Yet another reason to go electric in vehicles

They're winning the economic war at present.
not so

but at least with some in the west they are still winning the fake news war

china is falling apart economically and the worst has yet to come
I think that's true for everyone on this planet, not just the Chinese. Americans think they have problems now, they're going to wish life was this easy 10 years from now.
 
Because democrats destroyed it. Stifling supply on purpose.
I found out why. In 2020 the demand dropped, so oil companies capped a lot of the old wells and didn't make any new ones. the ones they put out were low-producing anyway ( petered out ). This is before Biden took office. The Democrats had nothing to do with it.
 
LOL..Your response is beyond stupid, little boy. Renewables are the future no matter what you idiotic Con Luddites believe or the amount of moaning and groaning you do.



Windmills are so 300 years ago. Moron. They are so obsolete that the idiots pushing them require people like you to be scientifically illiterate.

And you truly are.
 
LOL..Your response is beyond stupid, little boy. Renewables are the future no matter what you idiotic Con Luddites believe or the amount of moaning and groaning you do.
I'll agree the language doesn't add much to his case, but otherwise I've got to agree about windmills and 100% renewables being a step backwards. ThisIsMe gave a great back-of-the-envelope type calculation on page 8 of this thread. Even if the numbers he shows are off by close to an order of magnitude, it demonstrates the futility of going all electric. His analysis doesn't even touch on the infrastructure that would be required to carry and distribute such an increase. It would be an environmental disaster.

Is there a place for Renewables and EV's? You betcha there is. But the only practical, environmentally sustainable, way forward in order to keep our independent transportation, is to use gasoline-like fuel. Hydrogen fuel cells is one route. Synthesized gasoline/ethanol type products are also available today, and I suspect more efficient and better fuels will be developed long before we run out of crude oil.

And I don't believe China is "ahead" of us at all: their mandated push toward EV's will surely backfire if they try to go even close to 100%...another case of socialism forcing bad ideas into being even though it doesn't really work...but that's another discussion.
 
Windmills are so 300 years ago. Moron. They are so obsolete that the idiots pushing them require people like you to be scientifically illiterate.

And you truly are.
You’re the one that brought up windmills, numb nuts. But given that you are extremely slow witted your opinion is no surprise. Only the village idiot would think that utlization of wind power or wind power technology has not advanced one iota in 300 years.
 
Last edited:
Methane and natural gas are basically the same thing and are fossil fuels. The energy necessary in terms of electricity to produce hydrogen from water is a losing proposition. That is why fuel cells on space craft use them for power and they slowly are expended with time. (Watch Apollo 13 for a real-world example of how fuel cells are not the answer.) There is nothing to replace the hydrogen consumed by the fuel cells.
Methane and natural gas have similar properties but can be created or sourced in different ways. There are even techniques for converting gasoline, waste wood, sewage and garbage dumps to produce hydrogen - different sources of methane or methane-like gasses.

Apollo 13 was decades past and technology continues to progress. New catalysts that produce hydrogen more efficiently and are more resistant to structural change are already here. Here is one example:

"An active phase of a catalyst based on amorphous iridium hydroxide exhibited efficiency 150 times that of its original perovskite structure and close to three orders of magnitude better than the common commercial catalyst, iridium oxide."

""We found at least two groups of materials that undergo irreversible changes that turned out to be significantly better catalysts for hydrogen production," Feng said. "This can help us produce hydrogen at $2 per kilogram and eventually $1 per kilogram. That's less expensive than the polluting process in current industries and will help achieve the United States' goal of zero emissions by 2030.""

"Feng notes that the U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office has established benchmarks of technologies that can produce clean hydrogen at $2 per kilogram by 2025 and $1 per kilogram by 2030 as part of the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot target of cutting the cost of clean hydrogen by 80%, from $5 to $1 per kilogram, in one decade
."


Hydrogen technology and investments are moving forward given the many advantages. Hydrogen can power land, sea and air vehicles, and also back-up electrical grids, provide long-term energy storage for wind and solar (something batteries can't do) and down the road may even help to bake cookies and heat homes.


 
Last edited:
You’re the one that brought up windmills, numb nuts. But given that you are extremely slow witted your opinion is no surprise. Only the village idiot would think that utlization of wind power or wind power technology has not advanced one iota in 300 years.




The only thing that has changed is they use far more CO2 to create rhan they remove.

They generate electricity instead of pumping water or grinding wheat, and they slaughter rare birds at a prodigous rate.
 
