We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Odrade Nov 13, 2002 - 03:35 pm

The ever so brillant and caring Bush Adminstartion has now endorsed the creation of cars that are powered by hydrogen. TaDa! 'It will relieve US dependence on oil, etc. etc. it is so great!'

Give me a break. I feel this is one more scam being running to benefit car makers, oil companies, and screw everything else. Okay, they don't run on gas, but at this current time, the companies who are going to make these cars say the cars will run on hydrogen that is extracted from, guess what? Oil. No change there. And they admit these cars will still pollute. Oh, but they are so much better. Yeah, right.

Electric cars don't pollute at all. Electricity doesn't come from oil. (one complaint aganist traditional cars in the US is that we have to import oil from "unstable" Arab countries) And electric cars already exsist and are being used. Instead of making a car that runs on a totally new power source, why not improve the enviromentally friendly car, so more people will purchase one. Or am i just dumb and missing something that makes sense here?

Of course, if people really wanted to make a change, they could stop using cars so much. Public transit in the US may suck, but it could be easily improved. Look around the world. Personally, i don't drive. I live in an area where the public transit system is pretty good, and i have friends who can drive me somewhere if i really need it. But that is honestly not often.

What does this have to do with sci-fi? Well, look at the future repercusions if things don't change. And the possiblities if they do. We won't make ship that go into space that run on gas/petrol. Maybe we should start looking at the future, not just 10yrs., but 50, 100, 200, etc. We have to start to do this eventually.

Posted By: Hyperion Nov 13, 2002 - 04:37 pm

Hello
Well one minute the post was here, and the next it had gone, LOL, dont know what happened to it, But here is my reply to it anyways. [Sorry for the confusion, Hyperion. Part of what I do here is to keep the topics organized, and this one fits better in Speculation. Bmat]
*************************************************

Yeah, it is kind of a joke isnt it, making cars that run on hydrogen hehe.
In most cases though Odrade, Electricity comes from Nuclear power Plants.
But thats besides the point. What I think will happen, with regards to future private and public transport, is that Monorails, and things of a similar nature, will start to take of in a big way.
Eventually though, flying cars will be a common thing, there are already 2 or 3 very, and I do mean very reasnable and working prototypes, that have gone through years of clueless crappy designs, and come to todays very real and quit practical designs.
Most of them go on the design of having rotating fan engines, that point down for lift off, then rotate to push the vehicle in what ever direction is desired.
Computers and networks with similar working to Air Traffic control, could very easily be employed to create great invisible roads in the sky, with the passenger taking as much or as little control of the vehicle, as they so desired.
There is certainly enough space above our heads, for every single person on the planet to own and run a single seater sky car.
As for the Hydrogen thing, In the end Odrade, america, especialy under Bush, will never ever give up the OIl business, hehe, its the power and money under his seat as president. The oil companys love the bush family.
Electric cars are worth concidering certainly, I am of the opinion that not enough wind farms are in use across the planet, they are an ideal form of natural energy, and so are using similar principles on running water.
Elctricity is what feeds the planet, without it we would be doomed in todays modern day society. But I dont see why research isnt underway, to invent and take advantage of sattalites and the sun. I mean if we could deploy solar sattalite farms above the planet, and some how get that energy beamed down to earth, then the whole planet would have more than enough power.
Anyways that's all I can think of for this post, for now anyways.
Again, a good topic for discussion Odrade
Regards
Hyperion

Posted By: Axzazz De`Nyde Nov 14, 2002 - 01:56 pm

Ooh, good topic. I don't drive either, BTW. Public transit here is so-so. Good, but not enough for the city. I definitely think mass transit will improve drastically over the next century, with passenger trains/monorails/maglevs.

I have no idea why they would make cars that extract hydrogen from oil... The basic idea behind a hydrogen car uses good old H2O. Electricity is used to 'crack' the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas (this is old tech, it's how submarines can stay submerged without coming up for fresh air, it's not fantasy tech). Then the hydrogen is burned, using the oxygen. The result is...water vapor. Pollution-free. Fuel in, fuel out. And since the planet's surface is 75% fuel...

Actually, Hyperion, most electricity comes from fossil-burning coal or gas power plants. Nuclear plants can produce a lot more, with hardly any pollution, but too many people are scared of the nuclear boogyman, so they don't get built. Even here in the birthplace of nuclear science and a famous hydro-power project, most of our power still comes from pollution-spewing fossil-burners. Because the average joe is afraid that if you build a nuclear plant then it'll blow up and giant mutant ants or carnivorous worms will come and eat him.

Electric cars are okay, but as long as the electricity to recharge them is coming from fossil-burning power plants, they're not a solution.

Flying cars are okay, but with the way most people drive, I wouldn't want any flying over my house.

