600 mile range Federal law needed

Page 6 of 6  
If you talk to anyone that has pulled tanks out of newer cars to change a fuel pump, you will see they usually fit pretty tight. I think the automakers are more worried about space in the car than the tank. Of course
this doesn't apply to trucks that have lots of room and huge tanks. I would hate to pay the bill on a 1 ton with dual tanks.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Screw you. Damn Democrat. A once in fifty years event is no reason to extend the increasingly uncontrollable reach of the government. The phony "war" on big business is a completely Liberal tactic. Get yourself "Edjikated".
conserative spike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
half of america can not afford to buy cars now they have to lease them get real with what you say the price will go out of sight what we need to do is is figure out hydrogen storage for cars and we can tell the oil companys to fuck off
Nomen Nescio wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tim bur wrote:

Where do we get the hydrogen that takes more energy to produce (separate) than the energy you get out? The reason our fossil fuels are a net energy gain for us is that they've stored free energy from the sun over centuries of exposure. If we have to pump the energy in that we are going to get out (as in producing biofuels from raw plants, or in separating out hydrogen) to run a vehicle, then you have a false economy that will fail very quickly. Nuclear is one way to get a net energy gain of pre-stored energy.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bill, your making a whole bunch of assumptions there which I think are wrong.
Vehicle fuel has a bunch of restrictions on it that are special. It has to be easily transported (ie: mobile) it has to explode under controlled conditions, and it has to be safe enough so that if the vehicle rolls over it won't explode and destroy 3 city blocks, it has to have high energy density, and it has to be available on demand.
Solid fuels like wood, coal, rocket fuel boosters, etc. do not meet this criteria.
Fuels like sunlight also do not meet this criteria
Fuels like nuclear do not meet this criteria.
Gaseous fuels like natural gas, propane, fart-in-a-jar (methane) hydrogen also do not meet this criteria for obvious safety problems.
As a result your assumption that vehicle fuel must realize a net energy gain is wrong. Vehicle fuels like gas and alcohol still work even if they don't realize a net energy gain simply because there's no alternative. Obviously this raises the cost of running a vehicle but it will not fail quickly because there simply is no alternative. The only question is how much it will raise it and if the vehicle owners are all willing to pay that.
Also another assumption your making is in the net energy gain - net gain from what? Net gain from just using raw sunlight?
If that's it, then you are missing that wind also equals a net gain, and additionally, an economy could survive where the net energy gain of the fuel over raw sunlight was 0, ie: not negative, but equal.
Last year GE's US wind installations generated 873 megawatts of power, see:
http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2004_press/032904e.htm
In Oregon, the now-shut-down Trojan Nuclear Plant was a 100 Megawatt plant.
GE's turbines come in 1.5 2.x and 3.6 megawatt versions, see:
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/index.htm
RE Power has a 5 megawatt version they are selling see:
http://www.repower5m.com /
20 of those in a wind farm and you have your nuclear plant.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puleez...
Hydrogen storage isn't the prime issue - hydrogen production is the issue. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen from water than you get back when you recombine it with oxygen just from the natrual losses involved in the process from beginning to end. If you factor in the added material and production costs, saftey and handling expenses (especially since hydrogen has to be stored at incredible pressures and liquid hydrogen is a cryogen - compared to fossil fuels that can be stored in a liquid bulk form at ambient temperatures) then the expense of hydrogen begins to exceed it's benefit. You need lots of electricity to seperate hydrogen from oxygen in water, and the only efficient way to produce that kind of juice is nuclear, but now you get into the "not in my backyard" argument and the whole mess of where to store the spent nuclear fuel. Plus to make the huge amounts of hydrogen required to power our millions of cars you will need fresh water, and since all the natural fresh water is already spoken for you will have to build desalinization plants and/or distillation plants - which also take a lot of energy.
However, I do agree with the final part of your post - wholeheartedly!
Cheers - Jonathan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Before you go off half-cocked, know they have developed solar cells that decompose water directly and can produce hydrogen and oxygen directly from seawater and sunlight, no electricity is involved, not even within the cell itself.
That doesen't of course negate the storage problems and make hydrogen even remotely usable for vehicle fuel, but it does pretty much blow away the 'takes more energy to produce it then you get back" argument.
It took more solar energy to produce the oil deposits than we get back from them, also. The difference is that you can pretty much assume that solar energy is unlimited on the Earth and available almost everywhere, so even if we can only generate a watt of power for every 10 watts of power in sunlight that we get, since the sunlight is free, after the initial cost to setup, there's no continuing costs for the raw energy.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Exactly - that was the point of my previous post. The thing we can't do is plug a power cord into the wall to do these inconvenient-to-convenient energy source conversions. The most obvious way to do it is to capture power from the sun that is essentially one of God's gift to mankind. However, you just wait - environmentalists a hundred years from now will come up with a reason that we can't do it, or that it has to be very heavily taxed to discourage its use. They'll quit talking about our mother the earth and start talking about our mother the sun or the great sun god or godess that we have to respect or some such other crap.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don't laugh everyone... In an argument (family discussion) we put forth the idea of launching nuclear waste to the sun..(however fraught that is with all kinds of *other* problems among them an explosion showering us with nuclear waste...) one of the kids came up with
"NOW YOU WANT TO POLLUTE THE SUN" !!!!
So Bill there it is.. !!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've been listening to George Carlin again. ;-)
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Oh crap! You're telling me that I'm thinking like George Carlin! Seriously I don't listen to him. This is upsetting! 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He has a great monolog about religion where he says he's decided to cut all the crap and just worship the sun.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Yes, and that energy was integrated over a fairly long period of time as best we know. It is hard to replicate that now so we need to look for means of using sunlight in "real time", not things that take years to store up to get a day's worth of energy in return.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Use a really, really, really BIG magnifying glass! ;-)
I think the oil-creating process that took a failrly long period of time was probably on the order of .000000000000000000001% efficiency. It's impossible to calculate of course, since we don't know how many hundreds of gallons of plant oil had to be produced for one drop of it to find it's way down thousands of feet of rock and sand into an oil dome. But clearly, we should be able to do a lot better than that with solar energy.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is interesting. You have a number of 'non-friends' in this (Chrysler) NG and yet you manage to start very long threads...
:-) DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"Nomen Nescio" < snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Why not add hurricane testing to federl crash standards too? Then you don;'t have to worry about the vehicles range. It's makes just as much sense as your suggestion. ------------- Alex
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.