Is it possible to live in America without a car?



Specialized wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:28:20 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> There is no need for fuel cells. Hydrogen works great in modified internal
>> combustion engines.
> Yes, IC Engines like it though there are some tweaks that have to be
> made. Crankcase oil lasts much longer, for example.
> One such effort is at http://www.safehydrogen.com/technology.html
> But to be honest, hydrogen "fuels" are really an energy storage and
> transportation medium, not a primary fuel, and if one looks upstream
> it is very expensive energy, and there is still CO2/carbon produced in
> its formation, whether from the generation of electrical power used in
> electrolytic preparation, or from splitting from methane, etc.
> People feel good about nothing but water coming out of an exhaust pipe
> or fuel cell, though, despite what the overall system does, or costs.
> Then there is the 'Hindenberg" aspect. Most drivers we see should
> not really be trusted with a petrol tank, let alone a 6,000 PSI
> Pressure Vessel.
> The above URL attempts to address the high presure storage problems.


I don't want to start another flame war but Hydrogen only freezes at
absolute zero and has to be really damn cold just to become a liquid.
Anybody that thinks this stuff is safe is not thinking with a full deck.
Methane is available and much safer, even though the molecule does
contain some Carbon (CH3). I really would not want to see some poor
driver thinking he is doing so good for the economy just fuel up and
then get nailed by a semi, train, or whatever could break the tank.
****, he's gone and anyone near him.
For some perspective, dig into the news about 15-20 years ago when a
Propane tanker went off the road and caught fire. The flames were
invisible so people didn't even know what was happening to them. It was
at a campground in France or Spain and survivors reported seeing people
walking out with their skin just falling off. Not a pretty way to go.
Batteries for me.
Bill Baka
 
SMS wrote:
>. . .
>
> Long term, we'll probably be driving plug-in hybrids that use ethanol
> for the ICE. Toyota is finally talking about plug-in hybrids, now that
> so many people have done after-market conversions to the Prius.
>
> The electricity will have to be generated by nuclear power or
> hydro-electric. The last thing we need to do is to start burning massive
> quantities of high sulfur coal in order to generate electricity. You can
> see the effect of this in China already.
>
> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and
> joins the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids
> the best option.

I was at a get-together last week and watched the host's son show
pictures of his trip to China. We asked him about the haze in the
pictures. His reply: smog from the coal they burn.

It was very impressive smog. It made anything I have seen in L.A.
look "wimpy"

"Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and
joins the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids
the best option.. . ."
.. . .hopefully burning "mixed alcohols and aldehydes" from bio-mass as
the ICE fuel.

Jason
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>
>> The end of the EV-1 is not the death of the electric car, it's the
>> death of GM's overpriced electric car beta test program.
>
> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical
> electric car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to
> that question.
>
> Battery technology is mature. Breakthrough are not likely.
>
> If a solution exist, it should be obvious what it is.
>
>

Capacetors. The furture is super-capacitors.

Doug
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > It's not that there are too many cars. There are too many drivers.
> > Humans seldom consider themselves the problem, but we are
> > multiplying in yeast-like fashion. Therein lies the root cause.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> No, it ain't. Holland is more environmentally friendly than America
> and see their population densities...

You make these claims but offer no proof. Troll.

> Netherlands... 395 square km
>
> United States... 30 square km
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
>
> However those 30 people cause a lot of pollution: SUVs, motorboats,
> and other stupid senseless and superflous junk.

I dislike responding to trolls but I will make an exception. When I was
born in 1959, there were about 3,000,000,000 people on the planet. This
number doubled to 6,000,000,000 by June 1999. This is up from roughly
1,500,000,000 people in 1900.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/wp-02003.pdf

Interestingly enough, many Web sites erroneously claim that there were
5,000,000,000 in 1959.

According to the Census Bureau, the rate of population increase has been
increasingly greater than at any other time in known human history.
Yeast-like is not an inaccurate description.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> george conklin wrote:
>>
>>> The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today. This is
>>> a geological fact.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png>
>>
>> The worst-case temperature increases predicted for the next century could
>> put us above any estimated average temperatures over the last half million
>> years. We are close to peak cyclical temperature/minimum ice levels now.
>
>Your cite is from a user-contributed posting and reflects the interests of
>the posters, not science.
>
>As far as the past, I don't see more coal deposits in the polar regions, do
>you?

Umm, there are quite substantial coal deposits in Antarctica (given
peoples' habits of mining coal where it's obvious, that's about the
only place on Earth that you can see thick coal seams in-situ), which
haven't been mined thanks to some combination of inaccessibility and
the Antarctic Treaty. There are large and active mines in Svalbard
out to the north of Norway,
http://www.asrc.com/lands/lands.asp?page=coal suggests there are two
billion tons in north-west Alaska, there's a fair amount in Vorkuta in
Russia (67.5N, 64.0E).

