Slashdot Mirror
Chrysler Announces Hydrogen Fuel Cell Van
Juanfe writes: "Chrysler group announced a concept vehicle called the Natrium, powered by a sodium borohydride (NaBH4) engine developed by Millenium Cell. NaBH4 can be made from sodium borate -- basic borax, used in laundry detergent.
MilleniumCell is a US Company that, not surprisingly, has made strategic agreements with major borax purveyors in the US (which just happens to be thought of as the largest borax reserve in the world). Could this be the start of the end of big oil and the start of the start of big Borax?" superflippy points out that Chrysler's press release is related to the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas (EVAA) Electric Transportation Industry Conference 2001.
is if it's possible to retrofit current automobiles with this kind of technology.
-
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
Hardly...
The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells. They're not going to let you just stop filling up every week, after all.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This seems to be a very well thought out monopoly already. *Note to US Government: Wait until the technology develops beyond your control and cause extereme loss or discomfort to consumers - then you can pounce on them and obtain "compensation".
Why make rules early?
Toques are for Canadians. Eh?
So, are they gonna open back up all of those borax mines in death valley? Hmm.. I bet land out there is dirt cheap..
:P
Oh.. dammit.. it's a _concept_ vehicle. Eenteresting, tho.. the borax is apparently recyclable.. And they've retrofitted a Ford Explorer with an FC engine.
Ah, well, wake me up when I can buy one.
Indie rock lives! b-side!
i wonder how much it will cost to run the thing?
just pour laundry detergent into the thing and it turns it into borax? sounds rather interesting;
it says that is not dangerous and nonflammable, etc. but hydrogen is one of the byproducts?? that sounds rather misleading.
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
There's an article from '97 describing Chrystler's idea for the hydrogen cell fuel car. Interesting to compare their predictions and the result four years later. Quite thought-provoking.
What do you think of MusicCity now?
Why are you all calling it a scooter? I'd say that's a bit of an understatement.
I think all the people who are saying "electric scooter, big whoop. $3,000, yeah right" are slightly missing the point. Yeah, it's kind of wimpy for the price tag. Yeah, it's kind of expensive, and it's questionable who would want to use it.
But this is just the first model. It's more sort of a proof of concept--a demonstration that the scooter can work, and looks as neat as all get-out in motion. As time goes on, the performance will improve and the price will fall.
Look at the Palm (Pilot). The first model was, what, 128K? With no backlight, no infra-red, or anything? And how high was the price tag? And now the Visor Deluxe, which was at one time the wet dream of anybody who even looked at a Palm, is only $130 brand new.
Look at the DVD player. The original models were expensive enough, the first bunch of discs were glitchy enough, that a lot of people scoffed and made snide remarks. But the DVD went on to become the fastest-adopted new consumer technology ever.
So here we have a relatively slow, electric-powered self-stabilizing scooter, for $3,000. Are very many of us going to buy it? Do very many of us have the money to sink into that sort of gee-gaw? No and no. I know I'm not going to be spending three grand on something like that myself, either. Nor would I be likely to spend two grand, or even one grand for that matter.
I know you're all out there checking out Millennium Cell (MCEL), who's "Hydrogen on Demand" system stores Hydrogen as part of a benign solution with a high potential energy density.
However, the real monopoly-in-training here is Ballard Power (BLDP), who have most of the patents involved in converting that Hydrogen into electricity.
...Borax has gone up to $1.75 per gallon, and older folks are telling stories about how they could get a gallon of Borax for a nickel when they were kids.
A nickel!
SIGFEH
If anyone's wondering, 'Natrium' is the latin word for sodium. That's what sodium is 'Na' on the periodic table.
Not that I expect them to take on the Dubya's oil folks, but Yahoo's Market Guide has some interesting background on the company, Millennium Cell.
The article states that the process of charging up the borax produces pollution, though so does this not (for now) just represent the "make the pollution elsewhere" paradox of electric cars, whereby one uses coal-generated electricity to drive around instead of gasoline, substituting one fossil fuel's energy for another?
-- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin)
Being the clever industry they are, the oil companies LONG ago realized they were dependent on a limited resource. Indeed, the reserves wouldnt make it out of the 21st century.
Hence they all now refer to themselves as 'energy companies', and work with all sorts of things, not just oil.
Its in their best interests that things start moving off fossil fuels, given their limited supply, and people move onto things like hydrogen, which is pretty damn common. And they know this.
You'll still be getting your fuel from them in 20 years...it just might not be gasoline anymore.
-
Everyone knows the only people who bought electric powered cars were those who were rich and environment-savvy peeps.
At least with those cars they were helping the ozone layer and fuel cells don't really change anything.
I say they should go back to the drawing boards but its a neat idea anyway.
when people will stop complaining about the noise from a car enguine and soon work will begin on silent tires
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
I'm happy to see advancements in stuff like this, because we can start stimulating our own economy! One thing that I'd like to know is what kinda fuel economy this thing has, and how much power the darned thing can kick out. If the preceeding two things are large, then gasoline will be kicked out of the market . I wonder, though, will these engines be as fun to work on as normal gas ones? I have one helluva time working on my '75 Benz.
Why do they let people like you type such crap like that. Find somewhere else to vent your anger.
Millenium makes the system that turns the sodium borohydride into hydrogen, then Ballard's fuel cell turns the hydrogen into electricity.
I want one.
Join me in my quest to build my own electric car. I have been inspired by a television show to throw some motors and some batteries into an old car and race around in it for as long as possible before it self-destructs.
Have you seen the gas prices lately? They're cheaper than they were during the Clinton administration.
93 cents a gallon for the cheap stuff right on the corner across the street from my business. And a substantial part of that is taxes imposed by the EPA (especially here in California).
Of course this will be modded down because FACTS don't get points here.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
I mean it's nice, but much too complicated and expensive. Why not use cheap, existing technology, i.e. combustion motors? They can be fueled by alcohol, methane and even hydrogen (BWM is already series-producing a hydrogen-fueled 750). We could have been driving on methane for decades, but the fact is, the oil companies have a lot to say in most governments, and without fuel, even the most high-tech car is useless.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
So, all products that have initial problems will eventually wildly succeed...
The idea of making cars with fuel cells has been around since most of us were little kiddies barely able to walk, and has anybody stopped to think why we have yet to see any great advances in the technology, like actually seeing them in a buyers market. Maybe the reason is, along with others, is that the money lost on oil would ruin current economies in many locations. Oil companies are large, rich, and often hurdle those standards that would make them monopolies, so rich in fact they might even be able to push some weight away from the idea of fuel cells. Just a thought but it makes sence and we have all seen instances where rich companies throw their weight around, can we say tobacoo products.
What I want to do is will it do my laundry as well.
Remember, the planes did not bring down the Twin Towers, it was the burning oil that did. I think there is a powerful metaphor there.
