Discussion:
Where Are All the Hydrogen Cell Cars We Were Promised?
(too old to reply)
jonathon arquette
2009-01-24 09:48:45 UTC
Permalink
With gasoline prices well over three dollars per gallon and oil prices
well over $74 per barrel; where are all the hydrogen cell cars we were
promised. There is even a waiting list to buy a hybrid vehicle from
either Toyota or Honda, so one has to settle for a Honda Accord or a
Toyota Camry, which are fine vehicles and certainly giving General
Motors and for the run for their money and teaching them a valuable
lesson; that we all want cars to get better gas mileage.
However, don't we really all want hydrogen cell cars that don't
pollute rather than paying over four dollars per gallon sometime this
summer during hurricane season or a preemptive strike on Iran to stop
them for building nuclear weapons to give to the terrorist
organizations that the sponsor.
Well, it just so happens that hydrogen cell vehicles are all their way
but it is to be about a decade or more until you can get one. But the
technology is now in the pipeline thanks to President Bush, who has
announced; "A $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop
technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells."...

http://groups.google.com/group/waterforfueld
D***@ndersnat.ch
2009-01-24 14:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathon arquette
With gasoline prices well over three dollars per gallon and oil prices
well over $74 per barrel; where are all the hydrogen cell cars we were
promised.
<SNIP>

Assuming that the car companies suddenly start making hydrogen-
powered cars, where do we get the hydrogen? The main source of the
stuff is electrolyzed water. Fine, water's plentiful enough -- but
where do we get the energy to do the electolysis? Only way to do that
is to greatly increase our supply of electricity, through wind, solar,
or coal-burning.


Bill

__o |
_`\(,_ | Burn fat, not oil.
(_)/ (_) |
h***@juno.com
2009-01-25 00:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@ndersnat.ch
Post by jonathon arquette
With gasoline prices well over three dollars per gallon and oil prices
well over $74 per barrel; where are all the hydrogen cell cars we were
promised.
<SNIP>
Assuming that the car companies suddenly start making hydrogen-
powered cars, where do we get the hydrogen? The main source of the
stuff is electrolyzed water. Fine, water's plentiful enough -- but
where do we get the energy to do the electolysis? Only way to do that
is to greatly increase our supply of electricity, through wind, solar,
or coal-burning.
Or nuclear. The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.

Of course another problem with hydrogen cars is fuel tank capacity.
Though the stuff is a wonderful fuel, it is not very dense. You have
to store it under pressure, or cool it to the point of liquification
(only about 20 degrees C above absolute zero). Neither is at present
very feasible for a car likely to have to travel long distances
without refueling.
Wolf Leverich
2009-01-25 21:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@juno.com
Or nuclear. The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.

Being serious, nuclear has the theoretical potential for
being very clean. But that depends on no human errors and
no out-of-tolerance natural events over a time span reaching
into millenia.

Believing that will occur is, er, prolly like believing in
the tooth fairy.

Love, Wolf.
h***@juno.com
2009-01-26 01:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf Leverich
Or nuclear.  The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
Chernobyl was a result of *many* problems, from poor design to
operators who acted not just stupidly but unbelievably stupidly.
Modern reactors won't have that problem with even a modicum of care.

As for TMI, the radiation released was negligible. Sitting in a
granite building exposes you to more ionizing radiation than you would
have received being adjacent to TMI. It got a lot of publicity but in
terms of radiation release it was a non-event.

As for Hanford, that hardly figures into the nuclear power discussion
since it was primarily a weapons facility.
Wolf Leverich
2009-01-26 05:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
Or nuclear.  The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
Chernobyl was a result of *many* problems, from poor design to
operators who acted not just stupidly but unbelievably stupidly.
Modern reactors won't have that problem with even a modicum of care.
It is, in fact, the "modicum of care" thing that worries me.

I spent a chunk of my life as an engineer working on offshore
platforms. I remember us losing one platform when a crew working
on an open well with a wireline tool went off to lunch leaving
the hole open and unwatched.

The fire was quite spectacular.

We lost another platform when some genius managed to install a
blowout preventer stack (30' of pipe and valves) upside down.

Another spectacular fire. ;)

I could give you nightmares for a decade describing an almost
endless list of Darwin-Award events we've experienced.

Now it's possible to run industrial facilities better than
offshore platforms have been run, but there's ultimately no
cure for the fact that half the human race is sub-median in
intelligence and about 99.9% of us get lazy or sloppy on one
occasion or another.

And in some ways, engineering ultrasafe facilities actually
increases your risk because they breed staff complacency.
People working around the kelly on a drilling rig tend to
pay a lot of attention, because a single moment of daydreaming
can mean a crushed hand. But operators in modern refinery
control rooms are notorious for ignoring their instruments
and even sleeping on the job, because the modern surroundings
lull them into a false sense of safety.

There are some theoretical reactor designs that are close
to inherently safe, in that almost any conceivable screw-up
leads to a controlled shutdown of the reactor. But most
of the actual designs that people are currently talking
about constructing are still vulnerable to a sufficiently
ingenious idiot. That sort of facility prolly shouldn't
be built, because the world has a truly mind-boggling
population of ingenious idiots ...