That last idea, beaming energy down from satellites using microwaves, suffered the same fate as nuclear power. People are scared of microwaves. Also, the satellite would be an easy target in wartime. According to one book I have, the reciever would need to be 10km x 13km/twice the size of Manhattan. But one would produce five times the power of most large generators. Another idea uses more tightly-focused lasers instead of microwaves, but people don't seem to like that either.

Personally, I think we should continue to improve solar cells (there are some very good ones now) and, rather than drawing power from big centralized plants, most buildings should have an array of solar cells and wind turbines on the roof, generating most of the power needed. Power to the people, and all that.

We could also use garbage incinerators... Stick in a generator and burn trash for electricity, rather than just dumping the trash and burning oil.

Posted By: Odrade Nov 14, 2002 - 09:15 pm

The garbage incinerator idea, isn't that from Back to the Future?

I think the way we should try to go is in a solar cell path. Solar power is clean, there is plenty of it, and it is free. which is probably the biggest problem. The oil companies couldn't sell it.

They have started building solar fuel cells, cells that store solar energy. Maybe they are not powerful enough yet, but they have started. It maybe sound dorky, but my dad has these little lights around the yard that run off of solar cells. They come on automatically at sunset, and have at least enough storage to power these lights all night. And even on cloudy or rainy days, they can absorb some solar power. Yes, this is a very small start maybe, but it is a start. And these light actually don't cost too much. So it is possible, or will be with a little work to develop affordable ones for cars. (now i bet i sound like i live with my dad, in fact, i don't)

Yes, i know the power of oil companies in the White House right now. And i am less than pleased with it. Bush and his oil buddies want to trash Alaska, drill off the California coast, and destroy as much of the enviroment as possible. Rage is a better way to describe my feelings towrds it. People like that, in my opinion, rather rack, ruin, and destroy anything they can, especially if they can make money off of it. I think it is so infuriating that some people are buying this lie that they want to help the enviroment, and it is all for the best. The hydrogen car is just another one of those games they play. Automobile companies already can make more efficent cars. Cars that could run on differnt fuel sources have already been designed and created, but these companies buy the designs from the inventors to prevent competition. I love my country and all, but i hate the fact that in this country, money talks and everything else walks.

Bmat, sorry for putting this in the wrong topic!

Posted By: Bmat Nov 15, 2002 - 03:26 am

Off- topic: [Odrade, please think nothing of it, it is no trouble for me at all to move topics.]

Posted By: NoN- Environmentalist May 27, 2003 - 08:36 pm

whats wrong with destroying the environment??? we should get some oil out of alaska since it is part of our country... i think that the best way to become less dependent on foreign aid would be to dig up our country first, and then look towards hydrogen cars. (btw...extracting hydrogen out of oil is probably the most uneducated thing i have ever heard. everyone knows that water = H2O = DIHYDROGEN OXIDE)

hydrogen cars are just a way to get rid of foreign aid...they wont help "save the air" or anything like that. personally, i think that if i could get a good deal on a hydrogen-powered car and not have to pay for gas that that would be really good. this would help out a lot of people who drive.

Posted By: Craal May 29, 2003 - 09:30 am

That's kind of funny but near sighted, non-environ, why should we in america exploit and run dry our own resources when we have foreign nations/companies with cheap labor wanting american money?

Save our reserves for when we sap all the other resources. Can you imagine the price gouging that we would incur if we absolutely had to buy foriegn oil? For the occasion we are left with our own reserves, technology is going forward with hydrogen fuel cells. The technology is there, we only await the storage medium for hydrogen. It is much harder than you may think to store large quanities of liqued hydrogen.

There have been many topics in Scientific American and Popular Science/Mechanics claiming that once a proper storage medium is found it is entirely possible we could manufacture a hydrogen fuel cell for home use. Removing ourselves from the grid.

Hydrogen combustion is terribly ineffecient, hydrogen fuel cells on the other hand are very effecient directly exchanging chemical energy for electrical energy. This has to do mainly with the Law of Conservation of Energy, essentially meaning you cannot create more energy than was used in the process. We get around this by using stored kinetic energy of water behind dams, the natural process of nuclear decay in uranium to heat water, the sun to drive photovoltaic cells. Everytime energy is converted from one form to another losses occur. These are our most effecient means of generating power.

Our grandchildren could very well live in homes powered by hydrogen fuel cells and fill their vehicles with the same.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/hydrogen_fuel_cells.html

This is a US department of energy website

Posted By: malek77 May 29, 2003 - 09:55 pm

I tend to think the biggest thing against environmentally friendly engines and en-masse use of public transport is the lack of testosterone.

I'm no hero for being carted around in a bus everywhere, and while electric cars seem interesting, until they have the power to outdo a big kitted out V8, popularity is going to be an issue.

For instance - there is hybrid engine 'Green' Car available now, but if anyone has $40,000 they buy a big Ford or Holden instead.