Tom
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> george conklin wrote:
>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bill, your logic amazes me at times.
>>>>
>>>> Let's recap...
>>>>
>>>> The cost of designing and producing the vehicles is outrageous.
>>>>
>>>> GM sold them at a huge loss.
>>>>
>>>> Still they couldn't sell or lease ONE a day.
>>>>
>>>> Bill's take.
>>>>
>>>> A huge number of people really wanted to buy one (must have been
>>>> some pretty unmotivated shoppers).
>>>>
>>>> Raise the price on them to cover the cost (yeah, that'll help
>>>> sales).
>>> I have been assuming that transit advocates are the dumbest people in
>>> the world. I am obviously wrong. Electrics car fanatics have transit
>>> advocates beat by miles.
>>>
>>
>> The plug-in hybrid would be quite acceptable for most people using
>> existing technology. As long as it would go 30 miles or so, most
>> commuters would not need to start the on-board engines. Even if they
>> did, it would still use a lot less oil. Yes, electricity generated by
>> coal would replace oil, but we have coal.
> Yeah,
> About a 100 years worth of it and it produces CO2 when it burns too, in
> addition so Sulfur, which scientists are trying to make scrubbers to get
> the Sulfur out. That is what caused all the acid rain back in the east
> when there were big steel mills in operation.
> Study some history.
> Bill Baka

So you are against all travel, right? Nothing pleases you. Even electric
trains will use coal-generated power.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> The plug-in hybrid would be quite acceptable for most people using
>> existing technology. As long as it would go 30 miles or so, most
>> commuters would not need to start the on-board engines. Even if they
>> did, it would still use a lot less oil. Yes, electricity generated by
>> coal would replace oil, but we have coal.
>
> Long term, we'll probably be driving plug-in hybrids that use ethanol for
> the ICE. Toyota is finally talking about plug-in hybrids, now that so many
> people have done after-market conversions to the Prius.
>
> The electricity will have to be generated by nuclear power or
> hydro-electric. The last thing we need to do is to start burning massive
> quantities of high sulfur coal in order to generate electricity. You can
> see the effect of this in China already.
>
> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and joins
> the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids the best
> option.
>
>
>

A few years back environmentalists were against nuclear power. Times do
change. Of course, in 50,000 years we will still be living with the
radioactive waste.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>>. . .
>>
>> Long term, we'll probably be driving plug-in hybrids that use ethanol
>> for the ICE. Toyota is finally talking about plug-in hybrids, now that
>> so many people have done after-market conversions to the Prius.
>>
>> The electricity will have to be generated by nuclear power or
>> hydro-electric. The last thing we need to do is to start burning massive
>> quantities of high sulfur coal in order to generate electricity. You can
>> see the effect of this in China already.
>>
>> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and
>> joins the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids
>> the best option.
>
> I was at a get-together last week and watched the host's son show
> pictures of his trip to China. We asked him about the haze in the
> pictures. His reply: smog from the coal they burn.

They use old-fashioned technology, without scrubbers or anything. The
issue is the technology.
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:47:39 -0700, "Baxter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> an honest to goodness climate scientist, says it ain't necessarily the
>truth.
>> He say's that most of Gore's scientific hoarde is more about predicting
>the
>> _results_ of a global warming episode than about predicting the
>_likelyhood_ of
>> a global warming episode, or whether we have anything to do with it or
>whether
>> there's anything we could do about it.
>
>Reputable Climate Scientists say the likelihood of a global warming episode
>is 100%.

Sure...

but how much if it did _we_ cause and how much of it did natural forces cause?

And... if we stopped all emissions completely, would the temperature then
continue to rise anyway, or not?

DPH
>
 
Jack May wrote:

> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical electric
> car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to that question.

Lithium based batteries do well in cold temperatures, retaining about
90% of their capacity at -20 C. You wouldn't want to use a nickel based
battery in sub-freezing temperatures.

See "http://nordicgroup.us/battery/temper.gif"

In any case, no one is saying that all climates will be appropriate for
an electric car. In the temperate climates NiMH batteries can be used.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> It was very impressive smog. It made anything I have seen in L.A.
> look "wimpy"

Try being in Beijing during a sandstorm. That's another experience I
wouldn't want to repeat.
 
SMS wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical
>> electric car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to
>> that question.
>
> Lithium based batteries do well in cold temperatures, retaining about
> 90% of their capacity at -20 C. You wouldn't want to use a nickel based
> battery in sub-freezing temperatures.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/battery/temper.gif"
>
> In any case, no one is saying that all climates will be appropriate for
> an electric car. In the temperate climates NiMH batteries can be used.

Just use the battery or even a pull cord to start a 5 HP engine to
charge the battery and circulate warm coolant through the main engine.
I am totally amazed that nobody has come up with something so blatantly
simple. Is the world really that full of stupid people?
Bill Baka
 
Bill <[email protected]> writes:

> Specialized wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:28:20 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:

>
> I don't want to start another flame war but Hydrogen only freezes at
> absolute zero and has to be really damn cold just to become a liquid.
> Anybody that thinks this stuff is safe is not thinking with a full deck.

