it's clean. it's new. of course right now it's not practical. but it'll get better. the only exhaust is water. come on. gotta give it time to grow.Cliff3 said:
What most people did NOT realize, it's not Hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg disaster, but the aluminum foil and the lacquer coating on the outside of the blimp. Hydrogen, when ignited, burns in a clear, transparent fire, and escapes RAPIDLY upwards in the atmosphere. What made the Hindenburg catch fire was it was flying in a thunderstorm, and it's a giant ALUMINUM conductor plus the fresh lacquer. When struck by lightning the lacquer caught on fire and burned the whole thing to the ground.Cliff3 said:
the report on fresh gear said ONE pump in munich, but bmw hopes to have pumps in every major euro capital by 2005. it'll be years and years before there is a delivery infrastructure (esp here).... but gotta try to do something....
Burning it may be clean, but producing it requires energy. I haven't seen an analysis of that process, or at least I can't quote one this morning. An article in Bimmer (? I think) said the E38's only had a range of 200 miles, so they're hybrid gas/hydrogen vehicles because they couldn't make it from the only two hydrogen fueling facilities in the state: Port Hueneme and Sacramento. That's not too practical.eugeneDC/TX said:
and with that we are only moving the source of pollution up the energy food chain. so are we actually being more environmentally friendly? is the amount of energy (pollution created) required to split water the same or less compared to what is required to drill and refine oil and finally burning it.The HACK said:
The emissions are water vapors that escape into the atmosphere. The 750iH running at DesignWorks USA had two small puddles of water underneath the tail pipe after ~2 hours of operation.Jetfire said:
I remember seeing something on the history channel about how the aluminum composition applied to the airships had almost the same composition as what is used in the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle. No wonder that puppie (Hindenburg) burned up in less than 60 seconds!!!The HACK said:
Hehe, thanks for clearing that up.The HACK said:
But again, now we have water vapors from all these cars (eventually). Would that do anything to increase average temperature, relative humidity, or anything else? How would that affect our environment? ), I wonder if we'll ever have true zero-emission vehicles.yes producing it requires energy. yes the cars only have a range of 250 miles or so. but remember it is NEW technology that has to be further refined for public use. how many miles per tank did the first cars have? how much energy was required to make the first tank of gasoline from oil? jebus, it's not like this is in implementation for public stages. it's still new. it's been developed for these cars. of course right now (infrastructure system notwithstanding) it's impractical, but you have to see the benefits of this system with further refinement in the future. you are judging the hydrogen cars on an unfair scale. you have to allow for development. it's not like hydrogen has been a fuel in autos for 80 some odd years.Cliff3 said:
Jeez, relax, man. I haven't "judged" anything. I'm offering up my casual observations of the technology in an Internet forum. In its present state, there are limitations to the technology. Maybe they'll overcome some of them, and maybe they won't. I'm not qualified to definitively answer that question. If anyone here is, then please PM me and I'll investigate the possibility of making some long term investmentseugeneDC/TX said:
haha. cool cool. dunno, sounded to me that you werent even ready to give it a chance to be feasible. and in this day and age i think every opportunity to make the world a little cleaner is a good thing. regardless.... lively debate never hurt anything or anyone (except apparently some clearcoat threads and such):thumbup:Cliff3 said:
Jeez, relax, man. I haven't "judged" anything. I'm offering up my casual observations of the technology in an Internet forum. In its present state, there are limitations to the technology. Maybe they'll overcome some of them, and maybe they won't. I'm not qualified to definitively answer that question. If anyone here is, then please PM me and I'll investigate the possibility of making some long term investments
all good points, i just think that minor tweaks always take the longest. and i think h-powered cars are while not the wave of the future def a step in the right direction. and that while tweaking is all that remains, tweaking needs to be done adn that will take awhile. i just felt the points of it taking energy to create the fuel and the impracticality of distance between fueling were a little shortsighted. haha. i think this is the first "debate" i've gotten into on this forum. good times good times. haha. :thumbup:CD-55 said:
