For those who want to see all-electric cars, keep an eye on Tesla motors. Their start has been a little rough, but they are making huge steps and are looking at a 2 or 4 seat all electric car priced at $30,000 in the not too distant future.

Because they are in financial ruin is why they cant make them. They cant afford "10 years from now" thinking because they wont BE here in 10 years. It's a catch 22.

 

As it turns out, GM already has a development program on the road for fuel cell vehicles. Their marketing department must be awful if they got zero press and Honda is getting as much as it is.

 

http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/

http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/articles/index.jsp?id=1

Umm don't hydrogen fuel cell cars emit Water Vapor as their exhaust. I know its a naturally occurring substance, but doesn't anyone remember that Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas. Actually I believe its the most greenhouse inducing gas on this planet, meaning it traps more radiant heat than CO2. Sounds like a waste to me, all it does is not run on gasoline, it still would case and/or make global warming worse.

Umm don't hydrogen fuel cell cars emit Water Vapor as their exhaust. I know its a naturally occurring substance, but doesn't anyone remember that Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas. Actually I believe its the most greenhouse inducing gas on this planet, meaning it traps more radiant heat than CO2. Sounds like a waste to me, all it does is not run on gasoline, it still would case and/or make global warming worse.

I will wait for Balta or FlaSoxx or some other scientist to pipe in, but, I am thinking that the overall impact of a small amount of water vapor is a lot less negative than the chemical soup that currently comes out of cars.

 

Well apparently scientists have genetically engineered bugs that s*** carbon-neutral oil. Seriously.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle4133668.ece

I will wait for Balta or FlaSoxx or some other scientist to pipe in, but, I am thinking that the overall impact of a small amount of water vapor is a lot less negative than the chemical soup that currently comes out of cars.

Pumping out water vapor is a fun one, because it's effects can be quite variable. Right now we're so concerned about CO2 because CO2 is what we're pumping up at the most rapid rate, and because additional CO2 has a relatively simple effect. Water vapor though can do several things, it can be a greenhouse gas that warms up the planet, but it can also condense in to clouds that reflect energy off the tops. Overall I think the effect of pumping out water vapor is probably going to be negligible since water cycles in and out of the atmosphere so easy already on its own. You'd have to drain a reasonable part of the ocean to make a real difference in the atmosphere by dumping water vapor in.

 

Hydrogen gas, on the other hand, is another matter. It can potentially do a number of things to the atmosphere, including damaging the ozone layer by serving as a catalyst for breaking down ozone, and reacting with oxygen to produce water at levels in the atmosphere that were usually dry. See the link I put on the first page for more on that.

Pumping out water vapor is a fun one, because it's effects can be quite variable. Right now we're so concerned about CO2 because CO2 is what we're pumping up at the most rapid rate, and because additional CO2 has a relatively simple effect. Water vapor though can do several things, it can be a greenhouse gas that warms up the planet, but it can also condense in to clouds that reflect energy off the tops. Overall I think the effect of pumping out water vapor is probably going to be negligible since water cycles in and out of the atmosphere so easy already on its own. You'd have to drain a reasonable part of the ocean to make a real difference in the atmosphere by dumping water vapor in.

 

Hydrogen gas, on the other hand, is another matter. It can potentially do a number of things to the atmosphere, including damaging the ozone layer by serving as a catalyst for breaking down ozone, and reacting with oxygen to produce water at levels in the atmosphere that were usually dry. See the link I put on the first page for more on that.

 

Hydrogen gas is the fuel right. Im confused so how does hydrogen get in the atmosphere from Fuel Cell cars. I thought they emit Water Vapor, or I guess if condensed as water, as the emissions. Hydrogen gas being the fuel has its own issues. I was thinking more on how we make hydrogen gas. Mostly from Oil or Natural Gas, which does nothing for Oil dependency and skyrocketing prices. Now if Hydrogen could be made from another source; water, farm waste, corn, etc than this would be a bigger story. Though Im not sure what the other renewable sources of hydrogen gas really are.

Pumping out water vapor is a fun one, because it's effects can be quite variable. Right now we're so concerned about CO2 because CO2 is what we're pumping up at the most rapid rate, and because additional CO2 has a relatively simple effect. Water vapor though can do several things, it can be a greenhouse gas that warms up the planet, but it can also condense in to clouds that reflect energy off the tops. Overall I think the effect of pumping out water vapor is probably going to be negligible since water cycles in and out of the atmosphere so easy already on its own. You'd have to drain a reasonable part of the ocean to make a real difference in the atmosphere by dumping water vapor in.

 

Hydrogen gas, on the other hand, is another matter. It can potentially do a number of things to the atmosphere, including damaging the ozone layer by serving as a catalyst for breaking down ozone, and reacting with oxygen to produce water at levels in the atmosphere that were usually dry. See the link I put on the first page for more on that.

 

I think my original point was that if you replace every gasoline powered vehicle on this planet with hydrogen powered vehicles you don't rid yourself of global warming issues. All you did was simply replace the greenhouse casing gas emmited from vehicles. You went from CO2 to Vater Vapor, and my point was If I remember correctly from 10th grade chemistry, water vapor is the most greenhouse trapping gas on this planet.

I think my original point was that if you replace every gasoline powered vehicle on this planet with hydrogen powered vehicles you don't rid yourself of global warming issues. All you did was simply replace the greenhouse casing gas emmited from vehicles. You went from CO2 to Vater Vapor, and my point was If I remember correctly from 10th grade chemistry, water vapor is the most greenhouse trapping gas on this planet.

