RX-8 Hydrogen RE Debuts in Norway
07-28-2006, 01:31 PM
#26
Professional Escapist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zoom44
ah, see, i prefer the journey
Just like Wankle himself when he created the rotary, I'm hopeing for a person or a team to look at the technology, step back to see the whole picture and say, "I know how to do this better."
I know it's a romantic view about it, espeacially when all the hurdles in the world are in the way, like politics, corporations, public perseption, costs, infrucstructure, and on and on. But an idea is a pretty strong thing. The rotary engine is a good illustration of that. So is that fast electic car. It's all just puzzles and fitting... and lots and lots of waiting.
But the journey will be interesting to watch.
07-28-2006, 01:42 PM
#27
Registered
I love the idea of setting up solar farms in the desert areas and wind farms in the midwest and other windy places. This may sound all nice but some big wind farms in California have been shut down by environmentalist whackjobs who have stated that birds can fly into the blades and die. How many are going to do that? Seriously? This is where the power needs to come from if people are opposed to damming up more rivers to save spawning fish and are against burning fossil fuels and don't want to use nuclear power.
A spent plutonium or uranium rod is actually quite easy to get rid of safely as is all nuclear waste. Most people don't understand this though. We have many underground salt domes that have been hollowed out as some contained oil and others just had salt tat was dissolved away leaving a deep hollow location. We could put anything bad we want in there. It is deep. It won't contaminate any soil or water supplies and will have zero impact on the environment. It makes sense but people can't accept it.
Hydrogen has potential only because we have an essentially endless supply of it. That's a good thing. Maybe that's why people think that half the horsepower and 2 mpg of compressed hydrogen is worth it. We will save NO money with it and will end up spending more. Why? If the government can see a way to make it expensive, they will.
Ethanol is not a long term solution either as we can't grow enough produce to meet all of our demand. Even though it can be made out of corn, rice, sugarcane, pumpkins, fruits, vegetables, any grasses, etc, we still won't have enough. It may have it's place though as a contributor but not as a standalone solution.
Diesel technology is nice because we can have more efficent engines now that have more power and better economy. We can grow many crops that have a higher yield of oils in them that can give us more fuel per amount of area used. Even animal fats can be used.
The first thing we should be doing is what we know. Unfortunately that is burning oil. But we need to become more efficient at it. Hybrid technology is the ultimate future but not the way we have been doing it. The Toyota Pious and the Honda Hindsight are prime examples of worthless vehicles that perform terribly and use more resources over the entire life and death cycle than most cars do. Current hybrid technology is parallel hybrid. We need to be going to series hybrid with the gasoline engines being nothing more than generators. No more large battery banks. Electirc motors only to power the wheels. No transmissions, no brakes, etc. Cars get lighter which is more efficient and the energy saved from not having to build many other currently neccessary parts of a car also contribute to a total environmental savings. Look at the big picture. After we get this in place, then we need to start focusing on alternative fuels to power the generators. We need to do a natural progression instead of trying to do it all at once. No one will ever accept it and it will take twice as long. Doing it may way could be phased in over the next decade whereas doing it the way we are now will take more than 50. Trust me, when we all grow old, we will still be facing the same issues we are now.
Opel has a new 1.9L twin turbo diesel engine that does 212hp with over 280 ft lbs of torque. It gets 38 mpg. That's a way to make mre efficient power right now. They have a small prototype diesel hybrid that uses the same technology in a smaller 1.7L engine. It does about 130 hp with over 210 ft lbs of torque. Then it's also got 2 electric motors of around 30 hp each. The car does 0-62 in 7.5 seconds which is respectable and gets 60 mpg. What is so objectionable about that? Even their SUV does 0-60 in less than 8 seconds and can get 38 mpg. Imagine how much less fuel we'd use right now if all we did was cut in half the average persons fuel consumption. That's something we can benefit from now and now is when we need it. Alternative fuels such as hydrogen need to be studied for long term goals, not immediate ones. They can't help now. All of this and you think hydrogen is a better option? Don't make me laugh. Give it a quarter of a century or more of research and then we'll see how viable it becomes. It's a joke right now.
A spent plutonium or uranium rod is actually quite easy to get rid of safely as is all nuclear waste. Most people don't understand this though. We have many underground salt domes that have been hollowed out as some contained oil and others just had salt tat was dissolved away leaving a deep hollow location. We could put anything bad we want in there. It is deep. It won't contaminate any soil or water supplies and will have zero impact on the environment. It makes sense but people can't accept it.