Love, Wolf.
h***@juno.com
2009-01-26 16:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
Or nuclear. �The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
Chernobyl was a result of *many* problems, from poor design to
operators who acted not just stupidly but unbelievably stupidly.
Modern reactors won't have that problem with even a modicum of care.
It is, in fact, the "modicum of care" thing that worries me.
I spent a chunk of my life as an engineer working on offshore
platforms. I remember us losing one platform when a crew working
on an open well with a wireline tool went off to lunch leaving
the hole open and unwatched.
The fire was quite spectacular.
We lost another platform when some genius managed to install a
blowout preventer stack (30' of pipe and valves) upside down.
Another spectacular fire. ;)
I could give you nightmares for a decade describing an almost
endless list of Darwin-Award events we've experienced.
Now it's possible to run industrial facilities better than
offshore platforms have been run, but there's ultimately no
cure for the fact that half the human race is sub-median in
intelligence
Well duh! That's the very definition of the median making your
statement totally meaningless. If you had Einstein, Popper, von
Neuman, Feynmann and a few others like them in a room, half would be
sub-median in intelligence for that room. True but rather useless
information.
Post by Wolf Leverich
and about 99.9% of us get lazy or sloppy on one
occasion or another.
Again true but most of us manage to reserve such sloppy or lazy times
for when it is less dangerous and to be alert when it counts. Those
who don't tend to live short lives.
Post by Wolf Leverich
And in some ways, engineering ultrasafe facilities actually
increases your risk because they breed staff complacency.
People working around the kelly on a drilling rig tend to
pay a lot of attention, because a single moment of daydreaming
can mean a crushed hand. But operators in modern refinery
control rooms are notorious for ignoring their instruments
and even sleeping on the job, because the modern surroundings
lull them into a false sense of safety.
Again true but hardly significant if the reactor is so designed that
it won't do a Chernobyl.
Post by Wolf Leverich
There are some theoretical reactor designs that are close
to inherently safe, in that almost any conceivable screw-up
leads to a controlled shutdown of the reactor. But most
of the actual designs that people are currently talking
about constructing are still vulnerable to a sufficiently
ingenious idiot. That sort of facility prolly shouldn't
be built, because the world has a truly mind-boggling
population of ingenious idiots ...
Those ingenious idiots can cause problems of the TMI scale but in
modern nuclear plants they aren't going to cause a Chernobyl. Look at
the safety record in France for example.

Chernobyl was the result of a combination of abominable design and
operator actions beyond stupidity. It was not simple carelessness.
To reject nuclear power because of that accident is similar to a
person who refuses to have an injury X-rayed because of the problems
in the early days of use of X-rays in medicine. Those problems have
been overcome.

Personally I think the words "nuclear" and "radiation" are what I call
witch words. In old time Salem the very accusation that a woman was a
witch was enough to bring rational discussion to a halt and consider
her guilty. Similarly, many people lose their rationality when they
hear nuclear or radiation, they don't think clearly about the issue.
That of course is in spite of the fact that we depend on radiation
from a nuclear reactor to heat the whole earth.

Is nuclear totally risk free? Of course not, life is a risk. However
the risk from a well-designed nuclear plant is minimal, almost
certainly less than the risks from continued burning of fossil fuels.
Wolf Leverich
2009-01-27 04:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
Or nuclear. ?The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
Chernobyl was a result of *many* problems, from poor design to
operators who acted not just stupidly but unbelievably stupidly.
Modern reactors won't have that problem with even a modicum of care.
It is, in fact, the "modicum of care" thing that worries me.
<snip of my oil industry horror stories>
Now it's possible to run industrial facilities better than
offshore platforms have been run, but there's ultimately no
cure for the fact that half the human race is sub-median in
intelligence
Well duh! That's the very definition of the median making your
statement totally meaningless. If you had Einstein, Popper, von
Neuman, Feynmann and a few others like them in a room, half would be
sub-median in intelligence for that room. True but rather useless
information.
Post by Wolf Leverich
and about 99.9% of us get lazy or sloppy on one
occasion or another.
Again true but most of us manage to reserve such sloppy or lazy times
for when it is less dangerous and to be alert when it counts. Those
who don't tend to live short lives.
OK, people who don't have experience with industrial operations
forever make the assumption that people controlling extremely
dangerous but ordinarily stable industrial processes actually
pay more attention to what they're doing than kids flipping
burgers at McDonalds.

They don't. Prolly much less, in fact.

It's almost impossible to force them to pay attention, because
in normal operation the facilities are stultifyingly boring.

And the safer you make a facility, the harder it is to get the
staff to pay attention.

NASA has partially solved this problem in their operations, but
the various costs of achieving that level of attention to reliable
systems is mind-boggling and not something a random commercial
generating facility is ever going to be muster.

###
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
And in some ways, engineering ultrasafe facilities actually
increases your risk because they breed staff complacency.
People working around the kelly on a drilling rig tend to
pay a lot of attention, because a single moment of daydreaming
can mean a crushed hand. But operators in modern refinery
control rooms are notorious for ignoring their instruments
and even sleeping on the job, because the modern surroundings
lull them into a false sense of safety.
Again true but hardly significant if the reactor is so designed that
it won't do a Chernobyl.
Chernobyl isn't the only gross failure mode of a reactor, and
also you can have quite terrible nuclear accidents without the
involvement of a reactor at all.

If you wanna have bad dreams, think about what happens to a
swimming pool if there's a bad enough earthquake that you
can't get the grid going or fuel trucks in (for the backup
generators) before the onsite backup fuel is exhausted
and the circulating pumps shut down.

You don't want to be downwind on the day afterward ... ;)

###
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
There are some theoretical reactor designs that are close
to inherently safe, in that almost any conceivable screw-up
leads to a controlled shutdown of the reactor. But most
of the actual designs that people are currently talking
about constructing are still vulnerable to a sufficiently
ingenious idiot. That sort of facility prolly shouldn't
be built, because the world has a truly mind-boggling
population of ingenious idiots ...
Those ingenious idiots can cause problems of the TMI scale but in
modern nuclear plants they aren't going to cause a Chernobyl. Look at
the safety record in France for example.
Chernobyl was the result of a combination of abominable design and
operator actions beyond stupidity. It was not simple carelessness.
To reject nuclear power because of that accident is similar to a
person who refuses to have an injury X-rayed because of the problems
in the early days of use of X-rays in medicine. Those problems have
been overcome.
Nope, it's not that one accident. It's that accident, other
accidents, near misses, nuclear messes of the past, and possible
failure modes that we haven't experienced yet that are worrisome.