But, there's a big difference. The problem with CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that it is VERY difficult to remove it from the atmosphere once it gets in there. A CO2 spike like the one we've put in over the last few decades will take thousands of years to go away.

 

Water is a greenhouse gas, and it is very potent, but if you emit more water vapor, you don't expect the concentration of water vapor to go up in the atmosphere in a simple way, because there is a rapid way of removing water vapor from the atmosphere in the form of clouds and rain. Same deal as if you simply change the evaporation rates in certain areas by clear-cutting the trees or paving over them, you may change the amount of water going up in to the atmosphere, but you're not really driving global warming because the water vapor will simply precipitate out somewhere. So, if we could cut off all CO2 emissions right now and turn all of our emissions in to hydrogen, you'd effectively shut off the force that was driving climate change. This is why we believe the CO2 spike is so important...water vapor may be a more potent greenhouse gas in terms of its ability to absorb sunlight, but because it is able to move to a rapid equilibrium with other forcings, it seems to bow before CO2 in terms of where the temperature equilibrium lies.

Hydrogen gas is the fuel right. Im confused so how does hydrogen get in the atmosphere from Fuel Cell cars. I thought they emit Water Vapor, or I guess if condensed as water, as the emissions. Hydrogen gas being the fuel has its own issues. I was thinking more on how we make hydrogen gas. Mostly from Oil or Natural Gas, which does nothing for Oil dependency and skyrocketing prices. Now if Hydrogen could be made from another source; water, farm waste, corn, etc than this would be a bigger story. Though Im not sure what the other renewable sources of hydrogen gas really are.

Hydrogen getting in to the atmosphere is a concern because hydrogen is ridiculously hard to contain with 100% effectiveness. Pressurized tanks leak. Cars get in accidents and pressurized tanks rupture and release their fuel to the atmosphere. Hydrogen is moved around in some sort of pipeline system but some small amount of hydrogen is able to diffuse out of those either through simple molecular diffusion or by moving through cracks. We're not that good at all at keeping oil spills from happening, and containing hydrogen is vastly more difficult because of its chemical properties and the fact that it wants to be a gas at STP.

Hydrogen getting in to the atmosphere is a concern because hydrogen is ridiculously hard to contain with 100% effectiveness. Pressurized tanks leak. Cars get in accidents and pressurized tanks rupture and release their fuel to the atmosphere. Hydrogen is moved around in some sort of pipeline system but some small amount of hydrogen is able to diffuse out of those either through simple molecular diffusion or by moving through cracks. We're not that good at all at keeping oil spills from happening, and containing hydrogen is vastly more difficult because of its chemical properties and the fact that it wants to be a gas at STP.

 

Thanks for the clarity.

 

I should make it clear that I am not against the president saying we should invest heavily in many options to se what works best. That is obviously important to do. The problem is there is little to no leadership on this.

 

After thinking about this for a couple of days let me put this into perspective that will resonate with you. Do you want republicians making energy policy, and therefore transportation policy indirectly? Somehow I doubt it. Each administration is subject to its own beliefs, feelings, and donors on each issue. In my point of view the less things we have our government deciding on, with those changing whims in mind, the better. Between the lines what you are saying is that you believe it is OK for the government to exert a heavy fist on transportation policy as long as it is what I agree with. If Barack Obama did a 180 and said "Let's drill everything we can for oil!!!", your tune would change on that "heavy fist". I really doubt you agreed with the last eight years of transportation policy. In general the less involved government is, the better. The private sector makes these decesions way more clearly, quickly, consitantly, and accurately.

After thinking about this for a couple of days let me put this into perspective that will resonate with you. Do you want republicians making energy policy, and therefore transportation policy indirectly? Somehow I doubt it. Each administration is subject to its own beliefs, feelings, and donors on each issue. In my point of view the less things we have our government deciding on, with those changing whims in mind, the better. Between the lines what you are saying is that you believe it is OK for the government to exert a heavy fist on transportation policy as long as it is what I agree with. If Barack Obama did a 180 and said "Let's drill everything we can for oil!!!", your tune would change on that "heavy fist". I really doubt you agreed with the last eight years of transportation policy. In general the less involved government is, the better. The private sector makes these decesions way more clearly, quickly, consitantly, and accurately.

 

While I agree there are few things we want the Gov't to rule with an iron fist on this is a unique situation. Sure we are a highly capitalistic society meaning economics drive most of what we do, produce, say, etc. However, now we are talking about inelastic products; food, gas, water, etc and now we are talking about allowing economics to kill our planet and destroy lives and land both here and abroad (via global warming). If the Gov't were to sit idle and say well we will let the energy industry adjust its own market if oil runs out and/or global warming starts affecting everyone that would be a mistake. The livelyhood of our own country and entire world is at stake now and for future generations. This would be too conservative of a view to just let energy markets "adjust" to their own follies in the way most capitalistic ones do. The real goal here is to use economics, Gov 't incentives, research and development funding to discover and implement alternative, home grown, and clean sources of energy in this country. We are not the only ones, this responsibilities falls heavy on us due to our energy demands and lifestyle, but other populations as well. I dont care what political party you belong to, I want clean, renewable, abundant, home-grown, and affordable energy for myself and everyone in this country. I want everyone to take responsibility and everyone to be involved; Gov't, Private Industry, Universities, etc. Like I said before, this is a survive or die issue.

Edited June 19, 200817 yr by joeynach

I don't want any President telling us what car to buy/build. The market needs to decide that, not the government.

 

Shut up and eat your vegatables!

 

 

 

 

Shut up and eat your vegatables!

 

 

 

 

 

How about these yummy, totally safe, tomatoes.

How about these yummy, totally safe, tomatoes.

Tomato is a fruit