Electric Cars: Chev Bolt seems to be the first practical one.

[joea99]

That's right and diesel is full of of hydrogen, no need to go pure hydrogen fuel for a fuel cell to work.

Actually, there is. It's call "physics", "Science", "Chemistry". You may not realize that "Fuel Cell" in this case is not a fuel storage device, it is a generator of electricity that uses Hydrogen as a fuel, which is stored, on board, in another container. The ONLY byproduct is WATER Vapor. That would not be the case if using more complex molecules as fuel, thus defeating the entire purpose, which is to power a vehicle with the absolute minimum pollution possible. Using Hydrogen is the most rational approach.

Take a look here:

A Basic Overview of Fuel Cell Technology

 

[California]

Folks ignore the trolls.

Facts, science, reasoning, are not going to change their beliefs. Or end their nasty personal attacks.

 

[dickfoster]

Folks ignore the trolls.

Facts, science, reasoning, are not going to change their beliefs. Or end their nasty personal attacks.

I think you need to stop and consider actual scientific fact and physics which are all based in pure mathematics and logic. All of the facts to be argued are available on the Internet. All of the data on operating efficiency of power plants, transmission losses etc. are well known and are documented. The fact is the only thing that supports electric cars today are misguided pie in the sky opinion and politics. The simple fact is, the energy you use to propel an electric car today starts as mostly fossil fuel and then through a chain of less than perfect means is eventually transferred to the vehicle. The more energy conversions there are in the chain the more loss you have, it's simple physics and it's just that simple. Unless and until you have a truly viable means expressed in economic and environmental terms to put energy into the grid that you're using to charge the car, all you end up doing is to add inefficiency to the process of getting fossil fuel to propel a car down the road. Therefore you end up with a net loss in both economic and environmental terms. It's pure math with all the pie in the sky stripped away with no baseless opinion left to argue. You can argue all you want but facts are facts and math is math. Take the subsidies off of the backs of the taxpayer and electric cars die an immediate death via math expressed in economical terms. There's no hate or emotion behind it, it's simply mathematics and pure logical reasoning. If electric cars made any sense at all there would be no subsidies. If not then why do they exist?

 

[/pine]

Interesting read on science and society.

MMS: Error

Link works even if labeled error

Not surprising...but neither is it germane to the point that the powers that be had to change the TOB's to make their models even closely relate to their theory...that fact alone taints anything and everything else they say, have said or do in the future...period.

 

[IslandTractor]

Not surprising...but neither is it germane to the point that the powers that be had to change the TOB's to make their models even closely relate to their theory...that fact alone taints anything and everything else they say, have said or do in the future...period.

And you continue to completely ignore the obvious real world correlates of those temperatures. Plants blooming earlier, fish migration earlier, ice melting faster, etc etc. Those observations aren't fudged or corrected.

Don't know why you rest your entire argument against AGM on the notion that a government conspiracy has generated "false" temperature readings. The process by which corrections were made was quite transparent. The scientific community debated and then accepted the changes. Additional, non US government, databases show similar temp trends without using the NOAA corrections. And, the temps continue to rise year to year within the NOAA dataset using the same adjustment formula.

You are hung up on a non issue.

 

[joea99]

I think you need to stop and consider actual scientific fact and physics which are all based in pure mathematics and logic. All of the facts to be argued are available on the Internet. All of the data on operating efficiency of power plants, transmission losses etc. are well known and are documented. The fact is the only thing that supports electric cars today are misguided pie in the sky opinion and politics. The simple fact is, the energy you use to propel an electric car today starts as mostly fossil fuel and then through a chain of less than perfect means is eventually transferred to the vehicle. The more energy conversions there are in the chain the more loss you have, it's simple physics and it's just that simple. Unless and until you have a truly viable means expressed in economic and environmental terms to put energy into the grid that you're using to charge the car, all you end up doing is to add inefficiency to the process of getting fossil fuel to propel a car down the road. Therefore you end up with a net loss in both economic and environmental terms. It's pure math with all the pie in the sky stripped away with no baseless opinion left to argue. You can argue all you want but facts are facts and math is math. Take the subsidies off of the backs of the taxpayer and electric cars die an immediate death via math expressed in economical terms. There's no hate or emotion behind it, it's simply mathematics and pure logical reasoning. If electric cars made any sense at all there would be no subsidies. If not then why do they exist?

A lot of talk and deflections, with no true substance. "Electric" vehicles such as Tesla and Bolt are what they are. While I disagree with your statements, I am not a fan of storage battery electric vehicles. But not for the reasons you cite.