###
Post by h***@juno.com
Personally I think the words "nuclear" and "radiation" are what I call
witch words. In old time Salem the very accusation that a woman was a
witch was enough to bring rational discussion to a halt and consider
her guilty. Similarly, many people lose their rationality when they
hear nuclear or radiation, they don't think clearly about the issue.
That of course is in spite of the fact that we depend on radiation
from a nuclear reactor to heat the whole earth.
Is nuclear totally risk free? Of course not, life is a risk. However
the risk from a well-designed nuclear plant is minimal, almost
certainly less than the risks from continued burning of fossil fuels.
Yup "witch words" doubly so because they cause some people to
switch off their brains and say incredibly stupid things that
fly in the face of our whole entire human experience.

Murphy was an optimist. Pretty much all of our history is an
elaboration on that theme. Anyone who isn't at least seriously
worried about industrial facilities with seriously negative
failure modes just is a fool.

I'm not unilaterally opposed to nuclear power. But it's pretty
clearly a bad idea unless:

(1) All cost-effective energy conservation opportunities
have been exploited.

(2) Inherently-safe fail cold designs are used.

(2a) Prolly need a national grid and, to the extent
possible, reactors should be in nuclear parks as
remote from habitation as possible. ((4) below
would prolly force that ... ;) )

(3) We have an actual good-for-a-very,-very-long-time
method for disposing of spent fuel AND that cost
is built into the cost of reactor-generated
electricity.

(4) Reactors can be insured on the free market (no
government assumption of risk).

(5) Nuclear power comes out cost-effective versus
wind, solar, and such when fully burdened with
(2), (3), and (4). (And, of course, those
generating technologies are fully burdened with
their costs -- no subsidies either way.)

Love, Wolf.
h***@juno.com
2009-01-27 18:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
and about 99.9% of us get lazy or sloppy on one
occasion or another.
Again true but most of us manage to reserve such sloppy or lazy times
for when it is less dangerous and to be alert when it counts. Those
who don't tend to live short lives.
OK, people who don't have experience with industrial operations
forever make the assumption that people controlling extremely
dangerous but ordinarily stable industrial processes actually
pay more attention to what they're doing than kids flipping
burgers at McDonalds.
They don't. Prolly much less, in fact.
But still, inattention is not going to creat a Chernobyl type event.
TMI maybe but not Chernybl.
Post by Wolf Leverich
It's almost impossible to force them to pay attention, because
in normal operation the facilities are stultifyingly boring.
And the safer you make a facility, the harder it is to get the
staff to pay attention.
And the less likely that inattention will create a problem.

...
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Post by Wolf Leverich
And in some ways, engineering ultrasafe facilities actually
increases your risk because they breed staff complacency.
People working around the kelly on a drilling rig tend to
pay a lot of attention, because a single moment of daydreaming
can mean a crushed hand. But operators in modern refinery
control rooms are notorious for ignoring their instruments
and even sleeping on the job, because the modern surroundings
lull them into a false sense of safety.
Again true but hardly significant if the reactor is so designed that
it won't do a Chernobyl.
Chernobyl isn't the only gross failure mode of a reactor, and
also you can have quite terrible nuclear accidents without the
involvement of a reactor at all.
But with well-designed modern reactors you ain't gonna have a major
radiation release.
Post by Wolf Leverich
If you wanna have bad dreams, think about what happens to a
swimming pool if there's a bad enough earthquake that you
can't get the grid going or fuel trucks in (for the backup
generators) before the onsite backup fuel is exhausted
and the circulating pumps shut down.
You don't want to be downwind on the day afterward ... ;)
Modern reactors are water-moderated. Once the water is gone they
cannot maintain a nuclear chain reaction. There is residual heat (a
lot of it) but the reaction stops. The design trick is to contain
things should such happen.


...
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Chernobyl was the result of a combination of abominable design and
operator actions beyond stupidity. It was not simple carelessness.
To reject nuclear power because of that accident is similar to a
person who refuses to have an injury X-rayed because of the problems
in the early days of use of X-rays in medicine. Those problems have
been overcome.
Nope, it's not that one accident. It's that accident, other
accidents, near misses, nuclear messes of the past, and possible
failure modes that we haven't experienced yet that are worrisome.
And from which we've learned a great deal. Again, rejecting nuclear
because of initial problems is no more sensible than refusing an X-ray
if you break a bone because initial X-rays were so dangerous.

...
Post by Wolf Leverich
Murphy was an optimist. Pretty much all of our history is an
elaboration on that theme. Anyone who isn't at least seriously
worried about industrial facilities with seriously negative
failure modes just is a fool.
Everybody thinks of Murphy's law as a joke. It's not, it's a warning
to be careful. We should of course heed the warning but that doesn't
mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Post by Wolf Leverich
I'm not unilaterally opposed to nuclear power. But it's pretty
(1) All cost-effective energy conservation opportunities
have been exploited.
Should be done in any case, but it ain't gonna' get us to the energy
supply state we need.
Post by Wolf Leverich
(2) Inherently-safe fail cold designs are used.
Fine, we're close already. Though I would modify it to say that
probability of major radiation releases should be essendially zero.
Perfection is not available to humans but we can limit our
imperfection to less serious problems.
Post by Wolf Leverich
(2a) Prolly need a national grid
Disagree. That won't make reactors safer (though it will create other
problems by propagating electric outages widely).
Post by Wolf Leverich
and, to the extent
possible, reactors should be in nuclear parks as
remote from habitation as possible. ((4) below
would prolly force that ... ;) )
Causes other problems in that it becomes difficult to recruit people
to work ther.
Post by Wolf Leverich
(3) We have an actual good-for-a-very,-very-long-time
method for disposing of spent fuel AND that cost
is built into the cost of reactor-generated
electricity.
We got it, 'cept the anti-nuke folks go balistic whenever someone
proposes using it. The Jicarilla Apaches have a wonderful side in
salt caves but the anti folks got all up in arms about it. Of course
they didn't bring in nuclear experts to oppose it, they brought in
movie stars.
Post by Wolf Leverich
(4) Reactors can be insured on the free market (no
government assumption of risk).
Fine if at the same time licensing and regulation become less onerous,
to the point of realism.
Post by Wolf Leverich
(5) Nuclear power comes out cost-effective versus
wind, solar, and such when fully burdened with
(2), (3), and (4). (And, of course, those
generating technologies are fully burdened with
their costs -- no subsidies either way.)
Again fine, though I disagree with the calim that other generating
technologies are fully burdened. Wind and solar in particular get
subsidies.
Puppet_Sock
2009-01-31 10:25:27 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 26, 11:10 pm, "Wolf Leverich" <***@linkpendium.com> wrote:
[snip]
  (1) All cost-effective energy conservation opportunities
      have been exploited.
Pretty silly and not relevant. You shan't be allowed to have a
lawn mower until you have satisfied this.
  (2) Inherently-safe fail cold designs are used.
If you want to talk safety, then you need to set levels. Safety
is not an absolute. It is a relative thing.

