"...this is a true zero-emission vehicle, yet it looks, operates and
drives like anything else on the road. There is simply no more
realistic a peek into the possibly green future of the automobile, not
the theoretical Chevrolet Volt from General Motors, nor the electric
Tesla billionaire-toy, and not even the Holy Green Grail of the plug-in
Prius..."

Wall Street Journal: http://301url.com/f43

 

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "...this is a true zero-emission vehicle, yet it looks, operates and
> drives like anything else on the road. There is simply no more
> realistic a peek into the possibly green future of the automobile, not
> the theoretical Chevrolet Volt from General Motors, nor the electric
> Tesla billionaire-toy, and not even the Holy Green Grail of the plug-in
> Prius..."
>
> Wall Street Journal: http://301url.com/f43

The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
nuclear-generated electricity available).

 

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:18:03 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
>generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
>nuclear-generated electricity available).

If you mean someone is burning coal upstream, I suppose so, but the
idea is that big centralized power generation is both cleaner and more
efficient than most vehicles, so if the resulting consumption is
clean, it's a net winner.

Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
even hydrogen.

J.

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:18:03 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
>> generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
>> nuclear-generated electricity available).
>
> If you mean someone is burning coal upstream, I suppose so, but the
> idea is that big centralized power generation is both cleaner and more
> efficient than most vehicles, so if the resulting consumption is
> clean, it's a net winner.

NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
"ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.

> Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
> make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
> all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
> even hydrogen.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to see some VIABLE
alternatives to this petroleum-fueled society... it just, I dunno,
amuses me, I guess, to see people tripping over themselves to jump on
various "clean energy" pie-in-the-sky bandwagons, only to ask a dozen
years later, "What ever happened to that idea" because they didn't stop
to think about ALL the implications, requirements, disadvantages, etc.

 

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:05:07 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
wrote:

>NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
>"ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.

Nobody rides for free.


>> Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
>> make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
>> all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
>> even hydrogen.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to see some VIABLE
>alternatives to this petroleum-fueled society... it just, I dunno,
>amuses me, I guess, to see people tripping over themselves to jump on
>various "clean energy" pie-in-the-sky bandwagons, only to ask a dozen
>years later, "What ever happened to that idea" because they didn't stop
>to think about ALL the implications, requirements, disadvantages, etc.

How about horses? Or do you think a careful scientific study would
find that they have emissions, too?

/hah

 

JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:05:07 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
>> "ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.
>
> Nobody rides for free.

That's my point. The original post *opened* with, "...this is a true
zero-emission vehicle".

TANSTAAFL.

> How about horses? Or do you think a careful scientific study would
> find that they have emissions, too?

Well if you could collect and distill the methane, you could use that
for powering your car...

 

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:d69b081b368de7a9163f2304f0868b65@dizum.com:

> "...this is a true zero-emission vehicle, yet it looks, operates and
> drives like anything else on the road. There is simply no more
> realistic a peek into the possibly green future of the automobile, not
> the theoretical Chevrolet Volt from General Motors, nor the electric
> Tesla billionaire-toy, and not even the Holy Green Grail of the plug-in
> Prius..."
>
> Wall Street Journal: http://301url.com/f43
>

Last I heard, a fuel cell car costs like $1 million. Is this more a public
R&D phase (aka "beta test") more than anything else? After the lease is
up, will they be crushed and buried with the EV1's?