Welcome to PatsFans.com

GM plans major test of fuel-cell cars in Asia

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. mcbee

    mcbee Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,078
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Fuel cells are a joke.

    Fuel cells are very expensive. They use materials like platinum and palladium that aren't likely to be cheaper with mass usage.

    Oil is CHEAP. Even at $1.50 a gallon it's cheap. Hydrogen...where do you get that exactly? Do you drill for hydrogen? No, you use natural gas. More expensive per mile driven than gasoline. "But you could use wind or solar". I guess...then use an electroylyzer at 50% loss of energy to get hydrogen from water....even more expensive than natural gas.

    Plus how do you store hydrogen? How do you ship it? Natural gas has to be cooled down to ship, ie liquified. Hydrogen is even less dense. How do you store it in a car? At great pressure? The tanks would weigh hundred of pounds and have a miniscule amount of hydrogen in them.

    As for "we'll show those oil companies and the middle east!". Show them what? That we're willing to spend much more for energy than their cheap oil in order not to let them sell it? Do you think their oil would go unsold?

    I always wonder...if oil is priced 'so high', why is it cheaper than milk? Cheaper than cola? I mean the all powerful oil companies could easily 'gouge'; the market...they already do right? So why not price something incredibly useful at at least the price of coca-cola? Why was oil 50-70 cents a gallon for 20 years or so while the price of everything else in society doubled or tripled? If oil at $1.20 a gallon (where it is now) is GOUGING, then isn't milk at $3.50 a gallon gouging? I mean, you can make milk. Oil you have to drill down for miles to try to find. And even then you're not always successful. Society can run without milk...no so without oil. But oil is CHEAPER, much cheaper, than milk. And people complain. Seems odd to me.

    It's just interesting playing devil's advocate. Interesting that there is this group think that oil is 'expensive' at $1.20 or so a gallon. It should be cheaper! Says who? Who are you to say how expensive it is to develop a new oil field, if they can even find them?

    In reality the cheap oil is running out fast. The light sweet stuff. The remaining oil is like the oil in Canada or Venezuela, thick viscous nasty stuff that is very expensive to mine and refine into anything resembling liquid fuel. Some day the light sweet stuff will run out. Then you'll really complain.
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    Sure, it's cheaper than milk, but people aren't using up 50-100 gallons of milk per week. I won't talk about the pollution of cars versus milk cuz cows pollute more than vehicles do. At any rate, don't be afraid of fuel cells, they are a near reality. Reminds me of HD TV's. They were $10,000 apiece when they first were introduced, not they cost $1,500. A couple of years ago Fuel Cell technology had some major problems, but it cold weather starts, or fuel efficiency. the last couple of years they've made great strides in solving those issues. Fuel Cells are a certainty, don't be afraid!
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Cows don't pollute more than cars do. Not per-cow v per-car, and not on a total basis either. They do release more of certain pollutants (CO2 and methane), but cows don't cause smog, they don't blow smoke, they don't release carbon monoxide, and ozone isn't created because cows aren't fed hydrocarbons.
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2


    Livestock a major threat to environment

    Remedies urgently needed
    29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

    Surprise!

    According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.


    http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're really going off the deep end here, or you're posting stuff that you know isn't in context. Your article is talking about greenhouse gasses, which are not by any stretch the only air pollutants. You said cows pollute more than cars, but cows only generate more GREENHOUSE GASSES (read: CO2, methane, and a few others) than cars, things like smoke particles, ozone, and carbon monoxide are very dangerous, despite not being greenhouse gasses.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2007
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    It's why I wouldn't talk about cars versus cows. At any rate, if people consumed milk at the same rate we consume gasoline, how would the math work out?
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't know about the math, but we'd see a lot of very fat people.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>