The Mirai does not need to be "charged", a fact you apparently missed or chose to ignore, it creates the electricity on board, using a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Hydrogen is one of the simplest gases to produce. While that does require some energy, it is minor compared to what is required to extract and refine fossil fuels.

Trying to run the "subsidy" riff is another example of the "mis-direction" technique. Commercial Nuclear power, fossil fuel exploration and production, have benefited for decades from various Government subsidies, Tax breaks and gimmicks without which they would suffer severe profit reductions. How about getting them off the Tax Payer's back?

 

[/pine]

And you continue to completely ignore the obvious real world correlates of those temperatures. Plants blooming earlier, fish migration earlier, ice melting faster, etc etc. Those observations aren't fudged or corrected.

Don't know why you rest your entire argument against AGM on the notion that a government conspiracy has generated "false" temperature readings. The process by which corrections were made was quite transparent. The scientific community debated and then accepted the changes. Additional, non US government, databases show similar temp trends without using the NOAA corrections. And, the temps continue to rise year to year within the NOAA dataset using the same adjustment formula.

You are hung up on a non issue.

Geeze...!...for the last 15 years I have been calling it "seasonal change" as my personal observations indicate that seasonal weather patterns have been shifting forward in the calendar...but then again the weather has been changing ever since there's been an atmosphere here on Earth...

There is no real conspiracy...I have already called out their (NASA/NOAA) lame attempts to explain the reasoning for altering data...it's really to the point of being funny they were so blatant about it...The only adjusted the data when they needed to eliminate the 80 year hiatus...they "adjusted" the data prior to the hiatus lower and the data during the hiatus higher...it does not take a (any kind of) scientist to realize this...it's the mother of all smoking guns...an effing Howitzer...!!

And you are 100% wrong about the "scientific community" debating and then accepting the tainted data...the only ones that accepted the baloney are the ones still in the pocket of the AGW quagmire...

Watch and learn...every day that passes there will be more and more intellectuals and true scientists that flee the sinking AGW ship...

 

[buickanddeere]

And you continue to completely ignore the obvious real world correlates of those temperatures. Plants blooming earlier, fish migration earlier, ice melting faster, etc etc. Those observations aren't fudged or corrected.

Don't know why you rest your entire argument against AGM on the notion that a government conspiracy has generated "false" temperature readings. The process by which corrections were made was quite transparent. The scientific community debated and then accepted the changes. Additional, non US government, databases show similar temp trends without using the NOAA corrections. And, the temps continue to rise year to year within the NOAA dataset using the same adjustment formula.

You are hung up on a non issue.

Did fish spawn sooner and flower bloom earlier during the Medevel Warming Trend ? Did fish spawn later and flowers bloom later during the "little ice age" ? Please tell us how mankind influenced both.

 

[vvanders]

...mostly fossil fuel and then through a chain of less than perfect means is eventually transferred to the vehicle. The more energy conversions there are in the chain the more loss you have, it's simple physics and it's just that simple... There's no hate or emotion behind it, it's simply mathematics and pure logical reasoning. If electric cars made any sense at all there would be no subsidies. If not then why do they exist?

Except your basis for facts is totally wrong.

Here's Cowlitz PUD's fuel breakdown: Fuel Mix | Cowlitz PUD

I run my EV directly from power supplied by them.

80.5% Hydro
9.2% Nuclear
4.9% Coal
3.1% Wind
1.8% Natural Gas
0.5% Other

Those are facts.

Now are you willing to admit that you might be wrong here and there's some nuance or are you going to misdirect and change the topic like everyone else does when we bring this up?

 

[vvanders]

A lot of talk and deflections, with no true substance. "Electric" vehicles such as Tesla and Bolt are what they are. While I disagree with your statements, I am not a fan of storage battery electric vehicles. But not for the reasons you cite.

The Mirai does not need to be "charged", a fact you apparently missed or chose to ignore, it creates the electricity on board, using a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Hydrogen is one of the simplest gases to produce. While that does require some energy, it is minor compared to what is required to extract and refine fossil fuels.

Trying to run the "subsidy" riff is another example of the "mis-direction" technique. Commercial Nuclear power, fossil fuel exploration and production, have benefited for decades from various Government subsidies, Tax breaks and gimmicks without which they would suffer severe profit reductions. How about getting them off the Tax Payer's back?

Just curious, are you familiar with Superchargers/DCFC? I usually spend tops 10 minutes on my SW Wa -> Seattle -> SW Wa trip(~300mi roundtrip) if at all depending on weather. Aside from that I always have a fully charged car every morning and 275mi of range covers my daily use just fine.

My big gripe with hydrogen is there's no infrastructure for it while Tesla already has a complete supercharger network that covers the entire US(and most other countries too).