• this post is for those who had questions about the hydrogen car I mentioned in the Iraq topic. (TM, YANNI, DEVIANT). I could not find the industry article I wanted, but I did find two good articles, one is a bit dated (oct. 2000) the other’s more current- motor age magazine nov. 2002.
    the older magazine deals with the economic aspects of converting to hydrogen fuel. while the newer one deals with the upcomming 2004 release of the hydrogen “fuel celled” ford focus. but I’ll discuss both briefly here, and then I’ll ask why we need to allocate our tax money to a program already underway in the free market?
    firstly there are two main types of hydrogen fuel cells out there. note that when I was growing up hydrogen fueled vehicles were based on modifying existing ICE vehicles to run on compressed hydrogen. which actually runs well- the drawback is the range- about 60 miles on a full tank of hydrogen. and like compressed natural gas, you get poor performance as the compression dies down- backfires-, and you need specialised filling stations. which place a huge burden on current gas station owners to convert. you cannot expect 100,000 gas station owners to convert or get out of the business- that’s not feasable economics.
    so anyway, the two current versions of the fuel cell are basically huge batteries. one will use compressed hydrogen, the other will use methynol or ethynol, as a catalyst. the pros of methynol are that it’s easily adaptable, and can still provide the range required to keep customers happy.
    how they work. I’m not a scientist like some of you, and TM might be better able to explain this than me, but here goes:
    inside the fuel cell are several sets of catalytic plates (think battery). on one side you have the anode surrounded by the methynol (hydrogen rich) and on the other side the cathode (surrounded by the O2 we breath). sandwhiched in the middle is an electrolight goo (technical term) that allows the hydrogen rich methynol to send the hydrogen thru the electrolight goo and to the o2, creating water. however, as it passes thru the goo, the hydrogen’s proton and electron are seperated. the electron is then passed thru a conductor (the engine wiring) and used to do work before it is allowed to rejoin it’s proton and the oxygen atom.
    so it’s very much like the PbSO4 reaction in your current lead acid battery.
    it’s basically a big electric car, that benefits everyone. will it catch on??? who knows? but if it does it will probably be ten to 14 years before everyone has one.
    so why do we need to allocate tax money for hydrogen fuel cell research?? mostly because many people feel the way yanni does about bush (that he’s pro oil), and he’s going to waste my money to prove you wrong. I feel that this money will utimately trickle into tax breaks for those who wish to drive these cars, and for retro fitting current gas stations.
    ps. the study also says that the compressed hydrogen cars are already in service in germany - so ask F_ALK about them (likes/Dislikes)


  • Paragraphs are your friend 🙂

    Non-Petro cars should be the #1 goal of our nation. Ford is already putting one out soon, by the end of the year. Problem is, the oil lobby, and certain unions, have such an incredibly influence on both sides of our political isle, that we’ll never see the Government support widespread production.


  • “this post is for those who had questions about the hydrogen car I mentioned in the Iraq topic. (TM, YANNI, DEVIANT). I could not find the industry article I wanted, but I did find two good articles, one is a bit dated (oct. 2000) the other’s more current- motor age magazine nov. 2002.
    the older magazine deals with the economic aspects of converting to hydrogen fuel. while the newer one deals with the upcomming 2004 release of the hydrogen “fuel celled” ford focus. but I’ll discuss both briefly here, and then I’ll ask why we need to allocate our tax money to a program already underway in the free market?”

    I agree. The government should not be subsidizing corporations to build fuel cell vehicles. We have something called free enterprise to that in a very competitive data (to data, not one major car company in the US [ex. Big Three] hasn’t build and tested at least 1 fuell cell prototype. Any subsidizing should go to the consumer in the form of government rebates for purchasing ZEVs (which the government [federal and state] is already doing). This gives the consumer an incentive to buy the vehicle - even if the car companies do come out with FCVs, it makes no use if the consumer does not drive them.

    However, what I think most people are missing, is that simply building a FCV is not enough. What is needed from the government (and I hope where the $ Bush said would be spent on) is building a hydrogen infrastructure for our country. To date, we simply do not have enough of a hydrogen pipeline in which to get the hydrogen to those who drive on it. Like Yanny said, oil companies (or as the prefer to be called - "Energy Companies) have been slow in this transformation. To date, I only know of Shell that is aggressively pursuing a hydrogen service for vehicles. Even though hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe, it makes no if we can distill it and get it into the cars.

    firstly there are two main types of hydrogen fuel cells out there. note that when I was growing up hydrogen fueled vehicles were based on modifying existing ICE vehicles to run on compressed hydrogen.

    Yes there are cars that will already do it. To Note: Regular Gasoline actually contains more hydrogen then compressed air(?) hydrogen.

    so anyway, the two current versions of the fuel cell are basically huge batteries. one will use compressed hydrogen, the other will use methynol or ethynol, as a catalyst. the pros of methynol are that it’s easily adaptable, and can still provide the range required to keep customers happy.
    how they work. I’m not a scientist like some of you, and TM might be better able to explain this than me, but here goes:
    inside the fuel cell are several sets of catalytic plates (think battery). on one side you have the anode surrounded by the methynol (hydrogen rich) and on the other side the cathode (surrounded by the O2 we breath). sandwhiched in the middle is an electrolight goo (technical term) that allows the hydrogen rich methynol to send the hydrogen thru the electrolight goo and to the o2, creating water. however, as it passes thru the goo, the hydrogen’s proton and electron are seperated. the electron is then passed thru a conductor (the engine wiring) and used to do work before it is allowed to rejoin it’s proton and the oxygen atom.
    so it’s very much like the PbSO4 reaction in your current lead acid battery.

    Ummm… sort of. I mostly taught TM what she knows of FC’s. But if you are really interesting in looking at informative, up-to-date information, try Fuelcells.org or Ballard for information.

    the study also says that the compressed hydrogen cars are already in service in germany - so ask F_ALK about them (likes/Dislikes)

    Well I haven’t heard so much about “compressed air vehicles” from Germany as I have from France. From the French Auto Show, I learned that there are some CAVs that have a pretty good range of 100-200 miles…


  • hey TG, the reason they don’t use benzine (gas) is because it’s a hydro carbon, take away the hydrogen and you get those nasty carbon atoms that clog up our motors and air.
    and the infrastructure was my guess for those funds too. although they don’t need to distill hydrogen for the methynol fc’s. at least not from what I’ve read. the methynol want’s to give up the hydrogen atoms when exposed to oxygen, and that reaction is harnessed and controlled thru the fuel cells plates.
    methynol is already available to us, and can be used as a liquid, as opposed to the need for it to be seperated from water and then compressed.
    I have been widely exposed to compressed natural gas fueled vehicles, and they are extremely unreliable. they have limited range. now compressed hydrogen will eliminate a lot of the driveablity concerns, but I think it will cause too much hardship on small gas stations to be the way to go. I liked the methynol, because it’s a win win for everyone. at least as far as I can tell. methynol doesn’t have the same properties as MTBE does it??? I’ll definately check out the link. thanks.


  • and YANNI I agree the oil lobbies are powerful, however the environmental lobbies are even moreso. time and again they’ve forced thru regulations that have helped reduce the emmissions of vehicles. and of how we dispose of chemicals in the shops. against big money. you wouldn’t want to know how they originally started reducing emmissions on cars/trucks.
    but as more regulations were passed, less half arshed methods were needed, and this is not a quest with an end. the car manufactures know this and are far ahead of the government or environmental policy. once they get the fuel cell out there and get it’s bugs worked out, then they’ll work on performance. they’ve already learned a lot just from the rickety electric cars. by the time you or I can get one, they won’t be any different from your old car.


  • hey TG, the reason they don’t use benzine (gas) is because it’s a hydro carbon, take away the hydrogen and you get those nasty carbon atoms that clog up our motors and air.

    Yes, I know that. But even then other “not so clean materials” like coal contain more hydrogen energy than does vaporized hydrogren.

    I have been widely exposed to compressed natural gas fueled vehicles, and they are extremely unreliable. they have limited range.

    So do electrical vehicles compared with ICE cars. However, the average American (that has a car) only drives 20 miles each day. So range is not so much an option…

    I liked the methynol, because it’s a win win for everyone.

    Actually, I’m more of a supporter Sodium borohydride which is very small and releases a very large amount of hydrogren. This is the approach taken by Millennium Cell’s Hydrogen on Demand system.


  • Nasty little Carbon atoms? The element which makes life possible? Its when Carbon combines with Oxygen that the problem arises.


  • I think that gov’ts should step in:

    1. It’s the right thing to do in the efforts/battles to be more environmentally sound. Gov’t must set an example in this regard. Particularly if they are going to support Kyoto (Canada) - they need to be more forward looking then simply applying fines and penalties. They must lead the charge to cleaner air.
    2. They need to remove excuses from the auto industry and supply industries. When there are roadblocks, gov’t should help remove them.
    3. Gov’t (at least in Canada) is too heavily involved in the energy sectors as it is. For them not to be involved in these kinds of options would be hypocritical. Also it levels the competition playing field - more incentive for industry to get involved if gov’t is too.
    4. They are already involved to some degree. Vancouver has public transport running on these fuel cells. It would be great to get these into every bus across the country.
    5. Gov’t does not have to merely shell out money. In Canada it dearly needs to give more grant money to academic institutions to forward this research, but it needs also to find ways to reward businesses with tax incentives etc. who push research and development in these areas.
    6. Gov’t needs to stop the flow of cash outside the country to the Middle East, etc. Canada is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world requiring a significant amount of money to be spent on transport energies. Much of this leaves the country. If it could stay in the country, be allocated to productive means instead, we’d be much further ahead of the game and be more competitive on a globel scale.
      Thank you
      flame away.

  • OH MY GOSHZ! for once we agree, quick somebody dial up F_ALK before I pass out!

    TG I’ve never heard of sodium borohydride. as I said I’m not a student, just a descent mechanic. what I know about fuel cells is from work.
    I assume it’s naturally a solid, what do you have to expose it to to release the hydrogen??? and what’s left over (sounds like sodium and something else, solids are bad for fuel cells.

    Yanni that’s what I meant about the carbon. co2 is good, co is bad, and C in the engine/motor/or fuel cell is bad.

    cystic, what kind of road blocks do you percieve are comming from the auto industry?? I am in this industry and I see none. auto manufacterers feel the environmental pressure to change and are doing it, just as fast as technology will allow. but they are private enterprises, you surely wouldn’t expect them to build the “homer mobile” and go bankrupt on unproven technology. sure we can build these cars right now, and obviuosly we are. but before they will sell, they have to be as durable,and as effective as the car you have now. new technology tends to not be so durable… or affordable. give it a few years to become commonplace and we’ll all have them.

    good example 1960’s. cadillac developes automotive fuel injection. pros, better gas mileage, performance. cons frequent break downs no one has the tools or info to fix them. several decades pass, machining and computers advance to the point where fuel injection can be dependable. and better controlled. now fuel injection is so bullet proof that it’s taken for granted.

    and finally TG, 20 miles a day may be ok for a commuter, but realistically we want at least the range we have today (3-400 miles) people take family vacations, and you don’t want to be cramped up in some under powered, sodium borohydride hog. I mean lets not be too short sighted. you want cleaner air, and water, but you don’t want everyone driving those little echos. you want power, performance, leg room, headroom (heh heh), and trunk space. the kids want to use their video games, and maybe you want a stereo. lets not jump head first into something that we may end up having to settle for. It won’t be long and we’ll have all of that. not because of the government (well not wholly) but becuase the private sector wants it. if the government helps with retrofitting and schoolastic programs good.
    I’ll probably hate myself for this- but this is another thing I agree with yanni on. some of the only things the government should have control over are the ultilities the environment and national parks. because they directly benefit all of the citizens.


  • From USA,

    1. It’s the right thing to do in the efforts/battles to be more environmentally sound. Gov’t must set an example in this regard. Particularly if they are going to support Kyoto (Canada) - they need to be more forward looking then simply applying fines and penalties. They must lead the charge to cleaner air.

    Yes, I’m for the environment (just as long as TM doesn’t find out)… however there is a BIG Difference between task that should be done in the public and private sector. When there are profits to be made, than it should be the job of the private sector (as in FCVs). However, environmental dollars should be going to fund such initiatives as protecting the wildlife habitats (which if you read, Mr. Bush isn’t too keen on) which make no return profit.

    1. They need to remove excuses from the auto industry and supply industries. When there are roadblocks, gov’t should help remove them.

    It is not that there are “roadblocks,” it’s just that car companies don’t want to make an effort. How much have are CAFE standards increased within the past decade. In most cases they have actually come down… :-?

    1. Gov’t (at least in Canada) is too heavily involved in the energy sectors as it is. For them not to be involved in these kinds of options would be hypocritical. Also it levels the competition playing field - more incentive for industry to get involved if gov’t is too.

    Competition will help ensure advances in these fields. I am afraid that the government will unlevel the playing field (as they did in their bail out of Chysler)… :-?

    1. They are already involved to some degree. Vancouver has public transport running on these fuel cells. It would be great to get these into every bus across the country.

    Yes, that would be a good idea. However, this should be made available by the private sector which can do things at more affordably

    1. Gov’t does not have to merely shell out money. In Canada it dearly needs to give more grant money to academic institutions to forward this research, but it needs also to find ways to reward businesses with tax incentives etc. who push research and development in these areas.

    Yes, as I mentioned before, gov. rebates on LEVs or ZEVs are a good thing. 🙂

    1. Gov’t needs to stop the flow of cash outside the country to the Middle East, etc. Canada is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world requiring a significant amount of money to be spent on transport energies. Much of this leaves the country. If it could stay in the country, be allocated to productive means instead, we’d be much further ahead of the game and be more competitive on a globel scale.

    The simplist way to reduce dependacy on oil is to hit it at the consumer where it counts - his wallet. The minute this happens, there will be a rapid turnaround to support FCVs, which will in turn move us away from the Middle East.


  • . as I said I’m not a student, just a descent mechanic. what I know about fuel cells is from work.