The only thing I know is the waters that where protected from exploration before trump took office were reinstated with their protections, thank GOD, we've destroyed enough of this earth already. I did some more research, US oil production dropped in 2020 by 8 % or more ( a loss of 9 to 11.3 million barrels a day ) due to well curtailment and low oil prices. US oil production looks like it reached it's peak in 2005 with @ 20 million barrels a day. we are now on the downside of that production and it is estimated that by 2022 we will be importing the majority of the oil we use.
Where are you getting these bullshit numbers from? EnviroNazi's Daily?
 
1640958497835.png
 
Methane and natural gas have similar properties but can be created or sourced in different ways. There are even techniques for converting gasoline, waste wood, sewage and garbage dumps to produce hydrogen - different sources of methane or methane-like gasses.

Apollo 13 was decades past and technology continues to progress. New catalysts that produce hydrogen more efficiently and are more resistant to structural change are already here. Here is one example:

"An active phase of a catalyst based on amorphous iridium hydroxide exhibited efficiency 150 times that of its original perovskite structure and close to three orders of magnitude better than the common commercial catalyst, iridium oxide."

""We found at least two groups of materials that undergo irreversible changes that turned out to be significantly better catalysts for hydrogen production," Feng said. "This can help us produce hydrogen at $2 per kilogram and eventually $1 per kilogram. That's less expensive than the polluting process in current industries and will help achieve the United States' goal of zero emissions by 2030.""

"Feng notes that the U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office has established benchmarks of technologies that can produce clean hydrogen at $2 per kilogram by 2025 and $1 per kilogram by 2030 as part of the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot target of cutting the cost of clean hydrogen by 80%, from $5 to $1 per kilogram, in one decade
."


Hydrogen technology and investments are moving forward given the many advantages. Hydrogen can power land, sea and air vehicles, and also back-up electrical grids, provide long-term energy storage for wind and solar (something batteries can't do) and down the road may even help to bake cookies and heat homes.



Dickus, if the technology is there and works, explain why we are not using it?

That's because hydrogen only transfers energy produced by other sources. It is a net loser, taking more energy to produce than it gives up. Did you notice those goals are still a ways off in the future?

Also, have you ever seen a hydrogen explosion? Cars and trucks carrying hydrogen are like TNT on wheels.
 
Hydrogen is everywhere it's one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.
H2 is common. You cannot burn that because it is not a single hydrogen atom which reacts with oxygen in the combustion process to form water. That takes energy to produce.

This is basic chemistry! Did you not have chemistry questions on your GED test?
 

From your link:
"This pathway delivers hydrogen at roughly $4/gallon of gasoline equivalent."

I pay about $2.75 a gallon for gas right now. Explain to me why $4.00 is cheaper in the long run, considering the fuel cell vehicles are incredibly more expensive to build and sell?
 
Dickus, if the technology is there and works, explain why we are not using it?

That's because hydrogen only transfers energy produced by other sources. It is a net loser, taking more energy to produce than it gives up. Did you notice those goals are still a ways off in the future?

Also, have you ever seen a hydrogen explosion? Cars and trucks carrying hydrogen are like TNT on wheels.

Dear Dipshit,

The technology already exists and is being used in cars. This is the early stage but without a doubt is poised for growth:


The trucking industry is committed to hydrogen fuel because the batteries needed for long distance hauling would require more shipping weight be given over to larger battery banks and batteries are less effective and offer less power in hauling large weight loads:



"But hydrogen is viewed as essential for the long-distance heavy trucks that criss-cross Europe, the US, and other parts of the world delivering goods to multiple destinations and where refueling stops need to be as short as possible."

"Daum, who predicted the split between hydrogen and battery sales would end up being about 50-50, said that to move “40 tonnes up a hill you need an enormous amount of energy” and that, after diesel, the most efficient fuel for such tasks, hydrogen was the best option
."


And regarding your "Hindenburg" comment:

"The idea of crashing a vehicle like this brings to mind visions of the Hindenburg, Nazi Germany’s rigid airship that crumpled to the ground in a pall of flames back in 1936. Despite this tragedy and public-relations black eye for hydrogen, it may actually be a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline."



Please let me know if you have any other questions.

.
 
Dear Dipshit,

The technology already exists and is being used in cars. This is the early stage but without a doubt is poised for growth:


The trucking industry is committed to hydrogen fuel because the batteries needed for long distance hauling would require more shipping weight be given over to larger battery banks and batteries are less effective and offer less power in hauling large weight loads:



"But hydrogen is viewed as essential for the long-distance heavy trucks that criss-cross Europe, the US, and other parts of the world delivering goods to multiple destinations and where refueling stops need to be as short as possible."