Hydrogen has potential only because we have an essentially endless supply of it. That's a good thing. Maybe that's why people think that half the horsepower and 2 mpg of compressed hydrogen is worth it. We will save NO money with it and will end up spending more. Why? If the government can see a way to make it expensive, they will.
Ethanol is not a long term solution either as we can't grow enough produce to meet all of our demand. Even though it can be made out of corn, rice, sugarcane, pumpkins, fruits, vegetables, any grasses, etc, we still won't have enough. It may have it's place though as a contributor but not as a standalone solution.
Diesel technology is nice because we can have more efficent engines now that have more power and better economy. We can grow many crops that have a higher yield of oils in them that can give us more fuel per amount of area used. Even animal fats can be used.
The first thing we should be doing is what we know. Unfortunately that is burning oil. But we need to become more efficient at it. Hybrid technology is the ultimate future but not the way we have been doing it. The Toyota Pious and the Honda Hindsight are prime examples of worthless vehicles that perform terribly and use more resources over the entire life and death cycle than most cars do. Current hybrid technology is parallel hybrid. We need to be going to series hybrid with the gasoline engines being nothing more than generators. No more large battery banks. Electirc motors only to power the wheels. No transmissions, no brakes, etc. Cars get lighter which is more efficient and the energy saved from not having to build many other currently neccessary parts of a car also contribute to a total environmental savings. Look at the big picture. After we get this in place, then we need to start focusing on alternative fuels to power the generators. We need to do a natural progression instead of trying to do it all at once. No one will ever accept it and it will take twice as long. Doing it may way could be phased in over the next decade whereas doing it the way we are now will take more than 50. Trust me, when we all grow old, we will still be facing the same issues we are now.
Opel has a new 1.9L twin turbo diesel engine that does 212hp with over 280 ft lbs of torque. It gets 38 mpg. That's a way to make mre efficient power right now. They have a small prototype diesel hybrid that uses the same technology in a smaller 1.7L engine. It does about 130 hp with over 210 ft lbs of torque. Then it's also got 2 electric motors of around 30 hp each. The car does 0-62 in 7.5 seconds which is respectable and gets 60 mpg. What is so objectionable about that? Even their SUV does 0-60 in less than 8 seconds and can get 38 mpg. Imagine how much less fuel we'd use right now if all we did was cut in half the average persons fuel consumption. That's something we can benefit from now and now is when we need it. Alternative fuels such as hydrogen need to be studied for long term goals, not immediate ones. They can't help now. All of this and you think hydrogen is a better option? Don't make me laugh. Give it a quarter of a century or more of research and then we'll see how viable it becomes. It's a joke right now.
Last edited by rotarygod; 07-28-2006 at 02:13 PM.
07-28-2006, 02:10 PM
#28
Registered
Don't think I am against hydrogen as a research fuel for development. I'm not. If it could be made to work, it would be a good thing. I am absolutely against trying to implement it now. Right now it has a fraction of the fuel economy of even the worst gasoline engines, needs an engine that weighs twice as much as even the least efficient gasoline engines, and makes half the power of the worst gasoline engines. All in the sake of clean air.
07-28-2006, 04:36 PM
#29
Professional Escapist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotarygod, it may sound sarcastic, but it is actually a complement- your knowledge of all things engineering is astounding! Ever considered working in an R&D section for a car company?
Last edited by mtrevino; 07-28-2006 at 04:41 PM.
07-28-2006, 05:47 PM
#30
"Call me Darkman"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto/Florida
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
All in the sake of clean air.
Isn't that the point? I guess having clean air to breath should take a back seat to performance.
07-28-2006, 06:27 PM
#31
Registered
As I said, I am by no means an environmentalist and think most of them are completely wrong in the head for their lack of logic. They want solutions but don't want to help fine them. Then when you do find one, they don't like it. How much cleaner are our engines now than even 10 years ago. The past decade has seen more advancement in the internal combustion engine than all of history before it. So what you are saying is that we should be happy with absolutely horrid mileage that would be worse than any engine ever created and put into public use and have an overly large and heavy engine that make no power to speak of just compared to our current ones so we can have cleaner air? If we increase our mileage now and use diesel technology now and even get a gain in performance, how is my way not helping clean the air? It is and by a longshot. And my way helps reduce many other aspects of car performance and ease of construction which also saves energy. My way is realistic and very doable at this point in time. Hydrogen is not. As I've said, people should keep pursuing it so that one day it is a good fuel to use. Today is not that day though.
