastructure of NYC and Chicago...

Its the same reason you cant compare US fuel Costs to European ones you could drive from one end of England for example to the other in a few hours, but itd take the same amount of time, money and energy to drive the distance of say MS and AL much less the Entire US...

The smaller cities here would do well to spend some of their revenues on actually developing such infrastructure. There's no way they could have anything like NYC or Chicago, but even a simple trolley and/or bus system would do wonders.

And even if they don't have the revenues to do that, city planning is where it all starts anyway. If towns of ~15,000 weren't spread across a ridiculous expanse of about 30 square miles, people could actually, er, walk to work. Or walk just about anywhere.

20 miles per gallon? What the fuck do you guys drive about, Abrams tanks or something?

Mine gets nearly twice that.

I've read it a few times.
Philosophy: You will pay for gas, no matter what it costs. It's essential.
Moon Knight: I've had to cut my food budget for gas, etc!


Try again, this time for comprehension. Maybe if you did part of you would have got I can't afford it, he claimed I could, he said I will, kinda hard when I don't have the money. Comprehension, nice tool if you have it.

Moon Knight;13798675']Comprehension, nice tool if you have it.

Tell me about it.

Moon Knight;13798646']I mean 30 is good for American terms. :)

Because instead of small, fuel efficient cars, people drive SUVs, Hummers, Jeeps and trucks which have abysmal mileage.

Tell me about it.


Wal-Mart may have it, you may wanna go pick one up. Hooked On Phonics too.

Because instead of small, fuel efficient cars, people drive SUVs, Hummers, Jeeps and trucks which have abysmal mileage.


Did I forget to mention my car is an Toyota Echo? Small car...Nice car, but small.

Wow, the sky is falling again.

Let's see. The average American drives 15,000 miles a year. The average car gets about 20 mpg. That's 62.5 gallons of gas per month. When the price was $2 a gallon that was $125 a month in gas. Now it's $4 so that's $250 a month. So for the additional $125.00 a month, there are a few things you can do. #1. Eat out less. #2. Bump the AC back a few notches. #3. Get rid of your cell phone. (This has the added benefit of less morons on the road not paying attention) #4. Get rid of cable TV. #5. Stop making trips to the store every 5 minutes, rather make a list and PLAN. #6. Get a more efficient car that's cheaper.

I find it comical that people get so worked up over an extra $125 a month but most of those people spend $100 on cable, $75 on a cell phone, drive $30,000-$40,000 cars when they could get by on a far cheaper one.. people aren't mad about gas prices, they're mad because the gas prices are having an effect on their want lists. Add to that the fact that if you live in the US and you are forced to choose between food and gas.. maybe you shouldn't have a car to begin with. Maybe you should make some different choices in careers. Maybe you should get off of your duff and get a second job. Ride a bike. Oh hell, just go on welfare, the rest of us can afford the extra taxes. :headbang: I find it funny how the same people throwing a fit about gas prices are the first in line to create more Government programs to help the "needy", as if $2.4 trillion a year on health and human services wasn't enough.

"Let them eat cake" worked great for the last ruling class that tried it...

"Let them eat cake" worked great for the last ruling class that tried it...


George W. Bush?

Moon Knight;13798666']Then you need to complain, for a city the size of Houston or surrounding areas not to have a better transit system is well.....Ignorant. I live in a suburb of Riverside CA, we can get away with it because this area is so small, but what is your mayors excuse?

More like the last dozen or more mayors' excuses. Houston's never had a mass transit system, though it did have rail service from Downtown to Galveston until about 1972. Though that's really not mass transit in the sense that it was only good for going to Galveston and back. One round trip destination =/= mass transit.

If whitepaper statistics are to be believed, Houston's lack of mass transit is largely due to massive subsidies from the highway department. It seems like every year, there's yet another highway that's being constructed, rather than the city making an investment in decent transit. The region is far too wet for a subway system (or even basements, for that matter), though it's perfect for elevated rail. Oddly enough, for not much more than the cost of our good-for-nothing light rail "system", we could've had an L Train that traversed the entirety of the 610 Loop, but the boneheads at Metro (the city's transit authority) and our dipshit city council decided it would be "more modern" to have a train system that runs directly on pedestrian streets that has a good chance of killing people (and has killed quite a few in its short existence).

Did I mention that the Houston area is full of fucking idiots, moreso than what one would think? I'm tired of this place. Shit, I was tired of it when I moved here. I want to go to Boston where the people are familiar, and you don't have to drive thirty minutes to get anywhere.

The smaller cities here would do well to spend some of their revenues on actually developing such infrastructure. There's no way they could have anything like NYC or Chicago, but even a simple trolley and/or bus system would do wonders.

And even if they don't have the revenues to do that, city planning is where it all starts anyway. If towns of ~15,000 weren't spread across a ridiculous expanse of about 30 square miles, people could actually, er, walk to work. Or walk just about anywhere.

Its a possibility, We'd started to get one going pre Katrina using Casino Revenues, but, the project died off in favor of rebuilding the buildings...

But, really even if we had it, youd still need to buy a car and fuel it, it couldnt pull the load on its own, MS is just too spread out...

On a side note, I think you would spend the Money on Gas no matter what, because its the only fuel that can get you around, If, say, in the 1800s a horse cost $1000 people would still buy them, its the only way of getting from place to place, and for transporting goods....

Moon Knight;13798681']Wal-Mart may have it, you may wanna go pick one up. Hooked On Phonics too.

Moon Knight;13798675']Try again, this time for comprehension. Maybe if you did part of you would have got I can't afford it, he claimed I could, he said I will, kinda hard when I don't have the money. Comprehension, nice tool if you have it.

Moon Knight;13798625']You won that one champ. All I did was put you in your place. You made a stupid comment and got it shoved down your throat. Go back to your mansion.

Moon Knight;13798134']This post here is scary. It must be nice to be a rich elitist that can handle to drop big bucks on gas. Guess what? millions can't. It has come to were millions have to choose between filling up their cars or buying food, or people above the poverty line are now below it because of gas. This is NOT propagand, because I AM one of those people. How would you know what it's like to cut your grocery shopping to put gas in your car? You don't know now do you? Ever lived off of less than 50 bucks for 2 weeks and almost starved because of it? No! Ever had to eat taco cheese because you didn't have anything else and didn't have the money to buy it? NO. So don't you EVER tell me what I can and cannot buy again. The FACT is WE cannot continue to pay for this, it's screwing everybody over, you obviously don't feel it nor care, but there are millions who DO feel it and DO care.




What are you talking about? Do you even know? What does diesel have to do with Fuel Cell? Do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? I'd guess not.





Crazy? Must be nice to be able to pay 200 bucks for gas a month when you make less then 1500. Again do you even know how much it costs to refuel a Fuel Cell car? How about Ethanol? Did you know that your gas bills go down and your mileage can go up by converting your car to run on Water and Gas? Go look it up buddy, its a fact.

Here's one for reading comprehension:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Get me?

Its a possibility, We'd started to get one going pre Katrina using Casino Revenues, but, the project died off in favor of rebuilding the buildings...

But, really even if we had it, youd still need to buy a car and fuel it, it couldnt pull the load on its own, MS is just too spread out...

On a side note, I think you would spend the Money on Gas no matter what, because its the only fuel that can get you around, If, say, in the 1800s a horse cost $1000 people would still buy them, its the only way of getting from place to place, and for transporting goods....

Which is why we need to develop fuel cells, and start forcing businesses to put solar panels on those massive, open roofs so they can generate a good portion of their own power, if not all of it. Same goes for housing.

Here's one for reading comprehension:


Get me?


No flames in there. Do you even know what a flame is? Seems not. If I flamed him it's be more obvious than that. Includes a lot of swears. So no, I didn't flame him.

Moon Knight;13798704']Do you even know what a flame is?

Not usually the kind of question one asks a mod.

Moon Knight;13798704']No flames in there. Do you even know what a flame is? Seems not. If I flamed him it's be more obvious than that. Includes a lot of swears. So no, I didn't flame him.

Katganistan
NationStates Moderator Team

Maybe you should look to the left at who you're talking to, and try being a little more polite.

Not usually the kind of question one asks a mod.

Still a valid question. Those werent flames, she is being a little touchy.

Katganistan
NationStates Moderator Team

Maybe you should look to the left at who you're talking to, and try being a little more polite.


Hmmm. I wasn't rude....How was I rude?

Moon Knight, you're the one in need of reading comprehension, or else you're being willfully obtuse. Yes, there are flames in there, "champ". Yes, I do know what flames are, by virtue of being a moderator on this site for donkey's years while you simply are not. Yes, I will give you an official warning for it if you keep it up.

Cool the name calling.

This will not end well.

Those weren't flames Kat. Upgrade to a thicker skin.

Which is why we need to develop fuel cells, and start forcing businesses to put solar panels on those massive, open roofs so they can generate a good portion of their own power, if not all of it. Same goes for housing.

I agree but i think Ethanol would be easier to manufacture, and maintain in the market...Since most gas is already up to 15% ethanol and its already been done in one country that i know of, Brazil...

I lived for three years in an ethanol-humping state (North Dakota). They don't want to hear the truth.

This will not end well.

Sigged.

Moon Knight;13798716']Those weren't flames Kat. Upgrade to a thicker skin.