"Daum, who predicted the split between hydrogen and battery sales would end up being about 50-50, said that to move “40 tonnes up a hill you need an enormous amount of energy” and that, after diesel, the most efficient fuel for such tasks, hydrogen was the best option
."


And regarding your "Hindenburg" comment:

"The idea of crashing a vehicle like this brings to mind visions of the Hindenburg, Nazi Germany’s rigid airship that crumpled to the ground in a pall of flames back in 1936. Despite this tragedy and public-relations black eye for hydrogen, it may actually be a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline."



Please let me know if you have any other questions.

.
'This is the early stage but without a doubt my dick is poised for growth" said every boy at the age of 11 or so. All you have are predictions. Let's see the nuts-and-bolts application. You have none!

I cannot go down to my local Ford dealer and buy a fuel cell vehicle, and even if I did, where would the fuel come from? Solve that problem and we can discuss it further. Until then, as I said, all you have are predictions.

Gasoline in a liquid form does not explode. Hydrogen does, not matter what state of matter you find it in!
 
From your link:
"This pathway delivers hydrogen at roughly $4/gallon of gasoline equivalent."

I pay about $2.75 a gallon for gas right now. Explain to me why $4.00 is cheaper in the long run, considering the fuel cell vehicles are incredibly more expensive to build and sell?

Yeah.......lets pretend that someone urinated in your cornflakes......its entertaining. :abgg2q.jpg:


So.........you pay about 2.75 a gallon RIGHT NOW. Its clear you don't live anywhere near a huge LIBERAL CITY or STATE. When Biden was PLACED INTO POWER (he never won anything except the presidency of the hair club for men).......Gas was a buck eighty five on average nationally. Reality: These left wing nuts and their shadow puppet masters use the energy system to Launder their evil gains and wealth and declare.........look its all legal and above board. We the People are stupid and they are so smartttttttttttttttt. Books deals are another source of how they lander their wealth.

Example: BHO was living on the wages of a civil servant before being placed into 1600 Pa. Av., his net worth a few hundred thousand. Today his net worth is what? 135 million? Question..........where did the money come from? 2 book deals that hardly sold a million copies.......... A civil servant gaining 135 million dollars in 8 years? How? :dunno:

Personally I would settle for a fixed energy price averaging 4 bucks a gallon. In California "RIGHT NOW".....they are predicting by the end of 22 gas will be 6 dollars a gallon with the average price today in the cities of California averaging about 4.60 a gallon. Prompt "GAS BUDDY", that tracks gas pricing around the nation. Not to mention all the GREEN taxes added by the liberals of California to fight smog, and save the matting habitat of some pest.........

Just add the cost of Uncle Sam attempting to manage a nationwide system of charging stations. What would the cost of energy come to in the near future with an all electric system? Charge at home? You think your average home energy cost will remain static or will UNCLE SAM declare a tax on that and make you use some metering device to calculate the amount used to charge your car?

The thing about using Hydrogen Fuel cells is the Mobility it offers and its still GREEN as defined by even liberals. A hydrogen based system still uses an engine (much like the gas engine) with hardly any carbon footprint.........that engine simply provides the energy to drive an all electric car/truck.......with either 2 wheel motors or 4 wheel motors at each wheel.

Its a no brainer. You act as if you are errantly heavenly invested in some stock scam and fear losing your keyster to reality of such a flawed endeavor.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I know is the waters that where protected from exploration before trump took office were reinstated with their protections, thank GOD, we've destroyed enough of this earth already. I did some more research, US oil production dropped in 2020 by 8 % or more ( a loss of 9 to 11.3 million barrels a day ) due to well curtailment and low oil prices. US oil production looks like it reached it's peak in 2005 with @ 20 million barrels a day. we are now on the downside of that production and it is estimated that by 2022 we will be importing the majority of the oil we use.
When that moratorium was reinstated by Obama in 2009, it drove energy prices through the roof and drove our economy into the gutter for six years.
 
I found out why. In 2020 the demand dropped, so oil companies capped a lot of the old wells and didn't make any new ones. the ones they put out were low-producing anyway ( petered out ). This is before Biden took office. The Democrats had nothing to do with it.
Demand dropped because of the bio attack and Fauci recommendations. Completely unique dynamic.
Your abject ignorance is what scares me most about American voters.
 

Forum List

Back
Top