07-28-2006, 07:29 PM
#32
"Call me Darkman"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto/Florida
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we have to start somewhere rg.....I'm sure once we actually implement something useful, it will evolve just like the piston engine did. I don't care if we take a step back in performance as long as we are going to benefit in the future. But alas, there are political hurdles that go along with this type of change. These are hurdles that are beyond me and most of the human race.
07-28-2006, 08:11 PM
#33
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Exxon posting 10billion net profits I'm sure the public will start to want the auto companies to start seriously looking into Alt fuels. For me I just see the whole development of these engines being hindered by back door politics. Hell Ford is just now releasing their Flex Fuel cars after having them in Brazil for years. I know most of these fuels wont completly replace gas in the next 5 years like some people would like to believe but atleast the automakers are now listening to their consumers and not the gasoline companies and lawmakers.
Oh also if these automakers want us to seriously look at their "Hybrid" cars.. make them look nice.. not like a friggin' ugly golf cart.
Oh also if these automakers want us to seriously look at their "Hybrid" cars.. make them look nice.. not like a friggin' ugly golf cart.
07-28-2006, 08:17 PM
#34
Registered
Why take a step backwards in performance for cleaner air when it is far easier, cheaper and pratical to gain performance at the same time as getting cleaner air? That's my big question. Let the hurdles of hydrogen be worked out on concept cars and in lab tests, not the streets in the hands of the general public. If we shift towards public usage of hydrogen now, we may be helping the environment in a small way but we are putting ourselves back 50 years in performance. Leave the tests in the lab, have them progress at the same pace, and let the public keep their performance and help the environment. Diesel engines combined with series hybrid electric motors are the immediate answer. I guarantee in the short term it will actually be better for the environment than switching to hydrogen now. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to buy a 109hp RX-8 or a Ford 6.8 liter supercharged V10 that can only do a little over 200 hp? NOBODY!!!! Who will buy a diesel engine or even a hybrid if it performs as good as or better than current gasoline engines as long as diesel fuel is available? Lot's of people!!! Even VW can't keep their few diesel cars on the lots right now. Little selection in the diesel arena and what we do have is selling like hotcakes. How much use is a technology that few are going to buy? Why not use a technology that many will buy right now? That's contributing to the solution. Hydrogen is in capable of this in every aspect right now. In 20 or 30 years, when they've finally worked it all out, then implement it. That's when people will be ready for it. Our fossil fuels will easily last until then.
I think I am starting somewhere. You have to start with reality and what you are capable of before you can transition into fantasy land. 50 years ago we'd have never guessed that we'd have the cars we do now. It didn't happen overnight. We couldn't have even done back then what we can do now so it would have been pointless in even trying to do it on a grand scale. Do what you can and improve where you can when you can. That's all that will work. Where you see potential but can not yet achieve is something that you don't implement until you can do it. I hope this makes sense.
I'll say it again, diesel engines (even rotaries) is what we should be focusing on right now. We already have the ability to do it well. We don't have the ability to do hydrogen well and a handful of people willing to take a monumental step back into the dark ages of performance aren't going to make it a reality any faster. I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a realist. Use what we can now and develop alternatives for the future.
The one constant hurting all development is politics. Anything good won't stay good once the government realizes it. It doesn't matter which party it is, or even what type of government it is. They all mess things up but that's another topic for another forum.
I think I am starting somewhere. You have to start with reality and what you are capable of before you can transition into fantasy land. 50 years ago we'd have never guessed that we'd have the cars we do now. It didn't happen overnight. We couldn't have even done back then what we can do now so it would have been pointless in even trying to do it on a grand scale. Do what you can and improve where you can when you can. That's all that will work. Where you see potential but can not yet achieve is something that you don't implement until you can do it. I hope this makes sense.
I'll say it again, diesel engines (even rotaries) is what we should be focusing on right now. We already have the ability to do it well. We don't have the ability to do hydrogen well and a handful of people willing to take a monumental step back into the dark ages of performance aren't going to make it a reality any faster. I'm not an environmentalist, I'm a realist. Use what we can now and develop alternatives for the future.