By the definition already posted in response to your posts, yes they were. You're goading a Mod. I wouldn't, but I'm not you.

I agree but i think Ethanol would be easier to manufacture, and maintain in the market...Since most gas is already up to 15% ethanol and its already been done in one country that i know of, Brazil...

Ethanol is good, but to have it as a major fuel source with our consumption rate, we need to grow it in hydroponic farm towers, so as to keep space at a minimum and volume at its peak. As it stands now, we're paying higher and higher prices for corn and corn-based products because we're beginning to use more and more of it as fuel, thus cutting into the food supply.

Moon Knight, you're the one in need of reading comprehension, or else you're being willfully obtuse. Yes, there are flames in there, "champ". Yes, I do know what flames are, by virtue of being a moderator on this site for donkey's years while you simply are not. Yes, I will give you an official warning for it if you keep it up.

Cool the name calling.


Those were NOT flames. And you accuse me of flaming then flame me? WOW. What a hypocrite. Upgrade to a thicker skin bitch, I did not flame him. Now either ban me or STFU. Ok sweetie? Yes, THOSE were flames. Which I hadn't done before. Jeez.


http://mccurley.org/images/fuck_you.jpg

Love that. A mod who doesn't know flames. Good Lord. Look it up is a flame? :rolleyes: I don't wanna be a part of a site that says look it up is a flame and telling people they don't care is one to. So just ban me and STFU.

Moon Knight;13798716']Those weren't flames Kat. Upgrade to a thicker skin.

We can upgrade to putting you in the time-out corner if you insist on continuing.

Moon Knight;13798725']Those were NOT flames. And you accuse me of flaming then flame me? WOW. What a hypocrite. Upgrade to a thicker skin bitch, I did not flame him. Now either ban me or STFU. Ok sweetie? Yes, THOSE were flames. Which I hadn't done before. Jeez.


http://mccurley.org/images/fuck_you.jpg

Love that. A mod who doesn't know flames. Good Lord. Look it up is a flame? :rolleyes: I don't wanna be a part of a site that says look it up is a flame and telling people they don't care is one to. So just ban me and STFU.

Wish granted.

By the definition already posted in response to your posts, yes they were. You're goading a Mod. I wouldn't, but I'm not you.

Then this site needs an overhaul, I didn't flame him and stand by it.

rural area. Currently the rural areas are doing very well. with the increase of food prices they are turning record profits. Few if any people are in the position of needing to pick between Gas and food.

suburbs. Why do you live in the suburbs if you poor. the suburbs are most often for middle class types. though if you want to get technical most suburbs are served by the main cities mass transit system. (even Dallas which has a crappy mass transit system)

Fail. See examples: Atlanta, Birmingham.

Which is really fucking pathetic.

This predicament wouldn't even be such a huge problem if most U.S. cities were like the Northern ones, which actually have mass transit systems... NYC and Chicago being the best examples of this.
Problem is that most American Cities dont have the Money, Population, Population Density, and Infrastructure of NYC and Chicago...

Its the same reason you cant compare US fuel Costs to European ones you could drive from one end of England for example to the other in a few hours, but itd take the same amount of time, money and energy to drive the distance of say MS and AL much less the Entire US...

1. Money isn't the issue. Per capita there's the same amount of wealth/standard of living in the South as there is in the North. The difference is that a lot of the Northern Cities (Chicago, N.Y., Boston) were fully realized as large metropolitan areas BEFORE the mass production of the automobile, and the shift from rural to urban that happened in America.

2. Actually England (not counting Wales and Scotland), is roughly the size of Alabama. With 10 times the people. With density comes infrastructure. Example: In comparison to the distance across the entire country, I and Skalvia are almost neighbors. But to go from Ft. Payne, Al to Biloxi, Ms is equivalent to going from Newcastle to Plymouth in England.

The smaller cities here would do well to spend some of their revenues on actually developing such infrastructure. There's no way they could have anything like NYC or Chicago, but even a simple trolley and/or bus system would do wonders.

And even if they don't have the revenues to do that, city planning is where it all starts anyway. If towns of ~15,000 weren't spread across a ridiculous expanse of about 30 square miles, people could actually, er, walk to work. Or walk just about anywhere.

It's a little late for that. Unfortunately, the time for good urban planning was back in the 50's and 60's when the land was still available. If you could have stopped the Levittowns from coming into existence, you might have had a chance.

The question you have to ask as a urban planner, would be, "How are you going to get people to move back into an apartment, or row house, after they've had the luxury of living like the rich, in their own fenced off worlds?" Money might be the answer, but IMHO, things would have to get significantly worse before it spurs on a new wave of urban rewenal unless someone comes up with a idea.

We can upgrade to putting you in the time-out corner if you insist on continuing.

Flamebait. Why do you accuse me of flaming and then do the same to me? Answer that, or you can hide from me by banning. Your choice.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, that's got to be the quickest suicide I've ever seen!

Moon Knight;13798716']Those weren't flames Kat. Upgrade to a thicker skin.

Now now, this isn't a debate. You can't win this. So calm down, have a taco and laugh a little to relax. Here:

http://www.dorks.com/videos/Funny-Cats.html

:)

Wish granted.


Run and hide. I didn't flame.

Moon Knight;13798735']Run and hide. I didn't flame.

*waves buh-bye*

The question you have to ask as a urban planner, would be, "How are you going to get people to move back into an apartment, or row house, after they've had the luxury of living like the rich, in their own fenced off worlds?" Money might be the answer, but IMHO, things would have to get significantly worse before it spurs on a new wave of urban rewenal unless someone comes up with a idea.

It'd likely be a good idea to show people that there's just a lot more to city living than there is to the suburbs, and that you can have a better quality of life in a row house than you can in a 4,200 square foot McMansion (well, technically not a mansion, but close enough) in a subdivision.

It's not just the close proximity to everything, it's the atmosphere.

Ethanol is good, but to have it as a major fuel source with our consumption rate, we need to grow it in hydroponic farm towers, so as to keep space at a minimum and volume at its peak. As it stands now, we're paying higher and higher prices for corn and corn-based products because we're beginning to use more and more of it as fuel, thus cutting into the food supply.

Not if you did it right, like i said the Government has a thumb on the farming industry because of the subsidies that Farms are dependent on...

It should used to our advantage, like say, taking an eighth of the crop in return for a subsidy and in eight years youd have an entire years worth of ethanol, ready to go when your ready for the full switch, continuing it would keep the food price down, at the same time youd be offering the same to Car Companies for making cars that can run on either Ethanol or Gas and eventually Ethanol only, and for gas stations for putting in and maintaining Ethanol pumps, and eventually for Gas Stations and Car Companies itd be no longer profitable to manufactor Gas powered Cars or to maintain gas pumps...

Moon Knight;13798733']Flamebait. Why do you accuse me of flaming and then do the same to me? Answer that, or you can hide from me by banning. Your choice.

Moon Knight;13798735']Run and hide. I didn't flame.

Well, Moon Knight, I'm not running and hiding, pretty much because everything I am doing is out in the open where everyone can see it, with the definition posted, and your infractions in red, and a friendly UNofficial warning to start with.

Now, let's see about that charge of hypocrisy. You tell me what you did was not flaming, and then when I point it out and demonstrate it by answering you in the same way, you then call it flaming. Hypocrisy much?

You blew a mild reminder to behave into World War II and a half. Maybe a cooling off period will do you some good, given your previous record here.

It'd likely be a good idea to show people that there's just a lot more to city living than there is to the suburbs, and that you can have a better quality of life in a row house than you can in a 4,200 square foot McMansion (well, technically not a mansion, but close enough) in a subdivision.

It's not just the close proximity to everything, it's the atmosphere.

I dunno. I've seen the atmosphere of some of the neighborhoods that they're tryig to revitalize in Atlanta. When it's done right, it can be great (Atlantic Station). When done wrong, you're living on a block of small nice houses, set in a sea of crackheads and dopeboys (Little 5 Points)

Moon Knight;13798729']Then this site needs an overhaul, I didn't flame him and stand by it.

Moon Knight;13798735']Run and hide. I didn't flame.

You can keep saying you didn't flame all you want, but that doesn't make it true. The site's own definition coupled with a Mod pointing out exactly how you crossed the line using those same definitions pretty much closes your case. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I dunno. I've seen the atmosphere of some of the neighborhoods that they're tryig to revitalize in Atlanta. When it's done right, it can be great (Atlantic Station). When done wrong, you're living on a block of small nice houses, set in a sea of crackheads and dopeboys (Little 5 Points)

Well, the same can also be said of any subdivision, as there are a lot in the Houston area that have turned out that way.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cellulosic/
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/cellulosic-ethanol.html


So... corn and soybeans need not be used to produce ethanol. And how about the waste products -- stem, leaves and root, being used while the soybeans and corn ears themselves are processed into food?

What about wood chips and algae?

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=

So... corn and soybeans need not be used to produce ethanol. And how about the waste products -- stem, leaves and root, being used while the soybeans and corn ears themselves are processed into food?

What about wood chips and algae?

It would be fan-fucking-tastic if that takes off.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=

So... corn and soybeans need not be used to produce ethanol. And how about the waste products -- stem, leaves and root, being used while the soybeans and corn ears themselves are processed into food?

What about wood chips and algae?