As long as oil is cheap there is no economic incentive to move towards alternative sources of energy.
After 9/11, though, you have to ask yourself is that 1.00 a gallon gas price really that cheap when you take into consideration that:
1) the money we spend on oil is used to fund militant Islamic agendas
2) those same Islamic militants have an idea to destabilize democratic values throughout the world and replace them with Islamic fundamentalism?!
After 9/11 the economists of the world, the bean counters etc... have to look at the continued *risk* of using oil on world stability. They now have a concrete example. They have real economic numbers to work with. They can project into the future (e.g. the procurement of weapons of mass destruction using money derived from oil sales) and see what the true cost of continued use of foreign oil is to America and her allies.
As programmers you probably understand that legacy is 9/10 of the law, and that once it has been coded, you don't want to code it again. One of the main reasons we have not switched away from oil is because we as a nation have invested untold trillions of dollars in creating an infrastructure to support the distribution of oil and gas throughout this great country, and indeed the world. That system is the legacy and captitalistic forces tend to keep existing systems in place.
However, if you consider the cost of say rebuilding Washington DC or LA or New York because some Islamic fundamentalist decided to nuke it with a suitcase bomb, which was bought using the same money we spent on oil,then all of a sudden the cost of a new distribution network looks *alot* cheaper.
We sent men to the moon. We can reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. The fuel cell thing is but one example. After that we can export our technology to every other country on the planet. That will effectively turn the black gold currently found in the Arab's back yard into something that is as useful as sludge. Let them worship Allah as they smear it over their bodies for all it would be worth.
Screw the Arabs.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Millennium Cell is a good company trying to bring a viable, cheap (relatively), alternative fuel source to the consumer market, but they aren't the only company doing so. A few others are
Fuel Cell Energy Inc.
http://www.ercc.com/
Plug Power
http://www.plugpower.com/
Manhatten Scientifics
http://www.mhtx.com/
Anyway, I thought someone might be interested in doing a little deeper research into fuel cell technologies. It seems like the we're right on the edge of a power revolution, but most people haven't even heard of it!
Yes but don't elaborate on any of those thoughts. After all you would not want to spend time typeing some interesting ideas for others to read. If you did that you might miss your chance at posting early and getting a higher score.
So does this mean you need a huge water tank? I saw no mention of this in the article - but I would guess you'd need more water than you need petrol in current cars.
The biggest problem with this approach is the distribution. Unfortunately, nobody really seems to give a rat's ass about the environment, so they'd rather buy a car that pollutes the air but can use gasoline available at every other street corner than take the risk of having to drive an extra 3 blocks to the new sodium borohydride station. Hell, you can buy a VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Direct Injection, diesel fuel, like you can't get that anywhere) that gets twice the gas mileage of the GLX (unleaded) version, pollutes less, and has performance comparable to their lower end gas models. You don't see the roads filled with TDIs, do you?
Even if you could convince people to buy the cars, none of the gas stations will want to take on the expense of converting to the new stuff in the first place.
A solution won't fly unless it's cheaper, easier, AND performs better than what people have now. Unless, of course, Microsoft's marketing people have at it.
Go drive your conastoga wagon over a cliff you whacko.
Also there is a problem with that left over borax that has to be recycled and delivered back to the consumer. Once its used, its spoiled. You can't wash your clothes with it. It has to go through a process to recycle the chemical. How much pollution will that process create? Same problem with electric cars. If they are getting electricity generated from a dirty power plant are they really helping the environment? A truely Green car will have to have a power source that is clean from beginning to end not just from the tailpipe on.
I think I will stick with my buck a gallon gasoline for the time being and use Mass Transit when I can. The ironic thing about the war in Afghanistan were the initial liberal handwringers screaming that Bush II was just trying to jack up oil prices to help out his evil, rich Texas buddies. As we see today, its dirt cheap -- bottled water costs more per gallon!!!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The interesting thing about this article is not that they're selling a fuel cell based car, it's that they seem to have come up with a way to actualy power the fuel cell. For years we have been talking about hydrogen powered fuel cells "that's only byproduct is air and water", while ignoring the large amounts of energy needed to extract the most abundant elemet from the universe. Traditional hydrogen generation uses energy that (surprise) comes mostly from fossil fuels. If they've found a way to use borax instead of fossil fuels, I'll be very impressed.
Unless they've altered the laws of physics, it will still take energy to do this "recharging" of borax that the article talks about, but hopefully this can be more effient than todays batteries, and will at least provide an alternative to oil that does not pollute the air.
You barely mentioned the one thing that people here should be drooling over about the segway: artificial balance. That is an incredible accomplishment. And, being digital technology (mostly just software, with pretty standard hardware running it) it will only get cheaper and cheaper.
Ancient chinese secret, eh...?
This was a sarcastic exaggeration of the flawed motivation of its parent.
The original "Screw the Arabs" assertion (which ignored the myriad of other uses of petroleum and the difficulty of convincing industries to act for the greater payoff to civilization) was modded up while this hint to read more carefully was modded underground. This all in a few minutes, causing me to doubt how much consideration was exercised at all.
I miss kuro5hin.
Despite their penchant for whining at me for eating a big hunk of steak (Hate to tell you, plants are living things too!), and attempting to spread my Morpheus-like trenchcoat with orange paint..
We might finally be able to get some compensation out of these whack jobs. If anyone can whine, kick and scream for a company to bring out a fuel-cell based car, it's the eco-nazis!
It's time for the U.S. to get out of relationships with countries that hate us, i.e, most of the Middle East - could this be part of the ticket?
Then we can take a hands-off approach to everyone unless they pose an immediate threat (such as Iraq) or declare war, such as Afghanistan. For everything else, let them fight their own battles, use their own diplomacy, etc. I'm tired of giving these backwards countries excuses to label us "imperialists".
Anyway, to (ab)use a pun: more power to the alternatives, I say.
Ok lets say that in 5 years Crysler (Or Ford or GM Or whomever) puts out a van that runs on these fuel cells. Before I go out and buy one I want to know a few things:
1) Where do I go for fuel?
2) How much does it cost per mile for fuel?
3) When it breaks where do I get it fixed?
4a) When it needs a part where do I get it
4b) How long does it take for the parts to show up?
5) How much does it cost to insure?
In the US we are real good at Gas and Diesel fuel you can get them almost anywhere. And enough things run on them that getting spare parts and people who know how to fix the things is not hard. I have seen cars that run on Compressed Natural Gas, but there is no way in hell I would buy one. Why because there are like 3 places in all metro Boston that I can get CNG. Where as the 87 octane gas that my Saturn wants can be gotten anywhere.
Remember the cost of owning a car is not just the fuel prices.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
For example, engine output power will now be rated in scores of mule teams.
Just in case people were confused: Segway isn't IT/Ginger... that's still coming.