The one constant hurting all development is politics. Anything good won't stay good once the government realizes it. It doesn't matter which party it is, or even what type of government it is. They all mess things up but that's another topic for another forum.
07-28-2006, 08:24 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without getting political, I would point out that when jetskis, dirtbikes, atvs, and snowmobiles were forced to go 4-stroke (a small 1 liter 2 stroke is orders of magnitude worse in terms of greenhouse gas than any car) at first they sucked and were heavy. Now they produce more power for any given displacement & weight than than their 2-stroke counterparts. But that technology only came when innovation was forced through a phase-in of emmisions compliance. That's one way these things occur. The other is just make it a small-volume (read, low capital) luxury item and you can create a market from scratch as long as you have a halfway viable product.
<dispensing knowledge in $0.02 increments...>
<dispensing knowledge in $0.02 increments...>
07-28-2006, 08:31 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DarkBrew
I could have gone on about alternatives to carbon based power such as hydroelectric (which requires dams across major rivers or redirection of entire watersheads), nuclear (Expensive technology, Radioactive by-products that are dangerous and still don't have a safe disposal methodology
Problem solved.
Dreaming...
07-28-2006, 08:45 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
That's my big question. Let the hurdles of hydrogen be worked out on concept cars and in lab tests, not the streets in the hands of the general public.
If we shift towards public usage of hydrogen now, we may be helping the environment in a small way but we are putting ourselves back 50 years in performance.
Leave the tests in the lab, have them progress at the same pace, and let the public keep their performance and help the environment. Diesel engines combined with series hybrid electric motors are the immediate answer.
I guarantee in the short term it will actually be better for the environment than switching to hydrogen now. Why? Because who in their right mind is going to buy a 109hp RX-8 or a Ford 6.8 liter supercharged V10 that can only do a little over 200 hp? NOBODY!!!!
Who will buy a diesel engine or even a hybrid if it performs as good as or better than current gasoline engines as long as diesel fuel is available? Lot's of people!!!
Also true, 75% of the cars sold in my country are diesels. But that doesn't mean I see diesels as cars than make feel the things you can feel with a 9500 gas engine. Trillions of flys like **** and that doesn't mean **** is good for me.
[quote]
I'll say it again, diesel engines (even rotaries) is what we should be focusing on right now.
We already have the ability to do it well. We don't have the ability to do hydrogen well
Sorry for my engRish.
07-28-2006, 08:47 PM
#38
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry have to do this... must inject some levity (did I spell that right? lol) into this thread.... I say screw Gasoline, Hydorgen, Diesel, BioDiesel, Electric.. here is your new Power sourse which will Pwn you all!!!
Exxon is quaking in their boots!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exxon is quaking in their boots!!!!!!!!!!!!
07-28-2006, 08:58 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and again...
My first post still stands, but I'd like to add more now that I fully read the thread. First, what units are you really measuring H2 consumption in? First off, somehow people arrived at 2 mpg by going 100 miles on a 110L tank. That would be a 3.8 mpg consumption. 2nd, this is a compressed gas, so a volume is a useless measuring tool unlesss you specify a pressure (say, 1 atm?) Of course the pressure in the tank will change but that could be calibrated. Perhaps measure consumption in something solid like moles? or megamoles? "I get 20 miles/megamole!!"
2nd, as a geologist I can say that Rotarygod is absolutely right about the salt domes. Nuclear disposal's biggest enemy is groundwater, and crystalline salt is proof that it hasn't been there in a long time. Even the other solutions (Europe drops it 3,000ft down in granite intrusions, Yucca Mt., etc...) are all quite good. It is absolutely, postively 100% politics that creates the disposal "problem" and the lack of nuclear use in the USA to begin with.
Don't even get me started on what they're doing to diesel next year w/ Tier 2 emissions.... grrr...
And if anyone wants to see a windfarm that kicks *** (and even manages to keep Birdageddon 3, The Blade From the Blindspot! down to Sierraclub-pleasing levels) google Walla Walla + wind power.
I could go on and on and on on this thread but I'll stop cuz it's Fri. night & I gotta go
My first post still stands, but I'd like to add more now that I fully read the thread. First, what units are you really measuring H2 consumption in? First off, somehow people arrived at 2 mpg by going 100 miles on a 110L tank. That would be a 3.8 mpg consumption. 2nd, this is a compressed gas, so a volume is a useless measuring tool unlesss you specify a pressure (say, 1 atm?) Of course the pressure in the tank will change but that could be calibrated. Perhaps measure consumption in something solid like moles? or megamoles? "I get 20 miles/megamole!!"
2nd, as a geologist I can say that Rotarygod is absolutely right about the salt domes. Nuclear disposal's biggest enemy is groundwater, and crystalline salt is proof that it hasn't been there in a long time. Even the other solutions (Europe drops it 3,000ft down in granite intrusions, Yucca Mt., etc...) are all quite good. It is absolutely, postively 100% politics that creates the disposal "problem" and the lack of nuclear use in the USA to begin with.
Don't even get me started on what they're doing to diesel next year w/ Tier 2 emissions.... grrr...
And if anyone wants to see a windfarm that kicks *** (and even manages to keep Birdageddon 3, The Blade From the Blindspot! down to Sierraclub-pleasing levels) google Walla Walla + wind power.
I could go on and on and on on this thread but I'll stop cuz it's Fri. night & I gotta go
07-28-2006, 09:06 PM
#40
Registered
I never said we shouldn't try to implement other technologies. We should. The key is to bring them to market when they are ready for it and not lightyears before. We should be implementing the things that work now. Everyone wants an immediate solution (within the next 5-10 years) but strangely enough think that a long term solution is the key to making it a reality. It's not. Use the short term solution now and transition to the currently longterm solution. That will work.
Let's think about the series hybrid design for a minute. I don't care what the generator runs on. This is a way to make cars simpler, lighter, and more fuel efficient right now. No transmission, no brakes, and a platform that is more open to design variety. How about the people that only want an electric car that plugs in? No problem. Remove the generator and install battery banks. No other design change. What about when hydrogen finally becomes a viable fuel? No problem. Power the generator off of it. No other design changes. The difference being that suddenly we are powering a more efficent car off of hydrogen. See the transition? Why run hydrogen as the main fuel in an inherently inefficient engine now? Do it this way and suddenly hydrogen looks far and away better than it does now. We are already transitioning towards hybrids. Good. We've got the ability. Just rearrange the parts a little bit and get rid of others. This isn't rocket science. We get a gain now and in many cars a performance increase. Of course there will always be a market for high revving sports cars. Keep them. So few of them make up the total number of cars sold that they will not have a significant impact on gas prices, pollution, or oil consumption. Well maybe the damn oil metering system in the rotary will!
Electric motors can be our propusion, can serve as power generation, can be our brakes, and through the use of computers can be our ABS and our traction control. Simplicity. Reducing the needs for unneccesary materials and resources to make the additional parts that we use now. This is a bigger gain.
If we do this now, we all win. When hydrogen or plug in electric technology becomes a practical reality, we already have the perfect platform for it. Diesel is the immediate answer. It isn't the longterm cure but it is a short term one that will provide a benefit. Not everything has to go over to it. Everything has it's place at some point. Knowing when and where is the key. Most passenger cars do not need to have 9000 rpm redlines. We should make changes towards the largest segments that will make the most impact. Sports cars isn't it. Keep them like they are. Eventually they too will evolve and a new generation will find our current designs boring. We can replace gasoline or diesel running generators with hydrogen one day. Everyone knows what a diesel is. Not everyone knows how hydrogen works. Therefore more people will accept diesel and the transition in this manner is the only one that truly makes sense. A half a dozen people willing to embrace a dramatic change does not make it cost effective to implement. Remember, the world is run by money not opinion or necessarily what makes sense.
Hamster power would be good. The environmentalists would hate it citing cruelty to animals. Maybe we should power our cars with environmentalists!
Let's think about the series hybrid design for a minute. I don't care what the generator runs on. This is a way to make cars simpler, lighter, and more fuel efficient right now. No transmission, no brakes, and a platform that is more open to design variety. How about the people that only want an electric car that plugs in? No problem. Remove the generator and install battery banks. No other design change. What about when hydrogen finally becomes a viable fuel? No problem. Power the generator off of it. No other design changes. The difference being that suddenly we are powering a more efficent car off of hydrogen. See the transition? Why run hydrogen as the main fuel in an inherently inefficient engine now? Do it this way and suddenly hydrogen looks far and away better than it does now. We are already transitioning towards hybrids. Good. We've got the ability. Just rearrange the parts a little bit and get rid of others. This isn't rocket science. We get a gain now and in many cars a performance increase. Of course there will always be a market for high revving sports cars. Keep them. So few of them make up the total number of cars sold that they will not have a significant impact on gas prices, pollution, or oil consumption. Well maybe the damn oil metering system in the rotary will!