Algae is a good one. Hell, there's a quantum leap forward in hydrogen directly from algae!

Then there's cellulose. And sugarcane. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that some happy gene modifiers are in a lab somewhere working on a hardier form of sugarcane that can grow in more temperate climates with less rainfall. *nod*

It would be fan-fucking-tastic if that takes off.

I have my doubts so long as big oil's got a pal sitting in the Oval Office, but I think it is finally getting to the point where people are going to start telling their representatives, "You've been doing jack-all since the fuel crisis of the 1970s -- hop to it, or we'll elect someone who will!"

So... corn and soybeans need not be used to produce ethanol. And how about the waste products -- stem, leaves and root, being used while the soybeans and corn ears themselves are processed into food?

One thing I've been wondering about that…
If the entire plant is being used (corn for food, stem and leaves for fuel) what happens to the soil?

I have my doubts so long as big oil's got a pal sitting in the Oval Office, but I think it is finally getting to the point where people are going to start telling their representatives, "You've been doing jack-all since the fuel crisis of the 1970s -- hop to it, or we'll elect someone who will!"

Yeah, but I still have my doubts about even that making an impact.

One thing I've been wondering about that…
If the entire plant is being used (corn for food, stem and leaves for fuel) what happens to the soil?

Nothing that rotational planting can't handle.

Nothing that rotational planting can't handle.

Srsly?
If so, great. Seems farmers aren't really into it, though.

I was thinking about the oil/energy problem all this week (after watching the excellent documentary The End of Suburbia). I have heard time and again from the Neocon Right that the eco-liberals are trying to "socially engineer" Americans out of their right to choose whatever car they want. These people seem to think that it's their birthright to waste power and other resources as they see fit.

Well pardon me, but wasn't it "social engineering" to get us INTO the cars in the first place when most cities had perfectly functioning streetcar/rail lines? Isn't it the height of irony for, say, Seattle to have once had the Interurban rail line connecting Tacoma north through Seattle to Everett -- and now spending billions to RE-link those same cities because the regional governments tore up the line to make either roads or bike paths?

"Social engineering" is a phrase like "activist judges" -- it's only bad if the pundit in question doesn't like what's being engineered or how things are being judged. I'm sick of news becoming opinion and objectivity being sold for profit.

In the case of ethanol, it seems that agribusiness (always a pal of petroleum for its fuel, fertilizer and pesticide contributions) shoved corn ethanol down our throats despite the better yield from sugar or switchgrass. And yet somehow other alternatives are no good?

I understand that money is the engine that drives innovation in the capitalist system, but can't there ever be a point where those already filthy rich have enough and can start thinking about others for a damn change? I love my country, but I'm getting tired of the selfishness and arrogant, deliberate consumerism.

Unfocused, sorry.

I have my doubts so long as big oil's got a pal sitting in the Oval Office, but I think it is finally getting to the point where people are going to start telling their representatives, "You've been doing jack-all since the fuel crisis of the 1970s -- hop to it, or we'll elect someone who will!"

Problem is, that itll be said by people like you and me, and we'll be saying it Online, and almost Noone will here it...

And the ones who do, either wont care, or wont have the power to do anything about, or both...

Woodstock and Marches on Washington just dont happen anymore :(

Srsly?
If so, great. Seems farmers aren't really into it, though.

Oh, crop rotation is pretty standard. Farmers who don't learn to regret it fairly quickly. Fertilizers and pesticides that can handle the demands on soil by not doing so are very expensive.

Oh, crop rotation is pretty standard. Farmers who don't learn to regret it fairly quickly. Fertilizers and pesticides that can handle the demands on soil by not doing so are very expensive.

Mostly monoculture around here. Everybody plows, too.

"Let them eat cake" worked great for the last ruling class that tried it...

Yeah, God forbid someone be asked to work for what they get and not depend on me to pay my taxes in order to support their lazy butts. What do you have against personal responsibility and maximum freedom consistent with order? It's not the Governments job to fix your problems, that's YOUR JOB.

Mostly monoculture around here. Everybody plows, too.

Where's here, what is traditionally grown and are they mostly larger farms?

Where's here, what is traditionally grown and are they mostly larger farms?

Here is Southern Ontario, mostly corn. Yes.
There are also smaller family farms, and they're quite a bit more sustainability-oriented. But still.

Here is Southern Ontario, mostly corn. Yes.
There are also smaller family farms, and they're quite a bit more sustainability-oriented. But still.

Corn and soybeans are an excellent rotation, I believe.

Yeah, God forbid someone be asked to work for what they get and not depend on me to pay my taxes in order to support their lazy butts. What do you have against personal responsibility and maximum freedom consistent with order? It's not the Governments job to fix your problems, that's YOUR JOB.

Why do such reactionaries invariably return to this argument? As if we're walking around actively searching for lazy people and handing them checks, or something. The vast majority of those who draw benefits have paid into them. What do you have against someone getting their due from their previous contributions? In short, when you generalize like that, you lose points.

Also, I have no kids, should I be allowed to not pay levies and get refunds on the portion of my taxes that went to schools and playgrounds and other kid-related programs? Horseshit. If you don't agree with what needs to be spent to enhance society as a whole, by all means, complain to your congresscritter, or local government.

Moon Knight;13798074']Where do you refill these things? Thats the one of the things I wondered. Where do you fill up Fuel Cells and how much.

We should be able to fill them up just about anywhere. Rendering hydrogen is easy - all you need is a neat little hydrolysis reaction fueled by solar energy.

Because of the rampant availability of the hydrogen, it *should* be pretty cheap.

Yeah, God forbid someone be asked to work for what they get and not depend on me to pay my taxes in order to support their lazy butts. What do you have against personal responsibility and maximum freedom consistent with order? It's not the Governments job to fix your problems, that's YOUR JOB.

If you don't know the difference between a switch and a dial you're going to have a hard time understanding complex organisms like societies and governments without getting a ruffled brow, all red faced and sweaty...

And that's not even getting to things like inter-relation and its contribution to cause and effect.

We should be able to fill them up just about anywhere. Rendering hydrogen is easy - all you need is a neat little hydrolysis reaction fueled by solar energy.

Because of the rampant availability of the hydrogen, it *should* be pretty cheap.

I feel the need to point out we don't have nearly enough solar power plants for that. I should also point out it's more efficient to just use an electric motor and not lose energy cracking water and then converting the hydrogen back to electricity.

I feel the need to point out we don't have nearly enough solar power plants for that. I should also point out it's more efficient to just use an electric motor and not lose energy cracking water and then converting the hydrogen back to electricity.

Aye, not to mention transport and storage costs. Just using a damned battery is more efficient. I can't really understand the fascination everyone has with Hydrogen for personal transport.

Problem is that most American Cities dont have the Money, Population, Population Density, and Infrastructure of NYC and Chicago...

These things often boil down to problems of outlook, though. People in GA, for instance, get all up in arms instantly if you start talking about using any state tax money to improve infrastructure and mass transit in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. Places like NY don't really have that problem.

There also seems to be much more aversion to living close to others (which I must admit I share, to a point).

And then there's the utter lack of competent city planning...

We should be able to fill them up just about anywhere. Rendering hydrogen is easy - all you need is a neat little hydrolysis reaction fueled by solar energy.

Because of the rampant availability of the hydrogen, it *should* be pretty cheap.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's an energy storage medium. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen from its myriad sources than it releases when used in combustion. It's the ethanol boondoggle all over again, only lighter, invisible and more Hindenburg-y.

I feel the need to point out we don't have nearly enough solar power plants for that. I should also point out it's more efficient to just use an electric motor and not lose energy cracking water and then converting the hydrogen back to electricity.

I feel the need to point out that you don't need a solar plant -all you need is a solar panel hooked up to a tank.

I should also point out that a hydrogen fuel cell is just an environmentally friendly battery. If you run electric cars, not only do you have to burn fossil fuels to generate the electricity they run on at a power plant (unless it's a nuclear plant - chances are it's not). Then you have to deal with all of the lithium batteries that come along with traditional electric cars. Batteries that wear out. Batteries that will eventually populate a landfill. Not good.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's an energy storage medium. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen from its myriad sources than it releases when used in combustion. It's the ethanol boondoggle all over again, only lighter, invisible and more Hindenburg-y.

Didn't say it was an energy source - really, the only true sources of energy on earth are nuclear fission, and the sun. Everything else is a medium of storage. The question then becomes: what is the most efficient and environmentally friendly method of making that energy useful?

You could use the upset in air pressure that the heat from the sun causes and put up windmills... not very efficient.

You could let the sun power the water cycle and catch some of that energy on its way down with a dam... but still not very efficient.

You could use the sunlight to grow corn or sugar and then turn that into ethanol.. but that leaves plenty of plant waste behind, requires that you refine the crop into the ethanol, and still makes plenty of carbon emissions.

You could use nuclear power, which is pretty darn viable in the long run... but it still leaves behind hazardous wastes.

Then you could always use solar panels to harvest this energy and convert it directly into electricity... But that's not cost effective. OR IS IT?!?!?!

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18415/


The decision then boils down to whether or not to store said energy in a lithium battery, or a hydrogen fuel cell. I think we can easily agree that hydrogen is better.

I feel the need to point out that you don't need a solar plant -all you need is a solar panel hooked up to a tank.

