RE Word Hydrogen vs Hybrid

[Bill Strobel <theamcguy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Fuel cell powered cars have a purpose, but saving
energy is not one of them.  Cleaning the atmosphere
and reducing emissions is. (although I have often
wondered if every car in America only puts out CO2 and
water vapor will this result in more cloudy/rainy
days?  It is a fact that the aspiration of an acre of
corn causes the immediate area to have more
thunderstorms.  Can the same not be inferred if every
car puts out a lot more water vapor than today then we
can expect more rainy days?  The water has to go
somewhere.)  Fuel cars cars will double our energy
usage.  If you do not believe me then read Patrick
Bedards editorial in Oct Road & Track.  He gives all
the facts and figures.  Energy usage goes up with an
all hydrogen infrastructure.  Hydrogen cars will not
reduce our dependence on Middle East oil as current
technology has us cracking oil and natural gas for the
hydrogen.  Don't even fall for the myth of making
hydrogen from water, the energy needed to do it is
more than the work received from the resultant
hydrogen.  There is a reason the IC engine was chosen
and is king.  It is the best all around alternative. 
They tried electric, they tried steam, they kept
coming back to the IC.  The only thing out there to
rival the IC is the diesel.  Here-to-fore shunned
because it was too dirty.  The Europeans have changed
that.  Diesel is the way of the future.  The idea is
to stretch the current barrel of oil further and
diesel is the answer.  Hybrids are a stop gap.  The
problem is the hybrid is most efficient around town,
yet almost no one just uses the hybrid in the most
efficient mode.  There are too many cross town
expressways, people live further from work and commute
on expressways it just defeats the purpose.  The
hybrid needs to use the electric motor to be efficient
but most people are in the all gas mode and then
complain about the mileage.  Hybrids are more
statement than actual help.  Fuel cell cars were
conceived during the debate on cleaning the air, now
because they think it will burn hydrogen it is a
solution to the middle east oil problem.  It isn't. 
The energy needed to crack, store, transport, and
deliver hyrogen to the consumer doubles our energy
output.  It may result in a cleaner tailpipe, you may
get better mileage, but overall with the energy needed
to process and deliver the energy usage goes up. 
Result more fuels burned to produce the energy needed
for the hydrogen infrastructure.  More pollution more
electric plants.  No free lunch.  The only thing I
really see is the governor of Montana said his state 
could supply all the gasoline, diesel, jet fuel etc
for the next 40 years at $32 a barrel by converting
coal into fuel.  Same process Germany used in WWII. 
This is not science fiction or needs more testing.  It
is proven and we have the coal to last 100+ years. 
Take that Middle East.  Unfortunately the process does
pollute the air and would require many new plants
costing billions of $s.  But the price tag is less
than the war on terror and it would make us energy
independent.  No one is jumping on the band wagon
because of the pollution.  There is no magic bullet
not even the fuel cell no matter how much research. 
Burning stuff creates pollution.  The absolute root
cause of all of our and the worlds problems come down
to too many people.  Pick a problem pollution,
poverty, not enough roads, not enough food, etc go to
the root and it's too many people.  Imagine the US
with our infrastructure and only 200 million people. 
Unless the worlds leaders start to realistically
discuss negative population growth there is no way
technology or construction can keep up.             


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 

http://mail.yahoo.com