Here's a couple of links.
. pd f
r id e.html
http://espi-metals.com/msds's/sodiumborohydride
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sodium_borohyd
Here's what the article says about Sodium Borohydride...
"To solve those problems, Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic"
Here's what the data sheets say...
"Stable, but reacts readily with water (reaction may be violent). Incompatible with water, oxidising agents, carbon dioxide, hydrogen halids, acids, palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts, glass. Flammable solid. Air-sensitive."
"Toxic by ingestion. Risk of serious internal burns if ingested. Harmful if inhaled and in contact with skin. May cause burns or severe irritation in contact with skin or eyes.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 89 mg kg-1
SKN-RBT LD50 4000 mg kg-1
IPR-RAT LD50 18 mg kg-1
Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R15 R25 R34."
Looks to me like big business is full of shit yet again.
-
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Some political pressure from the right people could potentially cut the time to market on this and similar products substantially.
All products with initial prices a little too expensive will lower their prices.
The thing that gets me is the energy has to come from some where. Everyone has been touting electric cars however you still have to plug them in to charge the batteries, well where does that energy come from, in the US it comes primarily from large coal burning power plants. Trust me coal burning is probably one of the dirtiest forms of producing energy, worse then oil or gas by far. So yes, our cars might be emitting less emissions but we haven't made any real progress if we are spewing out tons of coal burning byproducts just to generate the electricity.
My feeling is that we need to either harness solar power more effectively or other natural phenomena such as wind or wave. Maybe even Fusion has a chance eventually, regardless any of these methods will be considerably cleaner than fossil fuels.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
This makes a good story for movies in need of a bad buy but I've not seen any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, no one in the industry (except the water injected carburator guy thats been in urban lore since the 40's), has ever accused big oil of maligning or hedging their work.
Its time to get out of fantasy land and into real life. Theres to many problems that need solving to get worked up over movie plots.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells
Its possible that this is a notion of the past. However, hydrocarbon fuel cells are non-puluting to California standards. So, I have no problem with it. After all, the energy has to come from somewhere no matter what transport agent is used.
Looks to me like big business is full of shit yet again.
You're invited to have a look at dhmo.org.
Humm, I had no idea we were viewed this way by the rest of the world. . .
"Hi, I'm from the United States."
"Oh, yes, big land of Borax!"
"Well, um, sure, I guess. . ."
The usual issues apply: finding a source for hydrogen, keeping the storage system and fuel cell from crudding up, and getting the system weight and cost down to manageable levels.
It's still at the "concept car" stage.
Every time I see a "X made from Y" I think of
-Guncotton is made from wood chips
-Sodium cyanide is made from salt
-Hydrochloric acid is made from salt
-Carbon monoxide is made from coal and air
NaBH4 is -nasty- stuff. You don't want to touch it, it will take the water right out of your skin. You don't want water near it until you want the hydrogen. It -burns-, too.
Probably less dangerous than gasoline, but it is NOT as innocuous as laundry detergent.
We were leaning towards Toyota's Prius, although Honda makes one too (the Insight, I believe). Can't speak for Honda, but Toyota is very serious about this, selling them cheap at about $25K (and you get to deduct $2000 on your Federal income taxes. Some states give you incentives, too). Obviously, they're hoping to make it up on market share (not like the dot-coms, I hope!) and maintenance. We test drove one and it was nice, with the pickup of a small V6, but it was uncanilly quiet -- your brain thinks you're coasting even when you're cruising or accelerating slightly. AT 50+ MPG and the tax deductions, we were hoping to come out ahead instead of maintaining our '94 Corolla.
...until our company laid my wife off. Damn recession. Still, the Prius is a pretty cool car. ;)
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Sounds promising. I wonder though, how long it takes to fuel up? Does the hydrogen simply get absorbed into the borax as easily as gasoline pours into a tank, or are we looking at minutes or hours to recharge the fuel supply?
I've gotta say, I love the idea of fueling stations that need nothing more than sunlight, water and a compressor to generate the product, though.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You have a good point here, since the final stage of energy production involves the production of water in large ammounts then why not recycle the water that you are creating and use it in the first reaction, thereby minimizing the size of the water tank required. In fact the size of the water tank would only need to be large enough to provide enough water to initiate the reaction since the final stage produces more than enough water for an ongoing reaction, plus or minus some for evaporation and other losses...
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
And I'm still not sure where we're going to get all that hydrogen. In the US most of it is made with steam reformation of Natural Gas. This releases all the C02 from the methane into the atmosphere, and isn't particularly efficient either. Creating H2 with electricity is also possible but highly inefficient even when compared to the lowly lead-acid battery. Finally, where do we get our electricity from?... Oil and Coal. Back to where we started from. Watch out for the shell game folks!!!!
Still we have to do something about our oil gluttony. I think some better fuel efficiency standards would probably be the best thing.
My bottle has a big skull and crossbones on
it, right next to a little picture of a flame.
The text says: Contact with water liberates
highly flammable gasses. Toxic if swallowed.
Causes burns.
Sodium borohydride is a strong reducing agent!
It turns just about any metal cation (e.g. Fe+2,
Cu+2, etc.) into the metal!
According to the Merck, it also reduces:
aldehydes, ketones, acids, esters, acid chlorides,
disulfides, and nitriles. Ouch! Not exactly
inert or friendly. A mouthful of gasoline isn't
gonna kill you, but this stuff'll really do you in.
I don't see anything you've cited that indicates that the stuff is likely to blow up in a wreck. Gasoline is toxic, too, especially here in California where the air-quality geniuses have demanded that it include the carcinogenic MTBE.
I'd also point out that you don't often encounter palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts on your daily commute.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Work may have been slowed or delayed at the home office, but that's only because they're contracting it out. Total spending on such projects has been increasing every year, especially lately. In fact, it's made a couple of my friends rich... or at least rich enough to buy a house, and keep working on what they love.
riding on Segways in a couple years?
The FAQ says:
The weight-energy storage is almost equivalent to gasoline. This means it generates about the same amount of energy per gallon of fuel as gasoline.
So, if this is true, wouldn't an electric car powered by this with fuel cells probably get better mileage than most gasoline cars? A gasoline engine is burning the fuel, giving up like 90% of it's energy in the form of heat. While fuel cells, and electric motors also produce heat, it's not nearly as much and a much larger percentage of the energy can be used for actually powering the vehicle.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The are located right across the parkng lot.
They have been testing this engine thing for years
in many different cars.. even Suv's. Its totally silent at low speed since it runs off batteries.. once it runs out of juice or needs more horsepower the very small engine kicks on to power the electic system. Its realy wierd seeing a suv moving across the parking lot totally silent. Suposedly they also have regenerative braking hooked up as well. Everything runs off this soapy mixture (which I no know as borax.. ) the soapy mixture is put torhough a catalist which generate hydrogen on the fly hence there is no hydrogen stored in the car.