I should also point out that a hydrogen fuel cell is just an environmentally friendly battery. If you run electric cars, not only do you have to burn fossil fuels to generate the electricity they run on at a power plant (unless it's a nuclear plant - chances are it's not). Then you have to deal with all of the lithium batteries that come along with traditional electric cars. Batteries that wear out. Batteries that will eventually populate a landfill. Not good.

90% of the hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons, methane being the big one.
process to make hydrogen from these hydrocarbons releases Co2 into the atmosphere.

electric batteries are 99% efficient rather then 50% efficient for a fuel cell.
so less power will be used to run an electric car.

it is easier and more efficient to use solar for battery powered cars. saving energy and lower total carbon foot print ,solar cells have a carbon foot print too and you need twice as many as you would get out of hydrogen.

they may all be moot as scientist have started making yeast that can produce gasoline at 50 dollars a barrel (or 1/4 current price). And that seems to be the likely fix to gas prices. Alas market always comes before environment.

So I guess no one was interested in my "no cars" idea? I was serious, you know...

Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells also have the added benefit of only producing water as a byproduct, eliminating greenhouse emissions.
Water is a greenhouse gas.

So I guess no one was interested in my "no cars" idea? I was serious, you know...

We all dismissed you as a new-age tree-hugger who goes around calling themselves "Elf Baggins" or something.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Fixed.

you wantto be able to buy food? say no to ethanol.

We have been using ethanol as a fuel since the 1970s, whereas I know of no fuel cell powered vehicle here at all. A country of 200 million people, where it is standard practice now for all new vehicles to accept either gasoline or ethanol, or any mixture of the two. What is left to debate regarding the short term future. (And we produce the ethanol from sugar cane, not corn, we eat the corn or sell it as food to other parts of the world such as the USA)

Long term neither is the solution. Fuel cells depend on hydrogen, which requires the consumption of a great deal of energy to produce - where is that energy going to come from, and the demand for food will reduce the amount of available biomass to produce ethanol.

What is the solution - buy a horse or some good walking boots, or if you want to remain technological - a bicycle.

There are plenty of non-food crop ethanol sources. That we're not using them currently is the issue, not ethanol itself.
What's the relative efficiency for sugar-based ethanol to corn-based? Something like 8 to 1? Meaning that sugar would be a much better way to produce ethanol.

Agriculture is one of the last big areas of protectionism that no one seems to notice.

Agriculture is one of the last big areas of protectionism that no one seems to notice.

Because it's not attention grabbing enough. Except to the ones who are feeling its negative effects.

What's the relative efficiency for sugar-based ethanol to corn-based? Something like 8 to 1? Meaning that sugar would be a much better way to produce ethanol.

Agriculture is one of the last big areas of protectionism that most people seems to notice.

I lived in a state ruled by protectionist agribusiness policies (ND). Farms and those people masquerading their properties as farms get agri-welfare regardless of what happens. Bad year -- not enough crops grow, farmers can't make payments, they get money. Good year -- bumper crop, oversupply, prices go down, farmers can't make payments, they get money.

This is seriously fucked. So yeah, I notice.

What's the relative efficiency for sugar-based ethanol to corn-based? Something like 8 to 1? Meaning that sugar would be a much better way to produce ethanol.

In fact, I seriously think it could be far higher than that considering that efficiency level is attained by Brazilian farmers (who may lack some of the more capital-intensive productivity equipment and techniques). That being said, unlike Brazil our sugarcane growing region is much smaller (although it does not require destruction of the rainforests) and so it would not likely be able to achieve similar levels of production.

However, as you know thanks to our "friends" in the corn lobby there are huge tariffs on superior Brazilian ethanol (let alone domestic sugarcane ethanol) that have cost us billions of dollars and untold economic damage from the negative effects of corn ethanol production.

That being said, I feel biofuels are the current step in alternative propulsion, electric vehicles the intermediate step, and fuel cells the final step. Liquid fuels are currently the best means of propulsion, but given the current challenges facing increased oil production let alone the soon-to-arrive ultimate peak in naturally available petroleum production, this isn't a workable path.

The ideal solution would be a renewable, carbon-neutral gasoline/diesel; the petroleum-based fuels are really the best for the internal combustion engine, so any attempt to eliminate their negative effects as well as the finite supply of the resources used to produce them is ultimately the best solution to our transportation needs. This is a possibility, and is in fact under development as I write this post, but given the technical and economic barriers there's still a while to go before something like this becomes available, especially when compared to the level of development seen in electric vehicles, hybrids, fuel cells and biofuels. That being said, I feel this would easily supercede the alternatives once developed.

I voted neither, since ethanol is staggeringly stupid in light of a growing global food crisis, and I don't really know much about fuel cells, beyond rumors of high cost and questionable reliability. Why not just use electric cars?

In fact, I seriously think it could be far higher than that considering that efficiency level is attained by Brazilian farmers (who may lack some of the more capital-intensive productivity equipment and techniques). That being said, unlike Brazil our sugarcane growing region is much smaller (although it does not require destruction of the rainforests) and so it would not likely be able to achieve similar levels of production.

However, as you know thanks to our "friends" in the corn lobby there are huge tariffs on superior Brazilian ethanol (let alone domestic sugarcane ethanol) that have cost us billions of dollars and untold economic damage from the negative effects of corn ethanol production.

I'm leaning toward kudzu ethanol (http://www.statesman.com/business/content/shared/money/stories/2008/06/KUDZU_POWER20_COX_F5881.html). It seems like the perfect crop for it.

*is eaten alive by kudzu*

OK, there might be a drawback.

I'm leaning toward kudzu ethanol (http://www.statesman.com/business/content/shared/money/stories/2008/06/KUDZU_POWER20_COX_F5881.html). It seems like the perfect crop for it.

*is eaten alive by kudzu*

OK, there might be a drawback.

I'm hoping that biodiversity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1598) catches on before the ship is abandoned. My fear is that there's a big push for the worst source ever to sour Ethanol all together. A little tinfoil hat, but whatever.

I'm hoping that biodiversity (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1598) catches on before the ship is abandoned. My fear is that there's a big push for the worst source ever to sour Ethanol all together. A little tinfoil hat, but whatever.

The problem with cheap, easy renewable fuel is that it's cheap, easy and renewable. I bet that if solar panels had to be slathered with some proprietary goop concoction once a month that they'd be on everyone's house by now. :p

The problem with cheap, easy renewable fuel is that it's cheap, easy and renewable. I bet that if solar panels had to be slathered with some proprietary goop concoction once a month that they'd be on everyone's house by now. :p

Tell me about it. Where's the profit in teaching men how to fish when you can keep selling them fish...

I voted neither, since ethanol is staggeringly stupid in light of a growing global food crisis, and I don't really know much about fuel cells, beyond rumors of high cost and questionable reliability. Why not just use electric cars?

draw back to electric cars is right now the range limitation.
I think about 40 miles is the average range. ( with out giving up interior space and seating for four)
they are improving it and within 10 -15 years 200 mile range should be within a cheap and affordable price range.

next is infrastructure. we need to convert to from gas stations to charge stations ( a 5 minute quick charge is possible). the reason being even with a 200 mile range you may need the flexibility to recharge due to unforeseen circumstances.

but in time it will come.

In fact, I seriously think it could be far higher than that considering that efficiency level is attained by Brazilian farmers (who may lack some of the more capital-intensive productivity equipment and techniques). That being said, unlike Brazil our sugarcane growing region is much smaller (although it does not require destruction of the rainforests) and so it would not likely be able to achieve similar levels of production.

However, as you know thanks to our "friends" in the corn lobby there are huge tariffs on superior Brazilian ethanol (let alone domestic sugarcane ethanol) that have cost us billions of dollars and untold economic damage from the negative effects of corn ethanol production.

The US sugarcane region might be smaller, but think of the economic revitalization that region might see with sugarcane ethanol production. The Gulf south could use that kind of help.

There are some towns in North Dakota that would have evaporated without the ethanol plants that refine corn now. I say shift to sugarcane. North Dakota would be fine -- the SE corner of the state grows sugar beets, the NW corner has the Bakken Formation oil sands.

Tell me about it. Where's the profit in teaching men how to fish when you can keep selling them fish...

Who Would Jesus Bilk?

draw back to electric cars is right now the range limitation.
I think about 40 miles is the average range. ( with out giving up interior space and seating for four)
they are improving it and within 10 -15 years 200 mile range should be within a cheap and affordable price range.

next is infrastructure. we need to convert to from gas stations to charge stations ( a 5 minute quick charge is possible). the reason being even with a 200 mile range you may need the flexibility to recharge due to unforeseen circumstances.

but in time it will come.

Whatever happened to the guys in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car who solved the battery problem? Did GM kill them, too? BRING BACK THE EV-1!

Whatever happened to the guys in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car who solved the battery problem? Did GM kill them, too? BRING BACK THE EV-1!

that movie lol. the guy talking about if we used lap top batteries and all. too bad he forgot to mention how quickly battery storage life would degenerate when dealing with conditions faced by a car. Better battery technology is on the way though and it will maintain 90% of its capacity for many years. And in all temperatures.


the problem with the EV-1 was while it might fit 90% of people commutes it lacks the flexibility to deal with life.

for instance lets say I am at work i get a call my son is sick. I need a car with the ability to drive him across town pick him up from school and take him home. its the other 10% of the time when I need the flexibility of a gasoline engine that makes me shy away from the Ev-1.
not to mention it was a two seater.