Metallic hydrogen has been produce at a temperature
of several thousand kelvins, although at a pressure of over a million
atmospheres. Under normal conditions, the melting point is
14.175 K.

For details, try <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen>
and <http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/H.html>.

Whether the risks will eventually prove to be managable is an open
question.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>> > An hour a day certainly does limit the range of a bike.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Actually in the USA people want to limit their travel time to one-half
>> hour.
>> We have. The average commute is 20 minutes, more or less.
>
> Sure about that? It sounds like science fiction...

We are extremely sure about that. It is reality. This fact has been proven
all over the world and even appeared in Scientific American in the 90's.
The hour is the total travel time per day on average and the average commute
is about 20 minutes each way
 
"Specialized" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:28:20 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>There is no need for fuel cells. Hydrogen works great in modified
>>internal
>>combustion engines.
> Yes, IC Engines like it though there are some tweaks that have to be
> made. Crankcase oil lasts much longer, for example.
> One such effort is at http://www.safehydrogen.com/technology.html
> But to be honest, hydrogen "fuels" are really an energy storage and
> transportation medium, not a primary fuel, and if one looks upstream
> it is very expensive energy, and there is still CO2/carbon produced in
> its formation, whether from the generation of electrical power used in
> electrolytic preparation, or from splitting from methane, etc

There is no doubt that better hydrogen generation techniques need to be used
that don't produce CO2.

There are genetic engineering approaches being developed where plants or
microbes produce hydrogen. There of course is always pebble bed reactors
that disassociate hydrogen and oxygen just from the high temperature alone.
There is other research going on, so the problem may have a very good
solution some day.
..
> People feel good about nothing but water coming out of an exhaust pipe
> or fuel cell, though, despite what the overall system does, or costs.
> Then there is the 'Hindenberg" aspect. Most drivers we see should
> not really be trusted with a petrol tank, let alone a 6,000 PSI
> Pressure Vessel.

I had a post where I talked about metallic fuels with particles about 50
nano meters in diameter. The metal oxidizes to produce energy. The metal
is returned to being fuel in a heated hydrogen environment to remove the
oxidation form the metal so it can be reused.

Aluminum produces a range I think that is 1.5 times greater than gasoline
for the same tank size. Another metal produces a range six times longer
than gasoline.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Jack May wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

> Not those of ordinary BIG FAT AMERICANS who are too lazy to drive
> anything but an Stupid Unnecessary Vehicle. But as a matter of fact,
> THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BENEFIT FROM IT --BURN THE CALORIES, BIMBO!

As usual you don't have a god damn idea of what you are talking about.
People have rejected your nonsense bike ideas and you no idea how to
produce a solution that people will want to use.

That just makes you a dumb failure, not a problem solver.
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
> Just use the battery or even a pull cord to start a 5 HP engine to charge
> the battery and circulate warm coolant through the main engine.
> I am totally amazed that nobody has come up with something so blatantly
> simple. Is the world really that full of stupid people?

Its not start up, it is a greatly decreased capacity and range in electric
cars in winter.
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "H M Leary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>

> Which makes you one of the S.O.B.'s that is financing Brazil.
> That is all I need to know about you.

So you think that Brazil should never be allowed to ever to become a less
impoverished country? That is rather vile.

Brazil does a lot of other things that don't destroy the rain forest. They
even produce computers that the designed.
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>> It's the taxpayers. The upper 20% paid about 83% of the total
>>> individual federal taxes in 2002 (and a similar percentage of
>>> corporate taxes). I'm betting that comes as a surprise to you (since
>>> there are plenty of people who want you to think it's the poor folks
>>> who are paying all the taxes). By comparison the bottom 20% income
>>> earners' "contributions" came to a NEGATIVE 2.6%.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6133&sequence=0
>
> (snip)
>
>>So, the middle classes and upper classes benefited from tax cuts, and
>>education and healthcare budgets have increased while a massive war
>>spenditure war is taking place and yet the poor have not been taxed.
>>Are you saying 2+2=5?

It does no good. donquijote1954 is just and ignorant nut case that thinks
everybody is evil except of course him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Is it possible to live in America without a car?
Replies
71
Views
2K
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
deanobangnang
Possible oval BB cup....
Replies
2
Views
1K
Road Cycling
deanobangnang
deanobangnang
Andrew21
Is it possible to feel "bonked" even when you've consumed enough food?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Road Cycling
JSWin
JSWin
B
Possible Wheel Upgrade - wanting opinions/experience
Replies
17
Views
4K
Road Cycling
sunburned
S
C
possible pubic fracture
Replies
4
Views
1K
Road Cycling
cyclelady
C
Top Bottom Back