15 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt terms of power and range, electric powered cars are competitive. The only real issues are the infrastructure that you need to recharge the batteries, the innovations needed in the car industry and the fact that you cannot instantly charge batteries. All of these problems can be overcome, except for the latter one, but one can question whether or not people should really want to drive more than 10 hours straight.
But hydrogen cars are more powerful and can go further (I think?) My understanding is that electric cars can't perform anything like petrol , but hydrogen cars at least have a chance. People want something as close to what we now have as possible.
A hyrdrogen fueled car uses about 5 times more energy than an electric car.
16 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is not true in the slightest. There are plenty of alternative green energy sources. The main reasons why they haven't been exploited (this includes nuclear power) is that oil is still cheaper and politics doesn't care about something as long term as global warming.
We ain't gonna give up our way of life , our DVDs or our cars for that matter. The world population is just going to grow and grow. We need loads of power. The only current technology capable of producing that power with limited CO2 is nuclear energy.
I could make a similar argument for hydrogen cars but that technology needs bringing on a bit. However, isn't it time we faced the facts.
Hydrogen cars do not produce any less carbon unless the electricity source is also carbon free. The whole hydrogen car and hydrogen economy nonsense was cooked up by the US to try and delay the electric car which threatens the car and oil industries.
1)We ain't gonna change our ways
2)CO2 is sterring us towards disaster
3)We need Co2 free solutions for creating electricity and powering cars
The world is not short of solutions - proposing solutions will get you nowhere. What the world is short of is political will due to the political systems in most countries being to focused on short term gain. Something like global warming simply is not addressed by current political systems - the most guilty of course is the US whose political system has gone to the extent of trying to actively campaign against doing anything about global warming. This includes everything from trying to discredit global warming science, trying to keep oil cheap, trying to stop electric cars, encouraging large gas guzzling vehicles, and refusing to sign up for international treaties on the matter etc etc.
16 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by bill718Obama and company would agree with you. They detest nuclear energy much in the same fashion they detest carbon producing fossil fuels. However, it appears they favor carbon producing fossil fuels over noncarbon producing nuclear power. This can be seen as they talk about "clean coal" for example. So they take the dirtest carbon emitter known to man and try to "clean it up"?
It's possible you are correct. I believe renewable resources should be used to there full potential before we go too far in that direction😏
The left will show us the way. Their answer is cap and trade. Just tax all the energy so that people will use less and come up with alternatives. It worked so great in Europe that I guess they want to do it in the States now as well. Makes sense to me. 🙄
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell, there is a reason European cars are more fuel efficient than American ones.
Obama and company would agree with you. They detest nuclear energy much in the same fashion they detest carbon producing fossil fuels. However, it appears they favor carbon producing fossil fuels over noncarbon producing nuclear power. This can be seen as they talk about "clean coal" for example. So they take the dirtest carbon emitter known to man and tr ...[text shortened]... in Europe that I guess they want to do it in the States now as well. Makes sense to me. 🙄
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHydrogen cars do not produce any less carbon unless the electricity source is also carbon free.
That is not true in the slightest. There are plenty of alternative green energy sources. The main reasons why they haven't been exploited (this includes nuclear power) is that oil is still cheaper and politics doesn't care about something as long term as global warming.
[b]I could make a similar argument for hydrogen cars but that technology needs brin ...[text shortened]... guzzling vehicles, and refusing to sign up for international treaties on the matter etc etc.
------------whitey----------------------------------
But combined with nuclear power the electricity would be clean and hydrogen cars are more powerful than electric and therefore more realistic an alternative.
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe world is not short of solutions - proposing solutions will get you nowhere. What the world is short of is political will due to the political systems in most countries being to focused on short term gain.
That is not true in the slightest. There are plenty of alternative green energy sources. The main reasons why they haven't been exploited (this includes nuclear power) is that oil is still cheaper and politics doesn't care about something as long term as global warming.
[b]I could make a similar argument for hydrogen cars but that technology needs brin ...[text shortened]... guzzling vehicles, and refusing to sign up for international treaties on the matter etc etc.
-----------whtiey-------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. But if the political will only occurs because of some disasters (eg like London going underwater) then it will be too late probably. Given that human beings are usually selfish and short term animals that would mean we are basically ****ed. Do you hold out much hope?
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterThese days, electric cars are just as powerful.
Hydrogen cars do not produce any less carbon unless the electricity source is also carbon free.
------------whitey----------------------------------
But combined with nuclear power the electricity would be clean and hydrogen cars are more powerful than electric and therefore more realistic an alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_roadster
17 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is simply not true.