Long term neither is the solution. Fuel cells depend on hydrogen, which requires the consumption of a great deal of energy to produce - where is that energy going to come from..
What he said...Hydrogen car is like an expensive battery driven car.

Unless you have massive solar farms producing the hydrogen in Sahara transported globally in electrically powered ships hydrogen will not be much cleaner than normal petrol driven car.
...and the demand for food will reduce the amount of available biomass to produce ethanol.
Well, not all biomass that can be used to produce ethanol is edible or require as stable, temperate or nutrient rich growth place as food crops.

The problem is that IF ethanol is subsidied (OR if normal crops are not subsidied) then normal arable land might be turned into more profitable ventures, like fuel production.

Overall, if ethanol economy is done right - prioritising food over fuel - then I see no harm in ethanol fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil)

that movie lol. the guy talking about if we used lap top batteries and all. too bad he forgot to mention how quickly battery storage life would degenerate when dealing with conditions faced by a car. Better battery technology is on the way though and it will maintain 90% of its capacity for many years. And in all temperatures.


the problem with the EV-1 was while it might fit 90% of people commutes it lacks the flexibility to deal with life.

for instance lets say I am at work i get a call my son is sick. I need a car with the ability to drive him across town pick him up from school and take him home. its the other 10% of the time when I need the flexibility of a gasoline engine that makes me shy away from the Ev-1.
not to mention it was a two seater.

So that automatically made the EV-1 a dead end? Thousands loved their cars and yet they were forced to give them back to GM.

Moon Knight;13798061']So the question I have been looking around for an answer is which form of alternate fuel is better? Fuel Cell or Ethanol. Well, considering fuel cells are not a form of fuel, I'd go with ethanol. And possibly find a fuel cell that can be fueled by it (there's ones that run on methanol, I think).

Whatever happened to the guys in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car who solved the battery problem? Did GM kill them, too? BRING BACK THE EV-1!
Just so they could market their own car? -- Seriously, new product development isn't always a straight path to a perfect product. But, now the Volt is planned and worth a look...

http://gm-volt.com/

Moon Knight;13798061']7 bucks a gallon by the end of summer? Yesh. Will only get worse here and we can't continue to pay it. So the question I have been looking around for an answer is which form of alternate fuel is better? Fuel Cell or Ethanol. Those Fuel Cell cars cost an arm and a leg, not to mention the Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell only last 50k miles. What do you do after that? Can it be replaced easily? Where the hell do you fill these damn things up anyway?

A hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell essentially operates as a battery.

That is, it is an energy storage device - you have to have some other source of power separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

A hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell essentially operates as a battery.

That is, it is an energy storage deviceIt's probably better described as a generator. You put fuel in (hydrogen, methanol or something else, depending on the type), and you get electricity out. It doesn't itself store energy; unless it has a build-in tank.

It's probably better described as a generator. You put fuel in (hydrogen, methanol or something else, depending on the type), and you get electricity out. It doesn't itself store energy; unless it has a build-in tank.

The problem is this - you need to generate power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. Using some other source of power.

So in that sense, it's merely storing energy.

The problem is this - you need to generate power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. Using some other source of power.

True. But letting it collect solar, wind or whatever pratically infinite source of power is trivial. The hydrogen cell will be easy to transport.

The problem is this - you need to generate power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. Using some other source of power.

So in that sense, it's merely storing energy.

The advantage that a fuel cell has over ethanol is that Hydrogen is an extremely abundant resource. It is found in oil, since that is a large Carbon-Hydrogen chain. It is found in Ethanol, and in water.

This is both an advantage and disadvantage for the hydrogen fuel cell. It requires tremendous amounts of energy to actually get hydrogen, because it is not available alone naturally. Usually Hydrogen combines itself other elements, hence why we have water, oil, and countless other compounds, both naturally occuring and man made.

Switching to hydrogen fuel cells will require enormous efforts, and devotion by any nation that undertakes such an effort. The key for hydrogen fuel cells is to establishing laws that mandate a timeframe on establishing an effective distribution network for hydrogen, and encouraging mass production. This can be helpded if governments began implementing more stringent fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles.

The advantage that a fuel cell has over ethanol is that Hydrogen is an extremely abundant resource. It is found in oil, since that is a large Carbon-Hydrogen chain. It is found in Ethanol,
the process to get hydrogen from oil and ethonol releases Co2 into the air and lowers the total energy of the material. and in water.

This is both an advantage and disadvantage for the hydrogen fuel cell. It requires tremendous amounts of energy to actually get hydrogen, because it is not available alone naturally. Usually Hydrogen combines itself other elements, hence why we have water, oil, and countless other compounds, both naturally occuring and man made. using a battery requires half the energy and is twice as cost effective.

Switching to hydrogen fuel cells will require enormous efforts, and devotion by any nation that undertakes such an effort. The key for hydrogen fuel cells is to establishing laws that mandate a timeframe on establishing an effective distribution network for hydrogen, and encouraging mass production. This can be helpded if governments began implementing more stringent fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles.
batteries for cars are cheaper, we already have a distribution network in place (power lines), and using battery technology is more friendly for the environment.

the process to get hydrogen from oil and ethonol releases Co2 into the air and lowers the total energy of the material
I don't think we are wanting to get hydrogen from oil and ethanol because, for one, that defeats the purpose.

So that automatically made the EV-1 a dead end? Thousands loved their cars and yet they were forced to give them back to GM.

thousands ??? you know there were only about 1,000 built.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=457

a large part of the reason was liability. the service stations which they were running at a loss were going to be closed. if they had sold the 100 or so people who wanted to buy the car they would have had to maintain those service centers and supply parts at a major loss.


The insurance company for accounts like this

This removes any kind of liability issue GM might have down the road in case there was an electrical problem that caused a fire, which has happened two or three times EV1's. In two cases the car almost burning down the peoples' houses, he commented
felt that removal from the market was the only way to prevetn a liability suit against GM.

I don't think we are wanting to get hydrogen from oil and ethanol because, for one, that defeats the purpose.

and to get it from water is a really energy intensive matter.

the only countries that have really been able to do it are places like Iceland that have a large amount of Geo thermal energy and low population.

the process to get hydrogen from oil and ethonol releases Co2 into the air and lowers the total energy of the material

This is true currently, but is also limits where the CO2 is produced, which allows us to better control CO2 emissions by planting trees, and plants that like lots of CO2. Additionally, Modern Fuel Cell vehicles have a longer range. beating current battery powered vehicles by about 50 miles per charge.

using a battery requires half the energy and is twice as cost effective.
batteries for cars are cheaper, we already have a distribution network in place (power lines), and using battery technology is more friendly for the environment.

The major disadvantage batteries have is recharging. Modern day batteries require 6 to 8 hours to recharge after every 250 miles. For a normal commute that makes that is fine; however, for a regular weekend trip that would cause problems. Sure there are ways to offset the distance limits of the battery. That is essentially what a hybrid vehicles does, but that does not resolve the CO2 problem. Also, by allowing the vehicle to use combustion you have greater difficultying controlling and limiting CO2.

I don't think we are wanting to get hydrogen from oil and ethanol because, for one, that defeats the purpose.


True, but if done properly it allows better management of CO2. Because you can control where the Hydrogen is produced, and plant trees to help mitigate some of the problem.

This is true currently, but is also limits where the CO2 is produced, which allows us to better control CO2 emissions by planting trees, and plants that like lots of CO2. Additionally, Modern Fuel Cell vehicles have a longer range. beating current battery powered vehicles by about 50 miles per charge.

except hydrogen has 1/12 the energy as hydrocarbons.
that means you would have to use 12 times the fossil fuels and release 12 times the Co2. If you cant plant enough trees for the cars running on gas there is no way you can plant enough trees for cars running on hydrogen.
not to mention Co2 disperses in the atmosphere too quickly to attempt to catch it at source. other wise why not just plant trees around coal power plants.


The major disadvantage batteries have is recharging. Modern day batteries require 6 to 8 hours to recharge after every 250 miles. For a normal commute that makes that is fine; however, for a regular weekend trip that would cause problems. Sure there are ways to offset the distance limits of the battery. That is essentially what a hybrid vehicles does, but that does not resolve the CO2 problem. Also, by allowing the vehicle to use combustion you have greater difficultying controlling and limiting CO2.
home charging takes 6 to 8 hours. however a more industrial charging method can take as few as 5 minutes. replace gas stations with charge stations and there you go, don't want it in homes as it is not the sort of power outlets id trust people with. that failing have battery swapping stations change batteries, then the consumer pays for the electricity and a fee for maintenance on the battery.