Upgrade kits aren't available yet, AFAIK, but are certainly possible. (Here's a golden oportunity for aftermarket car part companies!).
1) converting a carburator-equipped conventional car:
remove gas tank, gas filter, carburator;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special adapter to replace carb with catlyst unit.
2) converting a fuel-injected conventional car:
remove gas tank, gas filter, fuel-injector system;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special fuel injectors that handle hydrogen. The Electronic Control Unit would probably also have to be modified or replaced.
3) converting an electric car:
remove batteries, replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit and fuel cells.
Critical thinking is a lost art I see. That is really too bad=/
Let me take you on a quick journey. Those of you who are 50+ will remember the March of Dimes back in the day. They were Polio fighters, plain and simple. Now Polio is gone, why then is the March of Dimes here?
Well, a group like that gains power, influence both for itself and for those involved(directors, board membors, ect...)
Nobody likes just giving up power, influence, or the like.
At the University that my son attends, they have things called diversity requirments that are required. So he took a class about African History. The African History class turned in to more of a bitch about whitey class though=/ Anyhow, his teacher had positions of leadership and power in several semi-powerfull organizations in our city.
This man would rant and rave about the oppression of the white man. His main overall course objective(as explained in the syllabus) was to convince the student that racism was at an ALL TIME HIGH. Higher than when blacks were slaves, higher than when blacks were segregate, higher than any point in our history.
Does anyone really think that? Did he really think that? Most likely not. His power and influence came from fighting racism. He wouldn't give it up, in fact he did everything to try and make his fight even more important, which would bring him more and more power.
The list of examples I could use go on and on. The basic message is this: Nobody will give up power and influence without a fight.
If your group gets political power by fighting for the environment, then by God you will always claim that the enironment is in need of saving...even if it really is not.
I get a big kick out of all the supid treatis that the UN and 3rd world nation groups throw together. They are basically attempts to fuck the U.S. and other successfull nations in order to help out the poorer nations.
Do some research once when it comes to pollution. The U.S. doesn't hold a candle to Brazil, China, Russian, India, and everywhere else in South America, Africa, and Asia.
It reminds me of that U.N. treaty a bunch of nobody African and Asian nations tried to get through the U.N. This treated stated that any profits from space should be divided up among all the nations of the world.
The idea being that if Japan spends 50 Billion dollars figuring out how to mine XXX in a profitable manner from some moon in space. All the profits should be divided among the worlds nations, even those who did nothing to help, ect...
Lets face it, a lot of groups don't like the U.S. and they try to screw us over whenever they can. Most proposed treaties on the environment read like this: U.S. cripple your industries and break the bank of your goverment to reduce pollution xx%, the rest of the world: pollute at will, use your zero pollution standards to attract business that was in the U.S. and/or make up some crap about pollution credits and then force the U.S. into buying them from 3rd world countries to line their pockets.
The U.S. does just fine when it comes to polluting. Don't believe everything your tree hugging groups tell you. Remember, they need a cause to fight for!!!! Even if they have to make it up.
Gosh imagine that... all you communists out there that think nothing going happens with out government funding fall flat on your faces once again. As we've said for a long long time... the market will decide when the technology comes to life and it seems that we'll be in good shape if there's widespread adoption of this in the next 10 years.
Every bit helps and it will take time for the technology to finally mature. Lets just keep the gov. out of it.
I think its the byproduct, sodium borate that is non-toxic and non-flammable.
The article seems to have failed to distinguish between the the "charged" sodium borohydride fuel and the "spent" sodium borate a couple of times.
I read the blurbs on the Millenium website, but they don't answer two questions which seem important. Okay, this borax solution produces "hydrogen on demand" (TM), great. It leaves behind a safe, non-polluting, "recyclable" compound and emits no hydrocarbon exhaust. Sounds all hunky-dory.
Except a couple of nagging questions. Like, how do you recycle the waste product (sludge?) to make it usable again? You have to reintroduce hydrogen back into the waste product to make it usable again, but that hydrogen has to come from somewhere. They mention seawater as the potential source of hydrogen in this process. Okay, true, water is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. But you have to expend energy to extract the hydrogen. Lots of it. Where does that energy come from? Power plants, most likely. Power plants that burn fossil fuels, for the most part.
From what I understand, it's more efficient to burn the fossil fuels directly in your car's engine than to burn it in a power plant, transmit the energy somewhere, store it in some sort of battery or fuel cell, and use that to power your car. Even if that's not the case, you still have to burn fossil fuels, nullifying the supposed benefit of this new "clean" technology. Plus, we're still beholden to "big oil".
The other question is, what happens to the waste product? I guess it would go into some sort of holding tank in your vehicle or something Does that mean you would have to not only fill your tank when you go to the borax station to refuel, you would also have to empty the waste tank?
Oh well, at least this seems more useful than cold fusion.
What fuel cells do for you is provide a better way to store energy. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
It gets even better. Sure, you can make a case that we only need a thimblefull of water. But we don't even need to store that water in a seperate tank! Notice that the reaction depends on a catalyst; in fact, without that catalyst, nothing happens at all. So, just dilute the fuel with a small (perhaps very small) percentage of water. And, of course, recapture water as was already mentioned. Problem solved?
I've had this sig for three days.
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid /13691/story.htm
"Jacobson, in a presentation to the American Geophysical Union, said soot produced by burning diesel fuels, coal and wood had a much more severe impact on the environment relative to its mass than do greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane."
anything which lessen our dependence on Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general is a GOOD THING (TM)
Ha ha, you lost some serious karma points, cockbreath. Take it up the ass like a woman.
Aye aye aye aye, I am the Frito bandito.
Humor me for a second while we're on the subject of "Big Oil". For the moment, accept the following, or peruse the following links until satisfied:
1. Industrialized society is absolutely dependent on oil.
2. There are no conventional rewewable energy sources that can replace oil.
3. World peak production of oil will occur in the next 10 years.
Industrialized society will collapse and billions will starve trapped inside a system that cannot support them. The horrifying truth is that this future is more acceptable to the powers that be than the alternative. Like people trapped in a gas chamber (industrial world) the oxygen (oil) is running out and the strong (rich) are on the top getting the last few gasps crushing the people below them. The few would rather have billions die than risk losing control. For most educated people presented with these ideas the situation would appear hopeless. Here we are at the beginning of the 21st century addicted to a drug that is both destroying our environment and enslaving us, yet absolutely essential for continued survival. And the supply is running out never to be replaced. Perhaps the end of civilization will mirror the collapse of a star, burning progressively heavier nuclei in a futile attempt to stave off gravitational collapse. Indeed this outcome would be easier to accept than alternative. The "alternative" requires you to accept a new and shocking paradigm summed up in the following statement:
* Closed systems do not exist.