Risk is probability times harm.

The risk from nuclear reactors is already far less than the
risk from eating two BBQ'd burgers a year, or drinking
three bottles of beer.

If you want to know what is dangerous, consider hydro dams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
  (2a) Prolly need a national grid and, to the extent
      possible, reactors should be in nuclear parks as
      remote from habitation as possible.  ((4) below
      would prolly force that ...  ;) )
Ok, pick one per point.

There *is* a grid. It makes not a whit of difference to
the safety of the reactors. One of the accident scenarios
I analyse is the grid going dark. It means the plant has
to shut down in good order. (Or go on bypass so it can
come back on line faster when the grid rerturns.)

Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
  (3) We have an actual good-for-a-very,-very-long-time
      method for disposing of spent fuel AND that cost
      is built into the cost of reactor-generated
      electricity.
Already standard operating procedure in Canada.
The fund has some billions in it, I have not looked
recently. But it comes from a surcharge on every
kWhr generated.

The method has been well known since the 1970s.
The demonstration is the Oklo reactor.
  (4) Reactors can be insured on the free market (no
      government assumption of risk).
Already have done, thank you so very much. The reactor
run by New Brunswick Power is privately insured.

Many large utilities find it cheaper to self insure.
  (5) Nuclear power comes out cost-effective versus
      wind, solar, and such when fully burdened with
      (2), (3), and (4).  (And, of course, those
      generating technologies are fully burdened with
      their costs -- no subsidies either way.)
Wind is 2 to 3 times the cost of nuclear.
Solar is round about 3 times as expensive again.

The exact values depend on the costs of the various
components. Wind plants require maintenance and
lubrication, these activities using up vehicle fuel.
When gas prices are high, wind costs more.

The cost tof Uranium for nuclear is between 1 percent
and 10 percent of the cost.

When all the factors are included, wind produces about
twice as much CO2 per kWhr as nuclear.
Socks
Dr. Brian Leverich
2009-01-31 17:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puppet_Sock
[snip]
  (1) All cost-effective energy conservation opportunities
      have been exploited.
Pretty silly and not relevant. You shan't be allowed to have a
lawn mower until you have satisfied this.
Absolutely relevant.

Right now we (Americans) produce economically inefficient
homes, offices and vehicles for a very simple reason.

The first buyer of a house doesn't generally expect to live
there more than a few years. Same, in general, for offices
and vehicles. This results in the first purchaser rationally
choosing to lower the initial cost of those assets at the
expense of significantly increasing the whole-life energy
costs for operating the asset.

Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.

From articles I've seen published in IEEE rags and elsewhere,
we could prolly drop our national energy consumption by around
a third if we just did the long-term sensible thing. And fixing
this bit of market failure would actually enhance our economy.

###
Post by Puppet_Sock
  (2) Inherently-safe fail cold designs are used.
If you want to talk safety, then you need to set levels. Safety
is not an absolute. It is a relative thing.
Risk is probability times harm.
The risk from nuclear reactors is already far less than the
risk from eating two BBQ'd burgers a year, or drinking
three bottles of beer.
Yeah, I kinda understand what risk is. Two of my degrees
are out of the Decision and Control program at Harvard, and
a third one is outa Stanford's Operations Research
department. I don't know who you are -- "Puppet_Sock" isn't
very illuminating -- but if you don't have a Nobel laureate,
then I've prolly forgotten more about risk than you've learned
yet. ;)

The burgers and beer thing is silly.

###
Post by Puppet_Sock
Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
Current exclusion zones are great. They will, at least,
keep large population centers safe from (most) chunks of
flying concrete.

###
Post by Puppet_Sock
  (3) We have an actual good-for-a-very,-very-long-time
      method for disposing of spent fuel AND that cost
      is built into the cost of reactor-generated
      electricity.
Already standard operating procedure in Canada.
The fund has some billions in it, I have not looked
recently. But it comes from a surcharge on every
kWhr generated.
The method has been well known since the 1970s.
The demonstration is the Oklo reactor.
OK, fine, figure out a politically feasible solution and
cost it out. America does not currently have a workable
long-term storage strategy. Yucca Mountain was a fail,
both from an engineering and a political perspective.

You and I both know that, assuming civilization as we
know it is still around in 250 or so years, there are
safe ways to dispose of expended nuclear fuel. The
problem (assuming you take the persistence of civilization
as a given) is whether we can afford to do the right
thing, whether it's moral to force our descendants 12
generations removed to deal with our messes, and
whether we can find the political will to do the right
thing.

###
Post by Puppet_Sock
  (4) Reactors can be insured on the free market (no
      government assumption of risk).
Already have done, thank you so very much. The reactor
run by New Brunswick Power is privately insured.
Many large utilities find it cheaper to self insure.
NO. NO. NO.

Self-insurance absolutely should never be allowed, because
that inherently caps the liability that's being insured.

Also, in an environment characterized by low-probability
high-loss events, any rational manager is going to choose
to roll the dice because things will probably work out for
them personally.

Nukes should never be allowed to operate unless they can be
insured by a regulated non-sham third-party insuror effectively
without limit to liability.

The government should *not* be that third-party insuror, or
you have yet another government subsidy of the industry. Also,
you eviscerate the motivation of the insuror to make sure that
the plants are actually operated safely.

If the industry can't convince a non-sham third party with
adequate assets to provide coverage, they shouldn't exist.