True, but if done properly it allows better management of CO2. Because you can control where the Hydrogen is produced, and plant trees to help mitigate some of the problem.
What ever happened to fuel cells that rely on a catalyst to produce hydrogen protons and electrons? That would only require hydrogen and a suitable catalyst. And no byproducts other than water would be created.

except hydrogen has 1/12 the energy as hydrocarbons.
that means you would have to use 12 times the fossil fuels and release 12 times the Co2.Actually, that's not at all what it means. It does means you need 12 times as much hydrogen to get the same amount of energy, however you don't need 12 times as much fossil fuel to make that hydrogen.
You only waste about half the energy creating hydrogen in electrolysis; not sure about other processes. And a fuel cell burns hydrogen much more efficiently than you can burn fossil fuels.
For some applications it works out to a saving in energy and CO2 emission.
Although, personally, I think methanol makes a better fuel for fuel cells (easier to store, among other things)

Actually, that's not at all what it means. It does means you need 12 times as much hydrogen to get the same amount of energy, however you don't need 12 times as much fossil fuel to make that hydrogen.
You only waste about half the energy creating hydrogen in electrolysis; not sure about other processes. And a fuel cell burns hydrogen much more efficiently than you can burn fossil fuels.
For some applications it works out to a saving in energy and CO2 emission.
Although, personally, I think methanol makes a better fuel for fuel cells (easier to store, among other things)

you need 12 times the resultant it means you need 12 times the reactant.
a fuel cell uses hydrogen about as efficiently as a diesel engine uses diesel.
both around 50%.
comparing to a gasoline engine always produces such skewed results as the engine was picked for its acceleration and other such performance benefits 100 years ago. though now GM is producing gas engines that run on a diesel cycle and get roughly 50% efficiency. (also out performs hybirds but shhh you will ruin the hippies wet dream) and is closer to market then fuel cells are(in R&D terms).
But alas lets bring in the electric motor which on high end models can boost 99% efficiency.

What ever happened to fuel cells that rely on a catalyst to produce hydrogen protons and electrons? That would only require hydrogen and a suitable catalyst. And no byproducts other than water would be created.

That is how a fuel cell works.

What we are talking about here is producing the Hydrogen, since it doesn't naturally occur on its own most of the time. This means you have to use something to separate the Hydrogen from other elements.

My point has been that using hydrogen fuel cells will allow us to decrease our CO2 output, and better controlling where it is produced, when compared with today.

Also, I keep arguing that fuel cells are better than batteries because they have a longer driving distance.

except hydrogen has 1/12 the energy as hydrocarbons.
This is...misleading.

Hydrogen has 3-4 times higher energy density per unit of mass than gasoline, but lower energy density per unit of volume under most storage situations eg. worst case scenario of atmospheric pressure hydrogen the ratio is 3000+ volume units to 1 in favour of gasoline.

That is how a fuel cell works.

What we are talking about here is producing the Hydrogen, since it doesn't naturally occur on its own most of the time. This means you have to use something to separate the Hydrogen from other elements.

My point has been that using hydrogen fuel cells will allow us to decrease our CO2 output, and better controlling where it is produced, when compared with today.

Also, I keep arguing that fuel cells are better than batteries because they have a longer driving distance.
I understand... Clearly what's needed is a very efficient method to electrolyze water molecules and produce hydrogen in large quantities and in commercially acceptable manner.

I need to go back and see what Lockheed did during their days of experimentation with hydrogen fuel.

I understand... Clearly what's needed is a very efficient method to electrolyze water molecules and produce hydrogen in large quantities and in commercially acceptable manner.
...and storage as well.

I'd think the energy needed to compress hydrogen into a normal pressurized storage is a HUGE investment of energy and could probably be used to drive a car alone in same way as the compressed air cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car).


Combining combustion and compression as energy storage might infact be a viable method of increasing the efficiency of hydrogen.

except hydrogen has 1/12 the energy as hydrocarbons.
that means you would have to use 12 times the fossil fuels and release 12 times the Co2. If you cant plant enough trees for the cars running on gas there is no way you can plant enough trees for cars running on hydrogen.
not to mention Co2 disperses in the atmosphere too quickly to attempt to catch it at source. other wise why not just plant trees around coal power plants.
I don't think the idea is to get hydrogen from hydrocarbons. I think the idea is to strip it from water, or you know, not hydrocarbons.

you need 12 times the resultant it means you need 12 times the reactant.That's like saying that if I want to exchange quarters for dollars to get 4 quarters I need to exchange 4 dollars.
If there is more energy in a liter of petrol, then you can get more hydrogen out of it if it has a lower energy content. It's not a one-to-one exchange rate. Some energy gets lost in transfer, but not that much.

Besides which, energy content for petrol is 34.83 MJ/L and for liquid hydrogen it's 9.36 MJ/L; that's not a factor 12 difference.
And if you look per mass, rather than volume, petrol has 47 MJ/kg and hydrogen 140.4MJ/kg.

a fuel cell uses hydrogen about as efficiently as a diesel engine uses diesel.
both around 50%.And a petrol engine has about 30%.

Also, the the maximum theoretical efficiency for fuel cells is 83% (at 298K), for a combustion engine the maximum theoretical efficiency is 58% at 500°C. But honestly, who cares about theory if you can't (yet) achieve it in practice.
High temperature fuel cells where you use the excess heat to run a heat engine can get up to 80%, but I don't think that's really applicable to cars.

...and storage as well.

I'd think the energy needed to compress hydrogen into a normal pressurized storage is a HUGE investment of energy and could probably be used to drive a car alone in same way as the compressed air cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car).


Combining combustion and compression as energy storage might infact be a viable method of increasing the efficiency of hydrogen.
When I was interested in hypersonics, the fuel of choice for all these planes was hydrogen slush.

What about storing hydrogen as ammonia? NH_3 should release an H_2 without a lot of coaxing.

That's like saying that if I want to exchange quarters for dollars to get 4 quarters I need to exchange 4 dollars.
If there is more energy in a liter of petrol, then you can get more hydrogen out of it if it has a lower energy content. It's not a one-to-one exchange rate. Some energy gets lost in transfer, but not that much.

except you lose the energy that is stored in the bonds with carbon. it is like exchanging dollars to get quarters but getting 75 cents of it in nickels and dimes you cant use.

Besides which, energy content for petrol is 34.83 MJ/L and for liquid hydrogen it's 9.36 MJ/L; that's not a factor 12 difference.
And if you look per mass, rather than volume, petrol has 47 MJ/kg and hydrogen 140.4MJ/kg.

And a petrol engine has about 30%.

Also, the the maximum theoretical efficiency for fuel cells is 83% (at 298K), for a combustion engine the maximum theoretical efficiency is 58% at 500°C. But honestly, who cares about theory if you can't (yet) achieve it in practice.
High temperature fuel cells where you use the excess heat to run a heat engine can get up to 80%, but I don't think that's really applicable to cars.
and again my main focus is on battery Vs hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
its wiki but it is accurate.

The problem with the Li-ion battery is driving distance. They make great vehicles for commuters, but aweful vehicles for travellers.

I travel 400 to 600 miles every other weekend and a battery I have to recharge every 250 miles isn't reasonable, even if it could be charged in 5 minutes.

On the other hand, Fuel Cells are showing a 300 to 400 mile driving distance, which happens to be what I am getting on a take of gas (petrol) as the moment. That is a bit more reasonable.

There are companies and groups out there that are working on decreasing the power consumption of vehicles, but such efforts benefit both the fuel cell and batteries. And since, fuel cells still appear, at least for the near future, to provide a greater driving distance, they happen to offer a better option.
so for 50 additional miles per fill up, your willing to pollute the world twice as much?

your just not a good person.

I need to write a correction to my previous post which I deleted.

According to reports from GM. The Li-Ion powered Volt (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/chevrolet-volt.html) will have a driving distance of 40 miles using a Lithium0-ion battery. That is about 5 miles short of my one way commute to and from work.

On the other hand, the Fuel Cell powered GM Equinox (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/driving-hydrogen-equinox.php), which is being tested in Canada, has a 200 mile (320 km) driving distance.

Theorectically, Fuel Cells have a driving distance of 400 to 600 miles.
Since I drive 400 to 600 miles every other weekend, which is far more reasonable?

The Volt doesn't even work as a commuter vehicle for me, unless I choose to park it on the side of the road 5 miles from work, and walk the rest of the way.

so for 50 additional miles per fill up, your willing to pollute the world twice as much?

your just not a good person.


Pollute twice as much??? Neither Fuel Cells, nor batteries have a negative bi-product so what are you talking about???

See my correction post, as it is far more accurate.

snip

Yeah, I tried to use math and chemistry on him once, but it didn't work.

Yeah, I tried to use math and chemistry on him once, but it didn't work.

Well, remember, this guy did say once that hydrogen would melt your face off.

Well, remember, this guy did say once that hydrogen would melt your face off.

Yeah, I think that was in the same thread. Good times. :p

except you lose the energy that is stored in the bonds with carbon. it is like exchanging dollars to get quarters but getting 75 cents of it in nickels and dimes you cant use.

and again my main focus is on battery Vs hydrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png
its wiki but it is accurate.
I think the electric solution has the best chance of being viable in the near term. Forty miles sucks for most drivers, so the all-electric solution still has a ways to go. In the short term, a diesel-electric hybrid is probably the best answer and it's still very likely that a capacitor-battery system is going to be the best all-electric answer.

But for the long-term future, how can we do better than fuel cells?

I think the electric solution has the best chance of being viable in the near term. Forty miles sucks for most drivers, so the all-electric solution still has a ways to go. In the short term, a diesel-electric hybrid is probably the best answer and it's still very likely that a capacitor-battery system is going to be the best all-electric answer.