Electric motors can be our propusion, can serve as power generation, can be our brakes, and through the use of computers can be our ABS and our traction control. Simplicity. Reducing the needs for unneccesary materials and resources to make the additional parts that we use now. This is a bigger gain.If we do this now, we all win. When hydrogen or plug in electric technology becomes a practical reality, we already have the perfect platform for it. Diesel is the immediate answer. It isn't the longterm cure but it is a short term one that will provide a benefit. Not everything has to go over to it. Everything has it's place at some point. Knowing when and where is the key. Most passenger cars do not need to have 9000 rpm redlines. We should make changes towards the largest segments that will make the most impact. Sports cars isn't it. Keep them like they are. Eventually they too will evolve and a new generation will find our current designs boring. We can replace gasoline or diesel running generators with hydrogen one day. Everyone knows what a diesel is. Not everyone knows how hydrogen works. Therefore more people will accept diesel and the transition in this manner is the only one that truly makes sense. A half a dozen people willing to embrace a dramatic change does not make it cost effective to implement. Remember, the world is run by money not opinion or necessarily what makes sense.
Hamster power would be good. The environmentalists would hate it citing cruelty to animals. Maybe we should power our cars with environmentalists!
07-28-2006, 09:13 PM
#41
Registered
Originally Posted by flomulgator
and again...
My first post still stands, but I'd like to add more now that I fully read the thread. First, what units are you really measuring H2 consumption in? First off, somehow people arrived at 2 mpg by going 100 miles on a 110L tank. That would be a 3.8 mpg consumption. 2nd, this is a compressed gas, so a volume is a useless measuring tool unlesss you specify a pressure (say, 1 atm?) Of course the pressure in the tank will change but that could be calibrated. Perhaps measure consumption in something solid like moles? or megamoles? "I get 20 miles/megamole!!"
2nd, as a geologist I can say that Rotarygod is absolutely right about the salt domes. Nuclear disposal's biggest enemy is groundwater, and crystalline salt is proof that it hasn't been there in a long time. Even the other solutions (Europe drops it 3,000ft down in granite intrusions, Yucca Mt., etc...) are all quite good. It is absolutely, postively 100% politics that creates the disposal "problem" and the lack of nuclear use in the USA to begin with.
Don't even get me started on what they're doing to diesel next year w/ Tier 2 emissions.... grrr...
And if anyone wants to see a windfarm that kicks *** (and even manages to keep Birdageddon 3, The Blade From the Blindspot! down to Sierraclub-pleasing levels) google Walla Walla + wind power.
I could go on and on and on on this thread but I'll stop cuz it's Fri. night & I gotta go
My first post still stands, but I'd like to add more now that I fully read the thread. First, what units are you really measuring H2 consumption in? First off, somehow people arrived at 2 mpg by going 100 miles on a 110L tank. That would be a 3.8 mpg consumption. 2nd, this is a compressed gas, so a volume is a useless measuring tool unlesss you specify a pressure (say, 1 atm?) Of course the pressure in the tank will change but that could be calibrated. Perhaps measure consumption in something solid like moles? or megamoles? "I get 20 miles/megamole!!"
2nd, as a geologist I can say that Rotarygod is absolutely right about the salt domes. Nuclear disposal's biggest enemy is groundwater, and crystalline salt is proof that it hasn't been there in a long time. Even the other solutions (Europe drops it 3,000ft down in granite intrusions, Yucca Mt., etc...) are all quite good. It is absolutely, postively 100% politics that creates the disposal "problem" and the lack of nuclear use in the USA to begin with.
Don't even get me started on what they're doing to diesel next year w/ Tier 2 emissions.... grrr...
And if anyone wants to see a windfarm that kicks *** (and even manages to keep Birdageddon 3, The Blade From the Blindspot! down to Sierraclub-pleasing levels) google Walla Walla + wind power.
I could go on and on and on on this thread but I'll stop cuz it's Fri. night & I gotta go
I took 2 years of Geology in College! I loved the subject.
I didn't know we had windfarms that were relatively bird safe. Why the hell would we close some down in California rather than just convert them to be all this way? That makes no sense to me. Actually I may have actually answered that one by naming the state it was in. Nevermind.