###
Post by Puppet_Sock
  (5) Nuclear power comes out cost-effective versus
      wind, solar, and such when fully burdened with
      (2), (3), and (4).  (And, of course, those
      generating technologies are fully burdened with
      their costs -- no subsidies either way.)
Wind is 2 to 3 times the cost of nuclear.
Solar is round about 3 times as expensive again.
That's obviously specious, at least for America, simply because
nobody knows how much nuclear costs. There are a whole set of
costs (insurance, waste disposal, site decommissioning, ... )
that have never been built into nuclear's cost structure.

Moreover, renewable costs have been falling rapidly. PV
solar is doing essentially a Moore's Law on us at the moment.
Any comparison of costs today will be wildly inappropriate
for the actual costs that would be incurred during the operating
lives of facilities being contemplated today.

Love, B.
h***@juno.com
2009-01-31 18:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Right now we (Americans) produce economically inefficient
homes, offices and vehicles for a very simple reason.
The first buyer of a house doesn't generally expect to live
there more than a few years. Same, in general, for offices
and vehicles. This results in the first purchaser rationally
choosing to lower the initial cost of those assets at the
expense of significantly increasing the whole-life energy
costs for operating the asset.
You're behind the times. The market is now rewarding energy
efficiency. Cars that get good mileage sell at a premium and if a
realtor can put an energy-efficient label on a home he attracts more
buyers.

Changes in the economic situation will do that.
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.
From articles I've seen published in IEEE rags and elsewhere,
we could prolly drop our national energy consumption by around
a third if we just did the long-term sensible thing. And fixing
this bit of market failure would actually enhance our economy.
Well, yes but there are other energy costs in doing that. It takes
resources (including energy) to replace a car with a newer, more
efficient model and dispose of the old one. Some buildings can have
insullation upgrades done relatively easily, others would require
major (read expensive, energy-consuming) work to get there.

It ain't like we are rebuilding everything from scratch to the new
designs and requirements.

...
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Post by Puppet_Sock
Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
Current exclusion zones are great. They will, at least,
keep large population centers safe from (most) chunks of
flying concrete.
Flying concrete? What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
Siskuwihane
2009-01-31 21:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Right now we (Americans) produce economically inefficient
homes, offices and vehicles for a very simple reason.
The first buyer of a house doesn't generally expect to live
there more than a few years.  Same, in general, for offices
and vehicles.  This results in the first purchaser rationally
choosing to lower the initial cost of those assets at the
expense of significantly increasing the whole-life energy
costs for operating the asset.
You're behind the times.  The market is now rewarding energy
efficiency.  Cars that get good mileage sell at a premium and if a
realtor can put an energy-efficient label on a home he attracts more
buyers.
Changes in the economic situation will do that.
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.
From articles I've seen published in IEEE rags and elsewhere,
we could prolly drop our national energy consumption by around
a third if we just did the long-term sensible thing.  And fixing
this bit of market failure would actually enhance our economy.
Well, yes but there are other energy costs in doing that.  It takes
resources (including energy) to replace a car with a newer, more
efficient model and dispose of the old one.  Some buildings can have
insullation upgrades done relatively easily, others would require
major (read expensive, energy-consuming) work to get there.
It ain't like we are rebuilding everything from scratch to the new
designs and requirements.
...
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Post by Puppet_Sock
Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
Current exclusion zones are great.  They will, at least,
keep large population centers safe from (most) chunks of
flying concrete.
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
The exact type that happened in 1985 in Japan.

http://tinyurl.com/cqcy2f
h***@juno.com
2009-01-31 23:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siskuwihane
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Right now we (Americans) produce economically inefficient
homes, offices and vehicles for a very simple reason.
The first buyer of a house doesn't generally expect to live
there more than a few years.  Same, in general, for offices
and vehicles.  This results in the first purchaser rationally
choosing to lower the initial cost of those assets at the
expense of significantly increasing the whole-life energy
costs for operating the asset.
You're behind the times.  The market is now rewarding energy
efficiency.  Cars that get good mileage sell at a premium and if a
realtor can put an energy-efficient label on a home he attracts more
buyers.
Changes in the economic situation will do that.
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.
From articles I've seen published in IEEE rags and elsewhere,
we could prolly drop our national energy consumption by around
a third if we just did the long-term sensible thing.  And fixing
this bit of market failure would actually enhance our economy.
Well, yes but there are other energy costs in doing that.  It takes
resources (including energy) to replace a car with a newer, more
efficient model and dispose of the old one.  Some buildings can have
insullation upgrades done relatively easily, others would require
major (read expensive, energy-consuming) work to get there.
It ain't like we are rebuilding everything from scratch to the new
designs and requirements.
...
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Post by Puppet_Sock
Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
Current exclusion zones are great.  They will, at least,
keep large population centers safe from (most) chunks of
flying concrete.
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
The exact type that happened in 1985 in Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/cqcy2f
You're joking, right? A link to description of a fictional movie.
Siskuwihane
2009-01-31 23:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siskuwihane
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Right now we (Americans) produce economically inefficient
homes, offices and vehicles for a very simple reason.
The first buyer of a house doesn't generally expect to live
there more than a few years.  Same, in general, for offices
and vehicles.  This results in the first purchaser rationally
choosing to lower the initial cost of those assets at the
expense of significantly increasing the whole-life energy
costs for operating the asset.
You're behind the times.  The market is now rewarding energy
efficiency.  Cars that get good mileage sell at a premium and if a
realtor can put an energy-efficient label on a home he attracts more
buyers.
Changes in the economic situation will do that.
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.
From articles I've seen published in IEEE rags and elsewhere,
we could prolly drop our national energy consumption by around
a third if we just did the long-term sensible thing.  And fixing
this bit of market failure would actually enhance our economy.
Well, yes but there are other energy costs in doing that.  It takes
resources (including energy) to replace a car with a newer, more
efficient model and dispose of the old one.  Some buildings can have
insullation upgrades done relatively easily, others would require
major (read expensive, energy-consuming) work to get there.
It ain't like we are rebuilding everything from scratch to the new
designs and requirements.
...
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Post by Puppet_Sock
Nukes in remote locations is pretty silly. An exclusion
zone is already mandatory around them.
Current exclusion zones are great.  They will, at least,
keep large population centers safe from (most) chunks of
flying concrete.
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
The exact type that happened in 1985 in Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/cqcy2f
You're joking, right?   A link to description of a fictional movie.- Hide quoted text -
I'll bet you you fold your dirty clothes before putting them in the
hamper.
h***@juno.com
2009-02-01 00:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siskuwihane
The exact type that happened in 1985 in Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/cqcy2f
You're joking, right?   A link to description of a fictional movie.- Hide quoted text -
 I'll bet you you fold your dirty clothes before putting them in the
hamper.
You're on! How much are you willing to bet? I'll bet you say
$100,000 and even give you 2:1 odds. You put up $50,000 and get twice
that if I fold the dirty laundry. Otherwise you owe me $50,000.