Everything in the universe is freely exchanging energy at all times. The challenge is to figure out how to channel and direct this energy. This problem was solved by Nicola Tesla (and many others) but supressed or simply ignored by the mainstream. The Western mind only sees what it EXPECTS to see, not what is actually there. As proof that closed systems are an illusion and a crutch, consider the common refrigerator magnet stuck to a refrigerator. This closed system will remain static for an indefinite period of time with no energy input. This should already be setting off alarm bells. How can a magnet constantly attract and defy gravity in its attempts to pull it to the floor??? If the magnet was glued to the refrigerator it would be easier to accept as a physical bond would exist to support the magnet. No such bond exists besides the field of the magnet. A field that is governed by the same laws of thermodynamics that insure that entropy in a closed system will increase over time. This is not the case and the system will remain in equilibrium for many years with no apparent outside influence. This is a baffling mystery that has yet to be solved by mainstream physics. So how does the magnet stay put?
Since closed systems do not exist, clearly energy is coming from somewhere to replenish the field. But this isn't normal energy. The energy coming into replenish the field actually REDUCES entropy. How would this be detectable? Conventional electricity flowing through a conductor will lose some of its energy in the form of heat. Any time there is a flow there will be some resistive loss (thermodynamics again). Some materials when cooled sufficently loss their resistance to flow, and become superconductors and do not loss energy. Now, if this new type of energy were to flow through a conductor the most obvious side effect would be a DECREASE in temperature.
Now this is preposterous, how can energy travel through a lossy conductor yet GAIN energy from its travel? No idea. It's weird stuff and there really aren't any textbooks on it. We do know that this energy will run electric motors and light bulbs just fine though. There appears to be an infinite amount of this energy available free for the taking. For a much more indepth explaination check out this and for a $75 demonstration of this "cold" current that you can build yourself check out this. Please don't be turned off by my meandering slightly schizo style. It's VERY difficult to talk about this stuff and not look like a crack pot. Kind of like talking about heavier than air flight before the Wright brothers. But things are beginning to fall apart and we need to begin the process of switching from under unity lossy systems to over unity energy systems. If this switch over is not successful, billions will die. I encourage you to educate yourself and become involved in the revolution. This is a unique time, the fate of civilization depends on what you do right now.
So don't fuck up, I kind of want to see the good side win for a change.
>Here's what the article says about Sodium Borohydride...
>"To solve those problems, Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic"
Aparently the article is wrong; the following is what Millenium's web page says:
"Q: How does Millennium Cell's Hydrogen on Demand(TM) system store and generate hydrogen?
A: Millennium Cell's Hydrogen on Demand(TM) system stores hydrogen in an innocuous water-based solution of sodium borohydride (NaBH4). This is a
benign, non-flammable solution that produces Hydrogen on Demand(TM); that is, only when exposed to a catalyst. When this solution, or fuel, comes into contact with the catalyst, hydrogen is released from the solution. When the fuel is not in contact with the catalyst, the solution is inert and no hydrogen is generated. After the solution has been in contact with the catalyst, the borohydride fuel is converted to a borate solution, which is collected in a waste tank. This borate solution is recyclable into new borohydride fuel."
Note that the anhydrous form (powder) is extremely reactive and corrosive. Ingesting the powder would cause severe internal burns because it violently sucks the water out of any flesh it comes in contact with (sounds painful!). But they say they use a "water-based solution". The solution, however, is not as reactive because it has already done the reaction with water, and needs a catalyst to continue breaking down into borax and hydrogen.
I'm curious, though, about how they form this solution in the first place.
Do you really want to put this in your car? I don't think so! The fact that it's similar to another chemical doesn't mean it has to have the same properties?! Just like you can say:
Toluene is not such a bad substance (it's found in ordinary petrol; as long as you don't drink or bathe in it), so toulene with three NO3 groups is just as safe. For the people who didn't get it: I'm talking 'bout trinitrotoluene(TNT)!
IMHO, The chance that this is going into production isn't that large.
I can see the ad campaign now...
The automobile needs to be redesigned from the ground up. We're still using the same basic design that Henry Ford popularized: cheap, bulky, easy to manufacture, and constructed mostly of steel. The average car weighs 20 times more than the driver. Right there, you cut efficiency of getting from point A to B by twenty-fold even if you had an impossible perfectly efficient engine. Obviously, there's a limit to how efficient a vehicle can be following law of diminishing returns as you try to make the vehicle and motor lighter. However, we're nowhere remotely near that point with the 99% inefficient metal beasts we drive today.
Food for thought: a 300lb. hybrid recumbent bike / motorcycle design, somewhat bullet shaped, made out of modern composite plastics with large crumple zones and a strong rollbar. It has interchangable wheels for different seasons (if necessary) and generally has a very low rolling resistance. The vehicle is powered by a 10hp electric motor, which (if the vehicle had no rolling or air resistance) and assuming a 200lb driver, would reach 35mph in 3.7s. Reasonably, lets say 6s, but less if you decide to help out by pedaling. Obviously the power source is the greatest weight. Fuel cells would be ideal, but even without, modern lithium ion batteries would be a decent replacement at 300W/kg power density and 100Wh/kg energy density. 10hp = 7460W, so you'd need about 55 pounds for the Li-Ion batteries. A 1000W solar array ($5000), will fully charge the batteries in about 3-4 hours in full sunlight. So now you have a very cheap vehicle which will last nearly forever (except the batteries and tires), require virtually no maintenance, and once paid for, be free to operate as long as you live somewhere with halfway decent sun-hours. Who wants to build one? (-;
its good to see someone finaly taking advantage of 100 years old german submarine technology. Has abybody thought about that the energy in those fuel cells have to come from somwhere...
-Fuel cells, waisting sailors since 1914!
Nemo
>forever (except the batteries and tires), require >virtually no maintenance, and once paid for, be free >to operate as long as you live somewhere with >halfway decent sun-hours. Who wants to build one? >(-;
Me me me...
... how?
The point you make about upgrading a centralised source to renewable making thousands of cars Green at once instead of having to upgrade every car is a good one. In addition, energy can be extracted in ways and from areas not practical within the car itself. You may put a solar cell on a car, but you can't take advantage of offshore wind or tidal power.
Phillip.
http://www.FutureEnergies.com/
Property for sale in Nice, France
I looked at getting one of those last year (the Honda anyway). Be aware the cargo (weight) capacity sucks out loud. IIRC, if you are carrying two adults you barely have any weight left for things like luggage.
I'll grant you that it would still be a sweet commuter vehicle, but I would want to own another "real" car as well.
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
I firmly believe energy corps/oil corps/whateva, are working on the next solution, its just still a toddler compared to its oil laden legacy.