But for the long-term future, how can we do better than fuel cells?

A fuel cell requires that you produce power elsewhere to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

You should do that by nuclear means (fission or fusion), because nothing else can produce power on that scale except orbital solar arrays.

Remember that a fuel cell is nothing more than a storage device for electrical power. Electricity is used to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, and they are recombined (without burning) to produce electricity.

Zero combustion. It's only a chemical reaction that produces electricity directly.

A fuel cell requires that you produce power elsewhere to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

You should do that by nuclear means (fission or fusion), because nothing else can produce power on that scale except orbital solar arrays.


Electrolysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water) is a common method used to convert water to its base elements. It doesn't require a nuclear means. It can, technically, be done by anyone in their own home (http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/ELECH20/PAGE1.HTM).


This (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html) makes a fuel cell an even better option for extending the drive time of a vehicle over a battery alone. Since the bi-product of a fuel cell is water, a battery could be used to decompose the water into its elements. Then the hydrogen and oxygen can be reinjected into the fuel cell where they would start the whole process over again. I am sure there would be some loss along the reinjection process, but it makes the fuel cell far more efficient.

Since the bi-product of a fuel cell is water

Byproduct of fuel cell is CO2.

Electrolysis uses electricity which - in USA - comes 70% from fossil fuel sources.

edit:
And the amount which comes from renewable sources is naturally missing from other consumption.

A fuel cell requires that you produce power elsewhere to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

You should do that by nuclear means (fission or fusion), because nothing else can produce power on that scale except orbital solar arrays.

Remember that a fuel cell is nothing more than a storage device for electrical power. Electricity is used to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, and they are recombined (without burning) to produce electricity.

Zero combustion. It's only a chemical reaction that produces electricity directly.
I'm still optimistic that technology will advance to the point where production, distribution, and storage of a suitable source of hydrogen aren't huge problems with fuel cells. But it isn't there right now. What is possible, right now, is an efficient diesel-electric hybrid. What will be possible soon is a storage battery/ ultracapacitor solution that is all-electric.

We need to make the transition to fuel cells in manageable steps. But I still see practical fuel cells as the long term goal. Like I posted earlier, maybe we actually fill them with ammonia and bump off the extra H_2 in a chemical reaction. What kind of problems is a NH molecule going to cause?

Byproduct of fuel cell is CO2.

Electrolysis uses electricity which - in USA - comes 70% from fossil fuel sources.

edit:
And the amount which comes from renewable sources is naturally missing from other consumption.

If you use nuclear power to produce the electrical input, the byproduct is nuclear waste. If you use an integral fast breeder reactor, the nuclear waste problem is solved, because the reactor will be burning that as well. So the output will be water.

If you use nuclear power to produce the electrical input, the byproduct is nuclear waste. If you use an integral fast breeder reactor, the nuclear waste problem is solved, because the reactor will be burning that as well. So the output will be water.

Yes? And the nuclear power that goes into electrolysis is away from rest of the consumption which is still mostly produced by fossil sources.

Byproduct of fuel cell is CO2.

Electrolysis uses electricity which - in USA - comes 70% from fossil fuel sources.

edit:
And the amount which comes from renewable sources is naturally missing from other consumption.


A fuel cell itself actually just produces water, as the process that makes it work combine hydrogen and oxygen.

Now, the bi-product of the electicity used to produce the hydrogen varies greatly depending on the source of the electicity. If it is coal, the bi-product is large quantities of CO2. Using solar involves taking large spaces of land and covering them with refective mirrors. Wind requires huge wind turbines cluttering the landscape. Water means blocking a river, or stream, and causing damage to the natural ecosystem of the waterway. Nuclear, as someone stated earlier, have a nuclear waste.

The fact is that no process is completely harmelss at this time, but you have consider which is the least harmful. Obviously, since electrolysis works with DC current it is quite possible to do it within the car itself. Which would save a lot of energy, and limit the amount of CO2 produced.

Additionally, even if you are using Coal to produce the Hydrogen, then you are still have a net decrease in CO2 because the vehicle no longer produces it.

Byproduct of fuel cell is CO2.

Electrolysis uses electricity which - in USA - comes 70% from fossil fuel sources.

edit:
And the amount which comes from renewable sources is naturally missing from other consumption.
Wide scale energy production can make use of non-fossil fuel resources that arn't feasible for personal use, especially mobile use.

Though I wonder if we put a small wind turbine on/in a car and a battery in the car, like a gas-electric hybrid, would it be able to power itself after starting?

For fuel I burn the corpses of all the whores I've killed. Carbon emissions aren't great, but I'm no Al Bore.

Byproduct of fuel cell is CO2.

Electrolysis uses electricity which - in USA - comes 70% from fossil fuel sources.

edit:
And the amount which comes from renewable sources is naturally missing from other consumption.

Better than gasoline, which the last time I checked was 100% fossil fuel.
Also, none of these things would work in the last vehicle I drove. When you get something that'll work in a 18-wheeler and can go around 1,200 miles between fillups like my old tanks did, call me.

Wide scale energy production can make use of non-fossil fuel resources that arn't feasible for personal use, especially mobile use.

Though I wonder if we put a small wind turbine on/in a car and a battery in the car, like a gas-electric hybrid, would it be able to power itself after starting?

Not without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

Better than gasoline, which the last time I checked was 100% fossil fuel.
Also, none of these things would work in the last vehicle I drove. When you get something that'll work in a 18-wheeler and can go around 1,200 miles between fillups like my old tanks did, call me.

You only got 4mpg? Jesus no wonder you're out of business.

Wind requires huge wind turbines cluttering the landscape.
I think wind power is among the best form of energy to create hydrogen. Wind power doesn't suit to fundamental energy production as it's highly variable therefore every megawatt of wind power needs a megawatt of reserve/balance power, usually produced by coal (eg. Denmark, promised land of wind power, produces more CO2 emissions than other Nordic countries).

If the power generated was used to make hydrogen instead there would be no need to construct extra reserve power.

Nuclear, as someone stated earlier, have a nuclear waste.
I once calculated that an olympic size swimming pool could store waste from a single large nuclear plant for 500 years or so (actually, the post lies somewhere here @ NS forums).

In the same post I pointed out the fact that a standard coal plant spews more radioactive waste in the air in a year than a nuclear plant produces waste altogether in a year.

The fact is that no process is completely harmelss at this time, but you have consider which is the least harmful. Obviously, since electrolysis works with DC current it is quite possible to do it within the car itself. Which would save a lot of energy, and limit the amount of CO2 produced.

Why expend even more energy for waste - no process is 100% efficient - when that DC power could be used to run the car directly in the first place?

Additionally, even if you are using Coal to produce the Hydrogen, then you are still have a net decrease in CO2 because the vehicle no longer produces it.
That CO2 is produced when producing the hydrogen.

Let's say you have power plant capacity of 5000 megawatts with 3500 megawatts from fossil sources (70%). Let's say you are currently drawing 3000 megawatts of power and try to produce it CO2 free: You end up 1500 megawatts of fossil fuel energy and 1500 megawatts of nuclear/water/solar/etc power.

Now, let's say you add a load of 1000 megawatts of "clean energy" for electrolysis. The energy consumption rises to 4000 megawatts with 1500 megawatts still produced by "CO2 free" sources but the fossil fuel production has risen to 2500 megawatts.

What's more important is to notice that 1000 megawatts is only capable of producing ~4000 moles of H2 per second (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&rls=en&q=%281000+MW%2F237.1+kJ%2Fmole%29&btnG=Search&lr=)...that's 8 kilograms per second.

Wide scale energy production can make use of non-fossil fuel resources that arn't feasible for personal use, especially mobile use.

True. However, every form of energy production that goes into electrolysis is away from normal consumption.

Why expend even more energy for waste - no process is 100% efficient - when that DC power could be used to run the car directly in the first place?


As I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, using a battery to directly run a vehicle limits the driving distance of the vehicle, when compared with a fuel cell.

The best examples I can find are the GM Volt, and GM Equinox. The Volt has a 40 mile driving distance. The Equinox has a 200 mile driving distance. The Fuel Cell powered Equinox has 5 times the driving distance of the Battery powered Volt. Clearly, a significant advantage.

Then if you use the battery to convert the bi-product of the fuel cell into its base element, and reinject those into the fuel cell, you have the potential to extend the driving distance even more.

As I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, using a battery to directly run a vehicle limits the driving distance of the vehicle, when compared with a fuel cell.

The best examples I can find are the GM Volt, and GM Equinox. The Volt has a 40 mile driving distance. The Equinox has a 200 mile driving distance. The Fuel Cell powered Equinox has 5 times the driving distance of the Battery powered Volt. Clearly, a significant advantage.

Then if you use the battery to convert the bi-product of the fuel cell into its base element, and reinject those into the fuel cell, you have the potential to extend the driving distance even more.

And the average daily trip for Americans is? 16 miles one way, 32 miles round trip. That's well within the Volt's range, with proven technology.

Not without breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

You and all your fancy "laws" and "theories." I will have you know that my car runs on pure imagination.

I voted for fuel cells.
But we have to keep in mind that hydrogen is no energy source. It is a form to store energy more efficient than common batteries.