You said you would bet, now put your money where your mouth is.
Siskuwihane
2009-02-01 22:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siskuwihane
The exact type that happened in 1985 in Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/cqcy2f
You're joking, right?   A link to description of a fictional movie.- Hide quoted text -
 I'll bet you you fold your dirty clothes before putting them in the
hamper.
You're on!  How much are you willing to bet?  I'll bet you say
$100,000 and even give you 2:1 odds.  You put up $50,000 and get twice
that if I fold the dirty laundry.  Otherwise you owe me $50,000.
You said you would bet, now put your money where your mouth is.
This has to be Mike Vandeman, no one else is this humor challenged.
unknown
2009-01-31 22:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@juno.com
Flying concrete? What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
We're not talking accident. We're talking on purpose, as in
terrorist attack, like flying a 747 into one, or filling the
dome with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and setting it off,.

Doug McDonald
h***@juno.com
2009-01-31 23:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
We're not talking accident. We're talking on purpose, as in
terrorist attack, like flying a 747 into one, or filling the
dome with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and setting it off,.
I doubt a 747 would scatter concrete very far. Surely no farther than
the WTC on 9-11, after all the dome is much more solidly constructed.

As for terrorists filling the dome with H2 & O2, there are easier ways
for them to make big bangs.
Puppet_Sock
2009-02-01 01:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
We're not talking accident. We're talking on purpose, as in
terrorist attack, like flying a 747 into one, or filling the
dome with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and setting it off,.
I doubt a 747 would scatter concrete very far.  Surely no farther than
the WTC on 9-11, after all the dome is much more solidly constructed.
As for terrorists filling the dome with H2 & O2, there are easier ways
for them to make big bangs.
The vault on CANDUs is designed to survive intact the direct
impact of a fully loaded 747.

The vault on CANDUs is designed to survive intact the explosion
of the maximally explosive mixture of H2 and O2.

The vault is 10 feet thick specially reinforced concrete, with 2
inches
of armor plate on the inside and 2 inches more on the outside.
Socks
Dr. Brian Leverich
2009-02-01 02:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puppet_Sock
Post by unknown
Flying concrete?  What kind of nuclear power plant accident is going
to throw concrete around?
We're not talking accident. We're talking on purpose, as in
terrorist attack, like flying a 747 into one, or filling the
dome with a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and setting it off,.
I doubt a 747 would scatter concrete very far.  Surely no farther than
the WTC on 9-11, after all the dome is much more solidly constructed.
As for terrorists filling the dome with H2 & O2, there are easier ways
for them to make big bangs.
The vault on CANDUs is designed to survive intact the direct
impact of a fully loaded 747.
The vault on CANDUs is designed to survive intact the explosion
of the maximally explosive mixture of H2 and O2.
The vault is 10 feet thick specially reinforced concrete, with 2
inches
of armor plate on the inside and 2 inches more on the outside.
Socks
Actually, my remark about flying concrete was intended to be
facetious.

However, it is a bit disingenuous to be discussing the safety
of *reactors* as though they were the interesting bit of risk.
Filled-to-capacity SFPs and other aspects of the nuclear
operations may be significantly more vulnerable and pose more
significant risks than the reactors themselves. ;)

Love, B.
Puppet_Sock
2009-02-01 04:41:16 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 31, 9:56 pm, "Dr. Brian Leverich" <***@linkpendium.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
However, it is a bit disingenuous to be discussing the safety
of *reactors* as though they were the interesting bit of risk.
Filled-to-capacity SFPs and other aspects of the nuclear
operations may be significantly more vulnerable and pose more
significant risks than the reactors themselves.  ;)
You really need to become informed on these things
before you start mouthing off about them.

The spent fuel bay is safe. So is the reactor.

The spent fuel bay is qualified against the entire shopping
list of things that the reactor is. Seismic, chemical,
hurricane, aircraft impact, tornado, security, operator
mistakes, etc. and so on.

The production of the safety report for a station requires
about 200 people, and takes about 5 years.

Heh heh. One of the installations I helped on the safety
report for had an explicit requirement to cover off traffic
accidents in the shipping yard. This was done by
pointing out that the installation was qualified against
a gasoline tanker that might become airborne due to a
tornado. Thus, it was considered unrequired to do any
additional work to qualify against traffic accidents.

