Slashdot Mirror
Fuel Cell Car Goes Cross-Country
person-0.9a writes "CNN is currently running a story about Daimler-Chrysler's fuel-cell concept car completing a trek across America. The CNN article is more about the trip, but details about the vehicle can be found here."
Finally,
.. yeah .. it runs on Hydrogen, but the hydrogen plants will still buy gas from you - so don't worry about it.
.. Its REALLY renewable .. I mean .. Hemp is a weed. [or is that Hemp is weed .. I forget which.]
.. mow em down , plant Bio-crops .. and make a little $$ on the deal. [and add some oxygen back to the atmosphere while we are at it.]
.. very good points .. Hopefully folks will read your post.
a decent 'non tree hugging' post about *green* fuel.
The real reason you see so much pressure for hydrogen is because it can be distilled from current petrolium products.
Lessens the blow to the oil tycoons when GM says
Personally im all for BioDiesel
In baltimore alone there are some 40 odd abandoned blocks in the city
Anyways
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Hmm...
- people who hate SUV's because they can't see over them.... or just get mad when they see someone in a bigger car.
Vehicles that obstruct the view of the road for drivers behind them increase the risk of accidents for themselves and everyone else. In the case of large transport trucks it's unavoidable, but passenger vehicles can avoid this consequence.
- "Limousine environmentalists" who rail against SUV's and "greenhouse gases" while driving one themselves. Al Gore is one of these.
Agreed. I have little respect for those who don't practice what they preach.
- People who want to force automakers to make smaller flimsier dangerous cars with less passenger and cargo capacity that get more miles per gallon.
Smaller cars are only dangerous because they risk being involved in an accident with larger cars. If everyone's cars were smaller, everyone would be safer because collisions would, on average, be less energetic. Also, since smaller cars have shorter braking distances and better handling, the absolute number of accidents might be reduced as well. As far as cargo capacity, I can get myself, my wife, our kid, and a month's worth of groceries in our Honda Civic which gets >35mpg. People who claim they 'need' an SUV to go grocery shopping are lying, plain and simple. It might be useful for buying furniture, but that's not something you do on a regular basis. Rent a truck when you do, it's cheaper than paying for the gas you'll burn in the meantime.
- Centers for science in no-ones interest who perpetuate tentative and unproven manmade global warming theories.
There's a lot of good and bad science thrown around in the debate, but if there's even a chance that it's correct, it seems prudent to look for ways to reduce emissions - if it can be done without excessive cost. Driving more efficient cars is hardly excessively costly, in fact it generally has a negative cost.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
> people who hate SUV's because they can't see over them
More like the other way around--yesterday I was nearly run off the right lane of a freeway by a patriotic American in a good-for-the-economy truck because he couldn't see my sedan over his high passenger window sill.
> or just get mad when they see someone in a bigger car
Yes, because in the end all people are motivated by the same Freudian need for larger things in life. The fact that some people might actually want more compact cars with less inertia and tight suspensions that can be thrown around corners (it's called "h-a-n-d-l-i-n-g") is obviously pure FUD thrown up by inferior foreign auto manufacturers that can't compete with the exquisite American sculptures-in-(lots-of)-steel.
> People who want to force automakers to make smaller flimsier dangerous cars
Structural rigidity decreases with increasing structure size, as any engineer will tell you. IOW, the larger a vehicle, the worse it does in collisions with objects of its own heft. Never mind that current trucks are not even particularly engineering for crashes--they feature inferior crumple zones and body rigidity. They are designed to survive crashes mainly due to the overwhelming odds that they will collide with a much smaller vehicle. Truck-on-truck collisions fare much worse than car-on-car collisions. Of course, in the US trucks are not measured on the same crashworthiness scale anyway, so they don't have to.