So where do we get the energy from to produce the hydrogen?
The only energy source that actually exist here is the sun. All other energy sources like biofuel or ethanol are produced from plants, which converted solar energy in biomass. The same is true for coal and oil, which have been produced by plants several million years ago out of solar energy.
Todays solar cells are too expensive to cover millions of square miles with solar panels. So we would have to install huge mirrors in space to collect the solar energy.
The other solution is doing what the sun does to produce energy. This means nuclear fusion.
We have to spend more in research in nuclear fusion, so we can finally get commercial nuclear fusion plants to work. Meanwhile we have to rely on nuclear fission reactors.

The energy sources of the future will have to be solar energy and nuclear energy. And cars will be driven either by batteries or by fuel cells.

The fuel cell technology is pretty old but has stagnated for the last 30 years, just as all our transportation technology stagnated.
I don't know what happened. We were more advanced in the 60ies and 70ies. NASA for example is now working to reactivate the old Apollo program to be able to get back to the moon in 15 years from now. This is where we have already been at the end of the 60ies. The same is true for the energy technology. Nuclear fusion has been on hold since this time.
It's time to wake up and get the work done. We have to continue with our technology, where we once stopped 30-40 years ago.

And the average daily trip for Americans is? 16 miles one way, 32 miles round trip. That's well within the Volt's range, with proven technology.


Yes, that will work for the average American. However, for those of us that are above average, the Volt's driving distance is too low.

For example. I drive 45 miles to and from work every day 4 to 5 days a week. Then every other weekend I drive 400-600 miles visiting family. My gasoline powered automobile gets 35 miles per gallon, usually, and on a 12 gallon tank I fill up about about every other week, and twice on the weekends I travel.

The Volt is,obviously, quite unreasonable as a replacement transportation for the future. On the other hand, a fuel cell vehicle is very doable, expecially if the theorectical driving distance (400-600 miles) is ever reached. Even if the fuel cells only reach 75% of theory (300-450 miles) that is still significantly better than a battery alone.

On the other hand the theoretical driving distance for battery powered vehicles is at 200-300 miles which is far less than the fuel cell and actually equal to the current fuel cell. This in itself makes the battery powered car less effective as an option.

I change my vote, I didn't see a "neither" option.

My answer, as always: My friend Paul.


www.worldclassexotics.com


The unsung hero, and treasure of the "hey I'm tired of spending all my money on fuel" crowd.

You can have a Porsche, or any other car you wish (I like Porsches) equipped with li-ions, and a solar cell encased on the roof or elsewhere, produces NO waste or emissions, and has a potentially unlimited range. Eat your heart out.

And the average daily trip for Americans is? 16 miles one way, 32 miles round trip. That's well within the Volt's range, with proven technology.

yeah until your kid calls in sick
you have an unscheduled meeting with clients across town at work.
you get picked to go get everyone at work coffee and donuts.

working 90% of the time does not equate to fitting 90% of American's needs.
it is the 10% when you need it that makes the car useful or not.

That being said battery technology is still advancing faster.

Yes you can, and you will. If you need fuel, then you'll buy it, no matter how much it costs. Otherwise, it's like saying that you're going to stop buying food because it's too expensive.
...

but the thing is, fuel is not necessary; if prices got too high, people would start walking and riding bikes. people may be lazy, but they're too much concerned about spending money. and by that i mean they spend it all the time, almost as a hobby. people define who they are by the things they can buy. if one thing statrs taking away too much money that could be spent on more directly gratifying things, people will eventually abandone it. so really, from a lazy and financial position, switching makes total sense, as well as for the environmental standpoint.

with that said, i think fuell cells are the better choice. ethanol isn't as clean. in fact, it gunks up engines after awhile. fuel cells cost so much because it is difficult to obtain hydrogen without using fossil fuels (which defeats the purpose); therefore, cell cars aren't mainstream yet

Then if you use the battery to convert the bi-product of the fuel cell into its base element, and reinject those into the fuel cell, you have the potential to extend the driving distance even more.
Here, let me repeat:
Why expend even more energy for waste - no process is 100% efficient - when that DC power could be used to run the car directly in the first place?

Battery converting water into base elements is WASTEFUL compared to using the battery to drive the car directly: Let's say the efficiency of fuel cell is 80%, efficiency of element conversion 80% and battery running the motor also 80%. Then we'd get: 64% efficiency for conversion&fuel cell running and 80% efficiency for direct battery running.

The way I see it, the best bet would be to use fuel cell to recharge the battery which is then used to run the car: I don't see (but someone else might ;)) how you could manipulate the power you produce & take out of fuel cell rapidly enough to cope with varying accelerations but with battery and electrical motor the adjustment would be instantaneous.

What you could do is combine small scale solar power production into the car which would break up water into base elements.

Woo, post 1000.

The way I see it, the best bet would be to use fuel cell to recharge the battery which is then used to run the car: I don't see (but someone else might ;)) how you could manipulate the power you produce & take out of fuel cell rapidly enough to cope with varying accelerations but with battery and electrical motor the adjustment would be instantaneous.

When you look at it this way it really doesn't matter whether you use the battery to run the vehicle or the fuel cell. Both vehicles are fully electric therefore, whether the battery recharges the fuel cell or the fuel cell recharges the battery it doesn't matter its all a wah. It that is the case then both should have the same driving distance, assuming that the fuel cell is able to recharge the battery at a the same rate or faster than it is being drained.

Fuel cell are the way to go becasue even though they are more expenmsive up front ethanol only has a 30% efficency rate. Fuel cells have around the ranges of 50-60%. The problem then becomes recharging the cell because to produce electricty you have to burn coal which emits co2 emissions.

buy a more fuel efficient car? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kZx3zYEhHzQ)

To start off with something I saw on page one,

Milk is not alive,

pointless philosiphy is proof that some people need to have their thoughts
given to them by a benevolent Dictator.

Go think about something useful

It just so happens that my family uses a 78 Dodge Van
( yes it's a gas pig but we need it )

But we've decided to build a hydrogen fuel generator,
the designs are freely available online,
it will cost about $200 USD, ( less because I'm a machinist )
Anyway it's made of a mason jar, some stainless steel and
hooks upto the power generated while you drive.
It cracks the atomic bonds of regular tap water and feeds it into
the fuel mixture of our engine.
there are no expensive or time consuming changes.
People really should try doing some actual fact finding instead of
reading Wiki ( crap-a-pedia ) who's last entry I saw for Fuel cells
was either written by a Republican or someone
living in the 50's.

I'm going to try and clear up a few things.

1. For some a car is a luxury, for others, it is a necessity. Not every area has public transportation to the workplace, and it is rather unfeasible to travel 30 miles on a bicycle every morning.

2. The United States is not Europe, so it is rather pointless to compare the two. They have a different economy, a different infrastructure, and an entirely different landmass. Things that work in Europe wouldn't necessarily work the the US without significant restructuring, if at all.

3. Electricity makes more sense than hydrogen right now.

4. There is a god.

Ethanol so far doesn't work, cause to produce enough ethanol that would give you enough equivalent energy to oil based fuels (petrol/diesel/kerosene etc...) either takes up too much land or too much energy in the first place.

As for hydrogen based fuel cells, did you know how much energy is needed to extract hydrogen from water in the first place? A HUGE amount.

This is also why electric battery cars are not viable; the energy consumed is higher than that for a conventional vehicle, and all the energy needed is supplied by, you guessed it, OIL (or coal or nuclear).

It sucks, doesn't it?

This is also why electric battery cars are not viable; the energy consumed is higher than that for a conventional vehicle, and all the energy needed is supplied by, you guessed it, OIL (or coal or nuclear).

It sucks, doesn't it?

Not really. We can produce a hell of a lot more electricity than we can oil...in fact, quite a considerably large amount more (with current technology, of course). So, from the standpoint of being able to meet demand, electric vehicles are still a pretty viable option even if they're less efficient.

People should decide what they use regionally no Nationally,
On the West Coast of the USA there is plenty of power generation for electric
cars, Or for the generation of Hydrogen from the Hydro-electric dams,
if you built a hydrogen generator at the site where you have electricity being
produced it will be many times more efficient.
( Like Ice Land does ! )

I do not think that there is One solution to this problem,
it seems to me that a person should evaluate the best solution for where
they live now, and where they work.

Also I'm not sold on Bio-fuel, it works by way of going to the Chinese take out
and getting old oil to make fuel,
But as a National level plan I think they need to stop using Crops which should
have been fed to people rather than made into fuel.

Also I'm not sold on Bio-fuel, it works by way of going to the Chinese take out
and getting old oil to make fuel,
But as a National level plan I think they need to stop using Crops which should
have been fed to people rather than made into fuel.

I have told several of my friends that I think we are stupid for using Corn and Lima Beans, both of which are huge US exports, to make fuel.

Corn is used in some way for a majority of the food we eat, whether it is in the grain given to the cattle, or chicken or an ingredient in the pasta, or other produces to the cooking oil that foods are cooked in.

This is a reason why our economy is in the shape it is today.

Electricity makes more sense than hydrogen right now.

Since an electric car runs off either battery or fuel cell, I assume you mean a battery makes more sense than hydrogen, right now.

Why do you think this?

Aside from having limited availability on refueling, Fuel cells have much greater driving distance. The GM Volt only gets 40 miles between recharging, while the GM Equinox, (fuel cell model) gets 200 miles between each refueling.