-Malachi-
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
1) This is just energy _storage_. It still takes
just as much energy to do the same work, maybe a
little more or a little less if it is more or less
efficient to charge and discharge. Think of it
like a battery... just because there are seperates
parts, it's still chemical storage of electrical
energy. So the big question is, given a watts-
worth of oil/gas/coal/whatever, how many miles
can you go? More efficient generator at the power
plant down the road, so that's nice, but how
much of that efficiency is lost making H2 and then
converting H2 into electricity?
2) Big oil doesn't care about this, because they
are also Big Gas and Big Coal. You gotta get your
energy from somewhere. "I'll buy some solar panels!" Do some reading, sport. Learn about how
much they cost. Gosh, does it take energy to make
solar cells, I wonder? They're expensive for a reason.
3) Noone minds investing in infrastructure just
like noone minds investing in stock. They invest
according to how much they expect it to pay off.
Infrastructure is good; it has value, you can get
loans off it to invest elsewhere. If they believe
that you will buy borax solution at the pump, they'll be happy to put it there and happy to
charge you for it. They lose money when they're
wrong, not when they spend it. Big coal doesn't
give a hoot about forking over cash for cleaner
plants... they'll just charge us for it. Big coal
cares about spending a fortune for scrubbers and
then having the next administration change the
environmental laws. Now they got worthless
srubbers, can't sell 'em, can't use 'em for
collateral.
5) Zinc air batteries are much cooler than this.
4) Get a bike.
Even clean steam is a form of pollution,
In the early 1900's when Stanley was producing its famous steam driven cars, steam was reckognized as a form of pollution , certain cities were literally soaked in steam vapor, moisture on everything, causing problems with local flora in winter months from eccesice droplet freeze, not to mention saftey issues as ice on everything. Steam in any kind of quantity in a major urban area is not something most of you remeber from the 30's or 40's, yes there is steam, not in the volumes there was previous.
Question is do these things put out steam or have an onboard condensor, what is done with the waste water, which will most likley be contamiated with lubricants and other nasties from the insides of the electric plants onboard.
You know what this means?
ORL-RAT LD50 89 mg kg-1
89 mg of this chemical per kilogram of body weight is the LD50 (lethal dose to 50% of rats it was administered to orally).
(The funky bolding is to emphasize where each part fits in the LD specification.)
So, if a rat weighs 500g, there's a 50% chance that feeding it 44.5 mg (a very tiny amount) of this stuff will kill it.
Extrapolating this to an 80 kg (176-pound) human, ingesting only 7.12g of this chemical should be enough for a 50% chance of death (assuming it has the same toxicity to humans as rats).
All in all, pretty nasty stuff.
...is the recyclability of the reaction products. The remanufacture of the fuel could be coupled to solar, wind, or nuclear generation at the source, meaning that all of that industrial plant could be put wherever it is best sited, whether distributed or centralized.
(This reminds me of the "nuplexes" that James Hogan wrote of, which not only produce steel from ore but send cogenerated electricity *out* insted of taking vast amounts of it in.)
The petroleum companies have put all that money to good use - hiring lots of really smart people, and preparing for diversification when the time comes. They'll be happy to sell you whatever energy medium is in fashion. They didn't get rich by being dumb.
... Huge chunks of taxes will disappear some day, and most of them really aren't prepared for that situation. That will be an ugly situation.
On the other hand you can expect to see several US states collapse when the oil business finally goes away. Oklahoma, Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Ever hear of biodiesel? It's diesel manufactured from vegetable oil that normal diesel engines can use with no modifications and no increase in wear and tear. You can buy it in 55 gallon drums for about $4.50 a gallon, plus delivery. The stuff can also be mixed with regular diesel in any percentage, and of course reduces pollution. $5 a gallon isn't much higher than fuel prices in Europe, AND if this product was mass produced it would be cheaper anyway.
The problem isn't necessarily that oil companies are trying to stomp out alternative fuels. They're just established. Petroleum transportation, refineries, and and stations all exist. Alternative fuels require massive investments for initial production, transportation, and sales... it would take years before they could hope to compete with petroleum prices.
Big oil doesn't have to compete. They've already one. Unless the government intervenes in a big way (always a very mixed blessing), alternative fuels won't be big in our lifetime.
It's not gonna happen for a LONG time..hundreds of years.. There are enough proven reserves worldwide to last 200 years. Unproven reserves are also quite extensive.. Do a search on Tar sands. The technology exists to make sweet crude from tar sands already, it costs $12 a barrel with burrent technology, and is bound to go down in costs..
Human flesh powered car. Or maybe human bone ... human remain ...
... there will be bubbles, instead of carbon monoxide coming out of the exaust pipe?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Since we are waving around MSDS data, it might be instructive to take a look at the MSDS for regular unleaded gasoline.
The oral LD50 in rats is approximately 5ml/kg.
INGESTION:
Because of the low viscosity of this substance, it can directly enter the lungs if it is swallowed (this is called aspiration). This can occur during the act of swallowing or when vomiting the substance. Once in the lungs, the substance is very difficult to remove and can cause severe injury to the lungs and death.
More scary MSDS stuff:
This product presents an extreme fire hazard. Liquid very quickly evaporates, even at low temperatures, and forms vapor (fumes) which can catch fire and burn with explosive violence. Invisible vapor spreads easily and can be set on fire by many sources such as pilot lights, welding equipment, and electrical motors and switches.
The point is, gasoline is an inherently dangerous substance, probably much more so than the proposed borate solution.
In spite of that, we have devised means of handling it that make the risk manageable, and that is what we will do here as well. So if the concept is ultimately rejected, safety is the least likely reason IMO.
Will it get 20 Mule-Power?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
These Hybrid Cars are cool. I own a 1992 Honda Civic VX. It was rated at 48 City and 52 Highway. I have gotten as high as 60 MPG. And it is a roomy car for a subcompact. Now days except for the hybrids you can not get a car with that good of gas mileage. Is that due to low gas prices? There are a lot of things one can do to improve gas mileage in cars, and the technology is not new.
Won't somebody think of the children?
Unintended consquences.
I thought that Canada had the world's larest supply of that stuff ?
"NaBH4 can be made from sodium borate -- basic borax, used in laundry detergent."
Shouldn't the headline be
Chrysler Announces Soap-Powered Van ?
a central power plant can be made both more efficient in extracting energy from fossil fuels,
and cleaner, since for both there are economies of scale.
so the so-called paradox is really "use less oil and generate less pollution somewhere else".