Your problem appears to be that you have read some
popular accounts in news papers and have not actually
done any work in the area. You parrot the scary noises
about the evil isotopes, but you don't seem to have any
actual familiarity witht the facts.
Socks
Dr. Brian Leverich
2009-02-02 05:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Puppet_Sock
[snip]
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
However, it is a bit disingenuous to be discussing the safety
of *reactors* as though they were the interesting bit of risk.
Filled-to-capacity SFPs and other aspects of the nuclear
operations may be significantly more vulnerable and pose more
significant risks than the reactors themselves.  ;)
You really need to become informed on these things
before you start mouthing off about them.
The spent fuel bay is safe. So is the reactor.
The spent fuel bay is qualified against the entire shopping
list of things that the reactor is. Seismic, chemical,
hurricane, aircraft impact, tornado, security, operator
mistakes, etc. and so on.
The production of the safety report for a station requires
about 200 people, and takes about 5 years.
Heh heh. One of the installations I helped on the safety
report for had an explicit requirement to cover off traffic
accidents in the shipping yard. This was done by
pointing out that the installation was qualified against
a gasoline tanker that might become airborne due to a
tornado. Thus, it was considered unrequired to do any
additional work to qualify against traffic accidents.
Your problem appears to be that you have read some
popular accounts in news papers and have not actually
done any work in the area. You parrot the scary noises
about the evil isotopes, but you don't seem to have any
actual familiarity witht the facts.
Socks
I tend to read the engineering journals, and stuff like
the 2005 National Academies report on vulnerabilities of
spent fuel facilities to terrorist attacks.

At least with respect to many American facilities,
you're plainly blowing smoke. I don't know how
Canadians do business -- maybe it's different up there.

Love, B.
ACAR
2009-02-02 13:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Since the market just aint gonna produce economically optimal
results in this case, you kinda have to legislatively mandate
around the market and build consideration of the whole-life
energy costs into the initial cost of the product.
Yeah, CAFE has been such a success.
The market appears to have done a much better job in Europe where
taxes force high fuel prices.

snip
Post by Dr. Brian Leverich
Post by Puppet_Sock
Many large utilities find it cheaper to self insure.
NO.  NO.  NO.
snip
Nukes should never be allowed to operate unless they can be
insured by a regulated non-sham third-party insuror effectively
without limit to liability.
The government should *not* be that third-party insuror, or
you have yet another government subsidy of the industry.  
This is a joke right? At inception, what large scale technology
project could win private insurance?

Taken as a whole you are advocating Govt mandates without Govt
responsibility.
Maybe more of a partnership is needed.
Eugene Miya
2009-01-27 18:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf Leverich
Post by h***@juno.com
Or nuclear. The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Hey, you live up river from WHIPPS if down river from Hanford, and also
up wind of WHIPPS.
Post by Wolf Leverich
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
With the exception of Hanford (which now holds monthly tours), the
reactor industry doesn't hold a candle to the weapons industry. You
don't get to hear about the weapons industry which did most of it work
in the name of the Cold War. It was political expedience.

Hanford isn't great. It has really serious problems. But if for
instance, you can't even name other serious sites
(so what if the previous c-in-c didn't pronounce a word like others)
and not just those in the USA and the former USSR, you have no idea
where your ingested fission products are coming from.

It should be toured.
Well, I have no need. It's already toured the NV Test Site.
I've noticed Hanford change just using google maps/earth.
They are at least trying. Unlike the Aral sea. And other countries.
Post by Wolf Leverich
Being serious, nuclear has the theoretical potential for
being very clean. But that depends on no human errors and
no out-of-tolerance natural events over a time span reaching
into millenia.
I started college as a nuclear engineering major before switching out.
My dept was closed recently after decades of declining enrollment.
Skip "the clean". All sources of power have their costs. The question
is what sources of power an ill-educated democracy choses.
Fission, fusion, wind, geothermal, PV, etc. there is no free lunch
unlike old advocates like Lewis Strauss tried to sell.

Chose your poison. Too many lawyers and humanities majors.
Post by Wolf Leverich
Believing that will occur is, er, prolly like believing in
the tooth fairy.
Sorry, we were too poor for the tooth fairy.
--
Looking for an H-912 (container).
Puppet_Sock
2009-01-31 10:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf Leverich
Or nuclear.  The Nervous Nellies tend to go ballistic at the mention
of the word but it is at present the cleanest means available of
generating lots more electricity.
Yup, boy, Chernobyl, Hanford, and TMI sure are remarkable
case studies with regards to the cleanliness of nuclear.
I'll stack up my industry (nuclear) against coal any day.
In fact, I'll stack up those incidents against normal ops
for coal.

The estimates for the deaths from Hanford were round about none.
The estimates for the deaths from TMI were less than one expected.
The estimates for the deaths from Chenobyl have been less than 50,
including the emergency workers who did the cleanup and built the
sarcophogas, and something about 20 in the general public.

The estimates of deaths from coal smoke from coal fired power plants
are, in the USA alone, about 50,000 per year.
Post by Wolf Leverich
Being serious, nuclear has the theoretical potential for
being very clean.  But that depends on no human errors and
no out-of-tolerance natural events over a time span reaching
into millenia.
Um. No.

Human error is part of the safety analysis I do. For example,
if it would make things worse for the operator to "spank the
big red button" at some point earlier than usual, then that
is what is presumed to happen.

For example, there are safety interlocks that can be used
to suppress certain safety devices. These interlocks are
inside the vault and cannot be accessed without going in
the vault. Opening the door to the vault shuts off the reactor
just like opening the door on your microwave.

I make my living unspringing the inscrutable possibilities of
what the operators could get up to. And we now have several
thousand reactor years of experience to guide us.

As to the millenia you mention.
- About 300 years after it comes out of the reactor, the spent
fuel is less radioactive than the ore mined to produce it.
The nuclear fuel cycle decreases background over that scale.
- We have an absolutely dandy validation experiment that lets
us know how spent fuel fission products will move around.
The Oklo reactor is 2 billion years old. For the fission products
of most interest, there is strong evidence they moved not at
all over the 2 billion years since the reactor shut off. And this
is in sandstone. We plan to put the spent fuel in non-porous rock.