But combined with nuclear power the electricity would be clean and hydrogen cars are more powerful than electric and therefore more realistic an alternative.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Show me a hydrogen car that can do 0-60mph in 3.9 seconds.
There is nothing unrealistic about electric cars. Electric cars have been around for over 150 years. They are here now and they work. Hydrogen cars are the unrealistic option - which is exactly why the US keeps talking about them because it helps put off the inevitable electric cars. When China corners the market the US will be left wondering what happened.
Sure electric cars currently cost more than gas driven cars at present, but that will change quite soon. The main thing that is needed is a push by governments in the various car making nations of the world - so far only China is doing so.
Gas car makers will resist the change as hard as they can because electric cars need dramatically less spare parts over their life span on everything except batteries (which will change) - meaning less money for all the parts makers - which includes automakers.
I am still waiting for you to try and defend your other false claim - that Nuclear power is the only alternative to fossil fuels.
Again, China is beating the US on green power - probably for similar reasons (less political influence by oil and car companies).
17 Nov 09
I am not against nuclear, we have a nuclear power station here in Cape Town and it seems to work quite nicely (most of the time).
It just isn't the only option and there are various not so good things about nuclear that shouldn't be over looked - the risk factor, the waste and the initial investment cost.
17 Nov 09
Has anyone been following the story about China's virtual monopoly of the "tech" metals market?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html
Sort of an artificial situation as there are other places on earth to mine these metals. Evidently, their monopoly is more about refining capacity but it's still a big issue. Anyway, seems pretty important given that these metals are required to make the batteries, solar cells etc required by the green economy.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadShow me a hydrogen car that can do 0-60mph in 3.9 seconds.
That is simply not true.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Show me a hydrogen car that can do 0-60mph in 3.9 seconds.
There is nothing unrealistic about electric cars. Electric cars have been around for over 150 years. They are here now and they work. Hydrogen cars are the unrealistic option - which is exactly why the US keeps talking about them because it ...[text shortened]... green power - probably for similar reasons (less political influence by oil and car companies).
-----whitey--------------------------------------------
Who needs to really do that anyway? Boy racers? 3.9 seconds is pretty darn fast. Most people just want a car with enough range to not have to re-fuel every 30 miles. My understanding is that electric cars can't compete in this area because battery technology lags behind.
I'm not against electirc cars - it's just we need a viable option right now not in 20 years time. Having seen a family car on TV run on hydrogen perform in a similar way to a petrol car it left me thinking that once the supply issues are resolved it could be the answer.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo you agree that electric cars are not lacking in power.
Who needs to really do that anyway? Boy racers? 3.9 seconds is pretty darn fast. Most people just want a car with enough range to not have to re-fuel every 30 miles. My understanding is that electric cars can't compete in this area because battery technology lags behind.
Now show me a production hydrogen car that has the range of an electric car.
Most electric cars currently have fairly low ranges, but it is not nearly as big a problem as most people make out (no, you don't have to re-fuel every 30 miles).
1. the range we are used to is not the range we generally need in our every day lives. An electric cars range is more than sufficient for most day to day operation.
2. Electric car range is being improved all the time and the main thing missing in most places is recharging stations and refueling stations.
I'm not against electirc cars - it's just we need a viable option right now not in 20 years time. Having seen a family car on TV run on hydrogen perform in a similar way to a petrol car it left me thinking that once the supply issues are resolved it could be the answer.
Have a look around the internet and you will find that electric cars are much closer to prime time than hydrogen cars. If you want a solution now then go electric. It is far easier to build recharging and battery swap stations than hydrogen stations. As I said before, the only thing going for hydrogen is the delay factor that the US wants.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
"Critics charge that the time frame for overcoming the technical and economic challenges to implementing wide-scale use of hydrogen vehicles is likely to be at least several decades, and hydrogen vehicles may never become broadly available."
and
"According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." "
I also recommend you get hold of and watch this documentary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
or at least read the Wikipedia page on it.
19 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThings can and sometime are changed if there is enough popular pressure. In the US the politicians have successfully confused the public (as they have you regarding green energy and hydrogen) and so there is not as much popular pressure as in other countries. However, with the change of govt, that may be changing.
I agree. But if the political will only occurs because of some disasters (eg like London going underwater) then it will be too late probably. Given that human beings are usually selfish and short term animals that would mean we are basically ****ed. Do you hold out much hope?
If you want to change the world then start by getting your facts right so that you know what to change it too. Currently you don't seem to know a lot about green power or alternative fuels. You are playing right into the hands of big oil and automakers.