Many fuel cells have a by-product of heat to the tune of 600 degrees or more! If you were really crazy you could make hydrogen form water by using electrolysis, and a little electricity and the byproduct would be Oxygen. I have seen plans to use Ammonia as a fuel for the fuel cell. There are as many types as there are imagination. Often they make electricity from Hydrogen which requires thin membranes plated with patinum. Another type is made from a crystal tube that is reated up to radiate heat and then uses thermo solar electric conversion. In other words they make electricity from heat. They look like a giant vacum tube or a small drum. Pure electric cars that you have to charge are a complete flop. The EV1 uses Nickel Metal Hydride batteries and can only get up to 130 miles in good weather with no wind or hills. The batteries cost $10,000.00 and weigh 1,000lbs. It would be easier to make an electric car with a battery system and a backup generator that kicks on whenever the charge falls. this would prevent the battery from loosing its charge. If you are going to charge batteries anyway, why not use a solarpanel for a roof to charge the batteries while it is in the parking lot. You wont have trouble finding the sunny spot; Hee Hee, Everyone else will park under the trees. On a van you could probably put 4 solar panels on the roof for faster changing and run a little exhaust fan of the extra juice. I was thinking of a perpetual motion car that could make energy by a wind turbine hooked to a 3 phase generator or 2 or 3. a single shaft could propel several generators theorhetically. As you go down the road this would create some drag, but at 50 miles an hour you get plenty of wind to make the car go. Dual shaft Brushless DC motors could be hooked up to a transmission so the other shaft sticks out to run an alternator or charging system. Which could charge the batteries also. They make wind turbines that can spin up to 120 miles an hour, and can activate at 7 miles an hour. They slow them seves down when they go too fast. The possiblities are endless. The problem is people are not able to think outside of the box! It is too easy to keep doing things the same way because that is the easy way.
Ok, here's something I can actually comment on with some authority, since I'm a chemist. Sodium borohydride itself is not that bad. You don't eat it (would you eat gasoline?), and the biggest concern is its water reactivity, which is moderate (think baking soda + vinegar... this is a little more reactive, but by no means as bomb waiting to go off). I've worked with the stuff on numerous occasions -- you can weigh the white powder out on a balance with no extra precautions over what you normally use to handle lab chemicals. The thing is, they're talking about a WATER SOLUTION of NaBH4, which eliminates the main problem in the first place.
Yes, it's a chemical, people. Yes, it can emit hydrogen bubbles under the right conditions. That's kind of the point. At first blush, this is one of the safer sources of hydrogen I've seen discussed.
Since you're delving into MSDS's, take a look at another sodium compound: sodium chloride. Did you know that you have an inhalation hazard in your kitchen cupboard?
-john
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= John Reinert Nash -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The kicker is re-charging the borax with hydrogen. It will cost more energy than the charged borax produces to re-charge it.
The fuel cell is *NOT* an energy source. If you think it is then you are eligible for an Ignoble prize for reinventing the perpetual motion machine. It is an energy transducer, from chemical to electrical. What it does provide is a means of using energy in a mobile application.
If we build nuclear power plants, we could use the electricity produced to electrolize water and produce hydrogen. Thus we would have a way to increase our energy supply by using nuclear technology. Thus we could transition to a nuclear based energy economy , which would include, indirectly, mobile applications.
rm -rf microsoft*
They stop pumping oil and BANGO! - no more vaseline. The conclusion is obvious. Big Oil represents the shine in your palm. Hydrogen's got nothing on that.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
See here and here.
The Sinclair C5 was a plastic-bodied electric trike with pedal assist, and was supposed to be the Next Big Thing at one point. But, nobody bought it. It was about an order of magnitude cheaper than what you're suggesting, too.
Basically, a car has to be a certain minimum size to be useful to people. Even the existing subcompact cars are too small for 99% of the public. For most Americans, it has to hold 4 people and their luggage. A trike has no chance in the market whatsoever.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Flamer!
Two large borohydrate vehicles have collided on I-80. More than 6 people are presumed clean. Responding emergency vehicles have already begun the dirty up the scene, after a 30 ft stretch of the highway was rendered spotless. Bubbles have obscured visibility for 2 miles in either direction.
Seriously, this stuff sounds a lot LESS dangerous than fossil fuels, we don't have to import it. And the basic fuel component is recyclable?
Lee
Who's tired of sitting on his hands...
Has anyone looked at the BMW alternative?
Read Here
This looks more interesting to me. Cars powered by liquid hydrogen. The emissions by product is water vapor. Very environmental friendly.
Unlike some other conspiracies, the automobile/oil industry ones have some interesting history. I'd say it's more like interesting food for though, and it's not from some paranoid kook either --I'm not one to believe in paranoid conspiracies, new age cures, faith healing, visits from intelligent extra-terrestrials, mysticism, etcetera. I do however believe in sunshine (anti-backroom) laws, fair competition (through iron handed regulation if necessary, and good public policy.
Michael Parenti in Democracy for the Few (6th Ed.)[1] writes about some disturbing observations. The energy frugality of mass-transit was so "undesirable" to the oil and auto industries" that "[f]or over a half-century their response has been to undermine th nation's rail and electric-bus system."
The undermining of Los Angeles's 1935 "75-mile radius" "3,000 quiet, pollution-free electric trains [carrying"80 million people a year" was carried out by:
He follows up with the influence of cars, extended references of death rates --"2x accumulated number of Americans killed in all the wars ever fought by the United States"", urban air pollution, massive automobile land use, "$300 billion annual subsid[ies]", while "...mass transit--the most efficient, cleanest, and safest form of transporting goods and people" is abandoned. (p. 106)
I believe the money used "to subsidize automobile use" can be viewed, from one perspective, as an example of an economic freeloader. As auto companies undermine mass transit, thus using public dollars (which they only pay a fraction of) to fund expensive automobile public infrastructure.
I particularly like how he states that "[g]iven the absence of alternative mods of transportatoin, people become dependent on the automobile as a way of life so that their need for cars is often as real as their need for jobs." The economic burden of autos is pretty high for most americans. It's not like a $1000 tv, or $300 bike. It's a monthy loan payment, and then it's a bi-annual insurance payment, and finally its massive social/tax/healthcare cost from the "46,000 people killed" and "2,000,000 people injured" in traffic accidents. It makes wonder if the Segway could make a dent into this automobile entity we all have to live with?[24][25]
_____ >Parenti's footnotes<
23. Jonathan Kwitny, "The Great Transportation Conspiracy,"in Cargan and Ballantin (eds.), Sociological Footprints, 2nd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1982)
24. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992); Andrew Kimbrell, "Car Culture: Driving Ourselves Crazy,"Washington Post September 3, 1989. Kimbrell notes that fatality statistics may be too low since they do not include deaths that occur several days after accidents or off-road.[2] he points out that motor vehicles kill easily one million animals each day, making road kills second only to the meat industry. More deer are killed by cars than by hunters.[3]
25. Kimbrell, "Car Culture" >/Parenti's footnotes<
_____
1. "a major voice among political progressives"...Ph.D from Yale...lectures frequently at college campuses across the country." --[from back cover]
2. My grandfather died because of accident related complications =(
3. Animal rights activists will have a hard time stopping consumers from driving though, considering how car ownership is ingrained. And/or how convenient it is.