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

- The spent fuel repositories are designed to survive, among
other things, the next ice age.
Post by Wolf Leverich
Believing that will occur is, er, prolly like believing in
the tooth fairy.
Maybe you want to reconsider?
Socks
D***@ndersnat.ch
2009-01-28 00:23:17 UTC
Permalink
***@juno.com <***@juno.com> wrote:

<SNIP>
Post by h***@juno.com
Of course another problem with hydrogen cars is fuel tank capacity.
Though the stuff is a wonderful fuel, it is not very dense. You have
to store it under pressure, or cool it to the point of liquification
(only about 20 degrees C above absolute zero). Neither is at present
very feasible for a car likely to have to travel long distances
without refueling.
I seem to remember reading (back during the first energy crisis)
about a technology that can store hydrogen by forcing it into the
interstitial spaces in the metal of its tank. And of course, hydrogen
is routinely stored in metal bottles for uses like welding. Storage is
a problem we can lick.
The real challenge remains the fact that hydrogen is not found free
in Earth's environment in any significant quantity. It has to be
liberated from some compound that it's already in. Generally, that
means water. Breaking up a water molecule requires breaking a molecular
bond. Every kilowatt-hour, joule, erg, or (fill in your favorite unit
of energy) that hydrogen fuel is to give to the propulsion of a car has
to come from somewhere else first, be it fossil fuels, solar, wind,
nuclear (so nice not to have to say "nookyuler" any more), or what have
ya. Coming up with the equivalent of however many million gallons of
gas we use every day is going to be a Manhattan Project-scale challenge.


Bill

__o | Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) | --Edward Abbey
h***@juno.com
2009-01-28 00:53:51 UTC
Permalink
    I seem to remember reading (back during the first energy crisis)
about a technology that can store hydrogen by forcing it into the
interstitial spaces in the metal of its tank.
The metal was palladium. It works and you don't really have to force
it (in fact the proponents of cold fusion claimed to use that for
their process). Technical problems weren't solved, plus palladium
ain't cheap.
 And of course, hydrogen
is routinely stored in metal bottles for uses like welding.
Yeah but that takes a lot of pressurized tank capacity, probably even
more than the tank capacity required for a natural gas engine.
 Storage is
a problem we can lick.
Maybe but we aren't there yet.
   The real challenge remains the fact that hydrogen is not found free
in Earth's environment in any significant quantity.  It has to be
liberated from some compound that it's already in.  Generally, that
means water.  Breaking up a water molecule requires breaking a molecular
bond.  Every kilowatt-hour, joule, erg, or (fill in your favorite unit
of energy) that hydrogen fuel is to give to the propulsion of a car has
to come from somewhere else first, be it fossil fuels, solar, wind,
nuclear (so nice not to have to say "nookyuler" any more), or what have
ya.  Coming up with the equivalent of however many million gallons of
gas we use every day is going to be a Manhattan Project-scale challenge.
True. We need better technology to decompose the water to hydrogen
and oxygen (electrolysis is not very efficient) and a source of energy
to do it.
Siskuwihane
2009-01-24 16:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathon arquette
With gasoline prices well over three dollars per gallon and oil prices
well over $74 per barrel; where are all the hydrogen cell cars we were
promised.
Oil was $74 a barrel in January 2007
Post by jonathon arquette
There is even a waiting list to buy a hybrid vehicle from
either Toyota or Honda.
No there isn't. Sales of hybrid cars have dropped almost 60%. Now is
the time to buy that hybrid..
Post by jonathon arquette
so one has to settle for a Honda Accord or a
Toyota Camry.
No one "settles" for an Accord or Camry, they are desirable vehicles.
Post by jonathon arquette
which are fine vehicles and certainly giving General
Motors and for the run for their money and teaching them a valuable
lesson; that we all want cars to get better gas mileage.
General Motors had a hybrid vehicle in 1968, had they stuck with it,
they could be teaching Toyota and Honda a valuable lesson.
Post by jonathon arquette
However, don't we really all want hydrogen cell cars that don't
pollute rather than paying over four dollars per gallon sometime this
summer during hurricane season or a preemptive strike on Iran to stop
them for building nuclear weapons to give to the terrorist
organizations that the sponsor.
No "we" don't. I'd rather have cities designed around walking and
bicycling rather than have them being designed around cars.
Post by jonathon arquette
Well, it just so happens that hydrogen cell vehicles are all their way
but it is to be about a decade or more until you can get one. But the
technology is now in the pipeline thanks to President Bush, who has
announced; "A $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop
technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells."...
"President Bush has announced"? How old is this article you copied and
pasted?
y***@hotmail.com
2009-02-02 18:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siskuwihane
Post by jonathon arquette
which are fine vehicles and certainly giving General
Motors and for the run for their money and teaching them a valuable
lesson; that we all want cars to get better gas mileage.
General Motors had a hybrid vehicle in 1968, had they stuck with it,
they could be teaching Toyota and Honda a valuable lesson.
General Motors had a diesel-electric hybrid system from their Allison
Transmission division up and running in 1999 before the first consumer-
level hybrid cars were available in the US from Toyota and Honda.
It's a system used by many municipal bus systems today. If you visit
Yosemite today, their entire Valley shuttle bus system has these
hybrid buses in service. They tend to be very quiet accelerating from
a stop, when they pull out using electric power only.

Granted GM has made some pretty bad decisions when it comes to the
passenger car market.

VtSkier
2009-01-25 01:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by jonathon arquette
With gasoline prices well over three dollars per gallon and oil prices
well over $74 per barrel; where are all the hydrogen cell cars we were
promised. There is even a waiting list to buy a hybrid vehicle from
either Toyota or Honda, so one has to settle for a Honda Accord or a
Toyota Camry, which are fine vehicles and certainly giving General
Motors and for the run for their money and teaching them a valuable
lesson; that we all want cars to get better gas mileage.
However, don't we really all want hydrogen cell cars that don't
pollute rather than paying over four dollars per gallon sometime this
summer during hurricane season or a preemptive strike on Iran to stop
them for building nuclear weapons to give to the terrorist
organizations that the sponsor.
Well, it just so happens that hydrogen cell vehicles are all their way
but it is to be about a decade or more until you can get one. But the
technology is now in the pipeline thanks to President Bush, who has
announced; "A $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop
technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells."...
http://groups.google.com/group/waterforfueld
a) waterforfuel is bullshit
b) you really don't want hydrogen for fuel
rick++
2009-01-27 17:24:48 UTC
Permalink
None of these were promised before 2015.
And the economics of that is a stretch.
Fuel cells are costly.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...