Re: Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?

#1

In article
<519d3b97-2733-45ac-8a3f-737356a83825 (AT) d4g2000prc (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
jolly <freedatingsites (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?
http://www.techespot.com/2009/05/hydrogen-powered-cars.html

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor during
rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter.
Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate quantities. It's
an attempt to keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form
of internal combustion engine).

At the risk of perturbing some folks, the simplest future for individual
urban transportation is the bicycle. Infrastructure is already in place
and less expensive to maintain (bicycles causing dramatically little
wear and tear on roads compared to cars).

Locally (Minneapolis) the number of people going to work by bike has
more than doubled in the past two years (from 1.7% to 3.6%, so a little
more than 100,000 people), increasing particularly when gas hit $4 a
gallon but interestingly not dropping much after gas prices receded.
The bike arterials in Minneapolis are seeing traffic counts 25-30%
higher than for the same periods one year ago.

The percentage of daily trips done by bike in various cities:

Copenhagen - 55% [37% in Greater Copenhagen]
Gronningen, Netherlands - 55%
Assen, Netherlands - 40%
Amsterdam, Netherlands - 40%
Münster, Germany - 40%
Utrecht, Netherlands - 33%
Ferrara, Italy - 30%
Malmö, Sweden - 30%
Linköping, Sweden - 30%
Västerås, Sweden - 30%
Odense, Denmark - 25%
Basel, Switzerland - 25%
Osaka, Japan - 25% [est.]
Bologna, Italy - 25%
Parma, Italy - 25%
Oulu, Finland - 20%
Rotterdam, Netherlands - 20-25%
Berne, Switzerland - 20%
Tübingen, Gemany - 20%
Aarhus, Denmark - 20%
Tokyo, Japan - 20% [est.]
York, UK - 18%
Munich, Germany - 15%
Davis, USA - 15%
Cambridge, UK - 15%
Berlin, Germany - 12%
Turku, Finland - 11%
Stockholm, Sweden - 10%

#2

Quote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor during
rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter.
Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate quantities. It's
an attempt to keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form
of internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There is no
significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and to do that
requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's highly
flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline, hydrogen is lighter
than air so if it gets out, it rises and dissipates quickly.

#3

James Sweet wrote:

Quote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor during
rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter.
Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate quantities.
It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining
some form of internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There is no
significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and to do that
requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's highly
flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline, hydrogen is lighter
than air so if it gets out, it rises and dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right? See this link for
educational materials for pre-schoolers about the cloud
cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on earth
without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

#4

Retiree wrote:

Quote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor
during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in
winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to
make, dangerous to transport, difficult to store in a car in
adequate quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There is
no significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and to do
that requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's highly
flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline, hydrogen is
lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?

A bit like saying that because air is involved with greenhouse warming, it's
also part of the problem.

The magnititude of the ignorance is quite astounding!

See this link for

Quote:

educational materials for pre-schoolers about the cloud
cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on earth
without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

#5

In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor
during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero
in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to
make, dangerous to transport, difficult to store in a car in
adequate quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There is
no significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and to do
that requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's highly
flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline, hydrogen is
lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and dissipates
quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that water
vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-study-th
e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Quote:

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about the
cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on earth
without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more sophisticated way
than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is bad
for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

#6

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all. And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor
during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero
in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to
make, dangerous to transport, difficult to store in a car in
adequate quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There is
no significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and to do
that requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's highly
flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline, hydrogen is
lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and dissipates
quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that water
vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-study-th
e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about the
cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on earth
without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more sophisticated
way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is bad
for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water vapour might
even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content, speaks volumes about your
grasp of the scale of the issue.

They say a little knowledge is dangerous.
I think in your case, a great deal of ignorance would be more applicable.

#7

In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's
expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to store in
a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking
inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal
combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There
is no significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and
to do that requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that water
vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-stu
dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more sophisticated
way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content, speaks
volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.

Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I said
this?

Quote:

They say a little knowledge is dangerous. I think in your case, a
great deal of ignorance would be more applicable.

Learn to read, moron, and learn to think while you are at it. I'll wait.

#8

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's
expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to store in
a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking
inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal
combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel. There
is no significant natural source of it, you have to make it, and
to do that requires more energy than you get by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that water
vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-stu
dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more sophisticated
way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content, speaks
volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.

Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I said
this?

Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an issue ?
Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not.
Please make your mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the
debate.

Quote:

They say a little knowledge is dangerous. I think in your case, a
great deal of ignorance would be more applicable.

Learn to read, moron, and learn to think while you are at it. I'll
wait.

#9

In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel-
it's expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to
store in a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to
keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of
internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to make
it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by burning
it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-s
tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.

Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?

Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an issue
? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your mind
up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.

Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits. Go back
to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually read what I
specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars this time.

#10

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel-
it's expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to
store in a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to
keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of
internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to make
it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by burning
it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-s
tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.

Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?

Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an issue
? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your mind
up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.

Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits. Go
back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually read what
I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?