Trains typically use many small motors rather than one great big powerhouse like a passenger car would. This works great in trains for both traction and packaging reasons, and is why we've been enjoying hybrid trains for decades but are only getting hybrid cars now.
Hyrogen simply will not burn without oxygen, so the chances of a tank of liquid Hydrogen spontaneously exploding are virtually nil. If the tank is ruptured the gas will boil off VERY quickly and rocket up into the sky, if it DOES ignite, it will do so quickly and cooly and cause minimal burn risk.
The biggest danger a tank of liquid hydrogen presents is that of freezing your hand to the tank as it vents.
It does matter. Hydrogen airships were BANNED because of the 'explosive' nature of the gas, yet research has shown that the kerosene carried by conventional aircraft is a much bigger fire risk than the Hindenburg's hydrogen.
It's been fairly well established tyhat it was the metallised skin of the Hindenburg that caught fire - the hydrogen burned off very quickly after the structure started to collapse.
Why do you assume battery chargers and electric motors are 100% efficient? And why do you discount the MOST IMPORTANT benefit of electric vehicles, regen braking and low stationary power use?
What bollocks. I'll bet a pound to a penny you use your SUV to drive through at McDonalds and take the kids to school just like every other fat-arsed, slack-jawed American imbecile.
Fusion reactors work now? I was under the impression that they'd achieved pretty much zero net energy at JET, and need to scale up before we get actual net gain.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I sate otherwise. Indeed, such cars have been designed.
Of course, the notion of a 'Hydrogen economy' is complete bollocks as it is slightly WORSE than the oil economy that we have today.
Zealot or not, Hydrogen DOES have an ill-deserved reputation for being dangerous.
Prototypes don't count. Anyway, it needs a cryogenic plant to work.
How - exactly - does an airship using Hydrogen for bouyancy ONLY and Diesel engines for propulsion fit into the so-called 'Hydrogen economy'?
A ratio is expressed like this-
1000:1
"owt for nowt" is English, I can see why it might have confused a non-English speaker.
There is no ignition.
Trains typically use many small motors rather than one great big powerhouse like a passenger car would. This works great in trains for both traction and packaging reasons, and is why we've been enjoying hybrid trains for decades but are only getting hybrid cars now.
He was right. Electric motors DON'T typically generate a lot of power, torque they have in abundance but power is not so easy.
Hyrogen simply will not burn without oxygen, so the chances of a tank of liquid Hydrogen spontaneously exploding are virtually nil. If the tank is ruptured the gas will boil off VERY quickly and rocket up into the sky, if it DOES ignite, it will do so quickly and cooly and cause minimal burn risk.
The biggest danger a tank of liquid hydrogen presents is that of freezing your hand to the tank as it vents.
It does matter. Hydrogen airships were BANNED because of the 'explosive' nature of the gas, yet research has shown that the kerosene carried by conventional aircraft is a much bigger fire risk than the Hindenburg's hydrogen.
It's been fairly well established tyhat it was the metallised skin of the Hindenburg that caught fire - the hydrogen burned off very quickly after the structure started to collapse.
You have to cook pancakes. Why not eat bananas?
Your Diesel IS producing some horrible particulates that are damaging to human health and which a petrol engine does not produce.
Consider a particulate filter.
Instantaneous readings mean fuck-all. You're just looking at the noise in the data.
Why do you assume battery chargers and electric motors are 100% efficient? And why do you discount the MOST IMPORTANT benefit of electric vehicles, regen braking and low stationary power use?
Are you two racing to the bottom of the idiot barrel?
Ireland has similar hydro to Norway??
Have you fucking BEEN to Norway? Rain, mountains and deep, steep valleys - it's hydro paradise! Ireland is NOTHING like it.
What bollocks. I'll bet a pound to a penny you use your SUV to drive through at McDonalds and take the kids to school just like every other fat-arsed, slack-jawed American imbecile.
Fusion reactors work now? I was under the impression that they'd achieved pretty much zero net energy at JET, and need to scale up before we get actual net gain.
how - exactly - is nuclear power "worse" than fossil fuels?
All the best trolls have been mod-bombed into oblivion.
Slashdot editors don't like subversives.
No one in their right mind would EAT a BigMac!
Since when was WINDOWS Microsoft's flagship product?