Last edited by rotarygod; 07-28-2006 at 09:16 PM.
07-28-2006, 09:15 PM
#42
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Hamster power would be good. The environmentalists would hate it citing cruelty to animals. Maybe we should power our cars with environmentalists!
07-28-2006, 09:18 PM
#43
Registered
No big deal. A little humor mixed in a conversation is a good thing. None of us are agressive anyways. Maybe a little passionate on our opinions but we all get along. A good laugh is a welcome thing. Go soylent green! I think it could work!
07-28-2006, 11:58 PM
#44
Administrator
Thread Starter
why is it one or the other fred? lots of companies are working to produce higher fuel efficient gasoline and diesel engines right now. no one here is saying this is the only thing that should be done (well except you) "we" to be doing both- the short term and the long term. but in order to keep people working on the long term you need to give them short term achievements. like this car being in use. who would buy a 109 hp RX-8? me
(not at this price probably)
and as for that ford engine- its being sold for use in hydrogen fueled Buses. they have already sold some for fleet bus use. its working on both short term and long term solutions that is necessary not one or the other.
just like to get off oil there is not one solution. the south and south west should be doing more solar areas along the mountains and coasts should be looking at more wind and possibly wave. rivers need to be looked at to see where we can get the water with the least harm to the salmon population- cause they're damn tasty and we need there to be more of them. and we need to build some new next generation nukes.
now somewone get to building that space elevator so we can sling those rods at the sun. i want it done before i die!
) "we" to be doing both- the short term and the long term. but in order to keep people working on the long term you need to give them short term achievements. like this car being in use. who would buy a 109 hp RX-8? me (not at this price probably)and as for that ford engine- its being sold for use in hydrogen fueled Buses. they have already sold some for fleet bus use. its working on both short term and long term solutions that is necessary not one or the other.
just like to get off oil there is not one solution. the south and south west should be doing more solar areas along the mountains and coasts should be looking at more wind and possibly wave. rivers need to be looked at to see where we can get the water with the least harm to the salmon population- cause they're damn tasty and we need there to be more of them. and we need to build some new next generation nukes.
now somewone get to building that space elevator so we can sling those rods at the sun. i want it done before i die!
07-29-2006, 02:28 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel has another problem, and it's that you only get a XX% of diesel for every gallon of petroleum and that %% is usually lower than the % of gas obtained. Europe uses more diesel than the US and the US uses more gas than Europe, so usually there is a "change" in products between petrol companies, if suddenly the US and other countries start using diesel the price is going to skyrocket.
BTW I also have a Mazda 3 diesel (Peugeot engine) for conmuting.
BTW I also have a Mazda 3 diesel (Peugeot engine) for conmuting.
07-29-2006, 02:51 AM
#46
I don't buy Kool-Aid
Originally Posted by rotarygod
As I said, I am by no means an environmentalist and think most of them are completely wrong in the head for their lack of logic. They want solutions but don't want to help fine them. Then when you do find one, they don't like it. How much cleaner are our engines now than even 10 years ago. The past decade has seen more advancement in the internal combustion engine than all of history before it. So what you are saying is that we should be happy with absolutely horrid mileage that would be worse than any engine ever created and put into public use and have an overly large and heavy engine that make no power to speak of just compared to our current ones so we can have cleaner air? If we increase our mileage now and use diesel technology now and even get a gain in performance, how is my way not helping clean the air? It is and by a longshot. And my way helps reduce many other aspects of car performance and ease of construction which also saves energy. My way is realistic and very doable at this point in time. Hydrogen is not. As I've said, people should keep pursuing it so that one day it is a good fuel to use. Today is not that day though.
07-29-2006, 05:29 PM
#47
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by juanjux
Diesel has another problem, and it's that you only get a XX% of diesel for every gallon of petroleum and that %% is usually lower than the % of gas obtained. Europe uses more diesel than the US and the US uses more gas than Europe, so usually there is a "change" in products between petrol companies, if suddenly the US and other countries start using diesel the price is going to skyrocket.
BTW I also have a Mazda 3 diesel (Peugeot engine) for conmuting.
BTW I also have a Mazda 3 diesel (Peugeot engine) for conmuting.
That and my Soylent Gasoline idea should be given some serious thought hehe... or Hamster Power!
07-29-2006, 08:01 PM
#49
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zoom44
do a search for klegspeed mod - the ha,mster has already been done
lol