Being a user of Mass Transit however I can assure you that the reason it isn't more widely used is twofold.
1) A personal car is a personal freedom. People will not give that up. This isn't a dependency created by the hedging of mass transit, its a dependancy on "I want to leave for Aunt Maude's on Saturday or Sunday and not make any stops on the way".
2) Mass Transit doesn't work in urban Sprawl. If Aunt Maude is in Talamazoo Ohio, its doubtful we would econimicaly get meaningful service between there and Columbus.
Recently (1992) a small town in Southern California called "San Diego" was honored for creating a mass transit system that was sooo economical that it recouperated 70-80% of its costs.
I wonder what that means in a free market system, where it costs more to ride the bus than it costs to put money in my car and drive to work. Now granted I don't use the buses in San Diego.
However, I am a major supporter of Mass Transit. Especially for the purposes of commuting daily routines. I agree with your evidence that they were maligned, but that is on grounds entirely different than electrical personal trasportation vehicles.
An interesting limit shows up in research over the past few decades. With all the increased conjestion, the average commute time is still about a half an hour. Why hasn't it gone up? Well becuase people seem to take action at about that point.
That to me suggests a tolerated limit of transportation time. On a bus, a half an hour's journey is litteraly 4-5 miles. Maybe 15 miles if you are lucky enough to be on an express route. That means that you need quite some density before Mass transit is tolerable in America. I support the new "Smart Development" happening in many cities where density is increased in waves starting from a town center, rather than continuing sprawl. That is really the key factor in making a mass transit system work.
However, that kills peoples desire for Land. Oh well, you can't have it all unless you live in New Mexico.
In any case, we were talking about Electical Vehicles which do not suffer from the problems of Mass transit, and have no identifiable signs of malicious tampering from Big Oil, etc...
Eletric cars suck, and will never catch on because they are electric. The only car the general public will ever except is a hydrogen powered internal combustion one like the BMW 750hl. It feels, and sounds just like the fimiliar gas engine, and gets 380 horse power. Besides, gas cars use a small percentage of the fuel in the world. Most of the fuel is used by diesel motors to power boats, generators, trains, and trucks. Find a way to replcace the motors on these and then you've actually solved a problem.
My suggestion would be nuclear power, but I don't think people would like a nuclear powered train running around there cities
NPR's All Things Considered did a segment on DeBeer's single-handed building of a commodity market. Visit the web page, or listen to the segment via RealAudio.
What's this Submit thingy do?
companies may be slow to change, but they dont get to be big companies by rejecting it completely.
-
If it releases hydrogen when mixed with water it is quite unsafe, of course... but... uhhh! You can't have hydrogen fueled cars without hydrogen (sigh!). After all it is surely safer than liquid hydrogen, Maybe even safer than gazoline.
By the way, the chemical used in airbags is highly unstable but nobody seems to care a lot about about it's dangers. That's what crash tests are for.
Is your electric reclined bike going to be a 3-foot sphere of bubble wrap? No, it's going to be a hard plastic shell, and its only padding will be on the seat, so how is this relevant?
To answer your question, though, I'd MUCH rather be in the indestructible steel box, because if I'm in the bubble wrap, I'm going to be either crushed under the semi or subjected to far higher acceleration, because the bubble wrap and I together have only a tiny fraction of the mass of the steel box and I together. When the same amount of force is applied to a much lighter object, it gets accelerated proportionately more.
In ANY head-on collision, mass DOES help, because the lighter object will tend to get knocked backwards, while the heavier object is only slowed down. The lighter object undergoes much higher acceleration. To use your example, would you rather be in the bubble wrap, or the 18-wheeler?
Now, in a head-on collision with an 18-wheeler, a bridge abutment, or some other very massive object , it may not make as much of a difference what you're driving, because the super-massive object isn't really going to yield. But, in a collision with anything else, yes, size does matter. And most collisions are with other cars.
As a real-world example, my aunt was sideswiped by a big truck, which mashed her and her car into a guard rail. She came out of it without serious injury, because she was driving her company's full-sized Caprice station wagon, and it had enough mass, structural strength and crush room to absorb the impact before it got to her. They told her that if she had been in an economy car, there is no question that she would have been killed.
All other things being equal, bigger cars ARE safer.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
"Stable, but reacts readily with water (reaction may be violent). Incompatible with water, oxidising agents, carbon dioxide, hydrogen halids, acids, palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts, glass. Flammable solid. Air-sensitive."
For anyone who's taken organic chemistry, NaBH4 is considered a "mild" reducing agent. But mild is only a relative term! NaBH4 is so reactive to water that it cannot be left in the open for any period of time, else it will react with moisture in the air! How does Chrysler plan on moving large quantities of NaBH4 around the country in a safe way?
Isn't it funny how often things that Americans call impossible are implemented successfully by other countries.
Nice try but no-one said it wasn't possible especialy Americans. You could add New York Subway, Chicago L-train, etc as successful mass transit systems. And they are in the USA.
Historicaly, and economicaly they simply aren't viable below certain population densities. And remember I am not against mass transit, I use it myself even when a 20 minute commute becomes and hour and a half. I am against people who raise it as a false flag.
Get Facts, get them straight, and please come again...
GM, even with a long waiting list for its EV1's is currently sending hundreds to the crushers as we speak. They, say (and fools take it at face value) that there isn't a market for EV's but this action alone proves that's not true. Heck, people want them so bad that they're willing to build their own! There are even small companies to cater to this!
Check out http://store.wilde-evolutions.com/ for an example.
Hehe. At the same time, Dihydrogen Monoxide is also an inhalation hazard. :) It takes easily less than 100ml to kill you if inhaled.
:)
But then, your lungs aren't terribly resilient to much of anything when you inhale any number of substances, are they?
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
It's worth noting that pure water doesn't harm the environment, so it's no great sin to just dump it overboard, now is it? :)
What a silly question.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
So, let me get this right?
This is a car that produces "soap" instead of exhaust.
Do you realize how this will revolutionize gearheadding?
Pull into the gargage, open the hood, give her a tune up.
Now just revv the snot out of the motor and clean up the mess.
Improve on that if you dare!
-=-
-=-
You may not have heard that there is a theory that oil fields are self replenishing. The theory is actually more intense than that and is about life deep inside earth (deeper than you might imagine). Check out this posting. The guy that came up with the theory is Thomas Gold. He's a nobel laureate and he wrote a book about it called , The Deep Hot Biosphere. Here's an overview of his theory. I can't find the original article I read about this. But that article went on to say that this is a new field for Gold and his last theory which proved to be true had the same initial reaction as this one. He's usually booed and hissed and heckled off the podium when he presents his work at the conferences. No respect I tell ya!
Oops! He's not a Nobel laureate. I found Tom's bio. Click his name in the upper left corner of that page to check out his current work.