    Well I’m just a professional slacker. 😉

    I assume it’s naturally a solid, what do you have to expose it to to release the hydrogen??? and what’s left over (sounds like sodium and something else, solids are bad for fuel cells.

    The way it works is the “hydrogen” is stored on-board at ambient conditions in a liquid “fuel” — an aqueous solution of sodium borohydride, NaBH4. Sodium borohydride is made from borax, a material that is found in substantial natural reserves globally. The process supplies pure hydrogen for energy applications without the need (and associated energy penalties) for compression or liquefaction. Hydrogen produced by this system can be used for numerous applications, addressing a wide range of power requirements.

    The Hydrogen on Demand system releases the hydrogen stored in sodium borohydride solutions by passing the liquid through a chamber containing a proprietary catalyst. The only other reaction product, sodium metaborate (analogous to borax), is water-soluble and environmentally benign. The reaction is exothermic; there is no need to supply external heat to access the hydrogen. The heat generated is sufficient to vaporize some of the water present, and as a result the hydrogen is supplied at 100% relative humidity. This co-generated moisture in the H2 stream is an added benefit both for fuel cells and for internal combustion engines.

    The reaction is totally inorganic (carbon and sulfur free), producing a high quality energy source without polluting emissions. It is safe and easily controllable — hydrogen is only produced when the liquid fuel is in direct contact with the catalyst, thereby minimizing the amount of gaseous hydrogen onboard at any given time. The fuel solution itself is nonflammable, non-explosive, and safe to transport.

    and finally TG, 20 miles a day may be ok for a commuter, but realistically we want at least the range we have today (3-400 miles) people take family vacations, and you don’t want to be cramped up in some under powered, sodium borohydride hog. I mean lets not be too short sighted. you want cleaner air, and water, but you don’t want everyone driving those little echos. you want power, performance, leg room, headroom (heh heh), and trunk space. the kids want to use their video games, and maybe you want a stereo. lets not jump head first into something that we may end up having to settle for. It won’t be long and we’ll have all of that. not because of the government (well not wholly) but becuase the private sector wants it. if the government helps with retrofitting and schoolastic programs good.

    How often do you take your family on vactions of that distance? Why not use affordable airline service like American Southwest (1 of only 2 airlines to operate at profit after 9/11)? Or better yet, why don’t we look to the Europeans in building a ultramodern, effective rail system? If not, we also have a thing called “renting cars…”

    As for your comment about cramped cars (like the Echo), that is totally false. FCVs and any ZEV can be any size you want them to be - pick-up truck, SUV, Mini-Van, ect. However, most prototype vehicles are smaller because:

    a) Cost less money to make
    b) Lighter weight = better performance with less “power”
    c) Easier to design and build upon

    OH MY GOSHZ! for once we agree, quick somebody dial up F_ALK before I pass out!

    Sucks. I much rather argue. :-? :roll:


  • Though we are at the point of first generation prototypes, billions of dolars and years of research are needed before we have any serious fule cell car possibilities.


  • @alamein:

    and then I’ll ask why we need to allocate our tax money to a program already underway in the free market?

    Because the government loves this corporations and would do anything to keep the favors they give? Maybe well-hidden corruption, the basis of all capitalist systems :)? I bet the producers/developers did a lot of whining about their bad bad economic situation….

    you cannot expect 100,000 gas station owners to convert or get out of the business- that’s not feasable economics.

    Don’t think that i don’t agree with you here, but wasn’t it you who said:
    “Eat or get eaten”, “law of the jungle”? Why can you apply that on single workers, but not on people running/owning gas stations? where is the difference?

    ps. the study also says that the compressed hydrogen cars are already in service in germany - so ask F_ALK about them (likes/Dislikes)

    They (fuel-cell types) are being tested, i have seen busses for public transportation and the like, and it seems that the performance is not bad. Of course, the situation here is slightly different to yours: in comparison, our distances to cover usually are shorter.
    Anyway: i support them, as it is without sense to burn the best/most flexible resource that our earth can give for heat or motion. That’s where you have plenty of alternatives.

    @yb:

    Though we are at the point of first generation prototypes, billions of dolars and years of research are needed before we have any serious fule cell car possibilities.

    No, we have more than prototypes. We have already reached test-dployment (see CCs post as well). And seriously, when there is a possible profit, a lot of prototypes have been sold (most M$ systems 🙂 🙂 )….
    I don’t think we need much more time, we just need a visionary legislation, that makes the change more interesting / uses soft pressure.
    You could change public tranportation en masse to fuel cells, to get more field experience. And then change the laws, raise taxes on gas more and more, while in the first stages have FCV free of those taxes, or another benefit.
    Taking the average livetime of a car as 10 years, i would say we could have completed the change in about 12-15 years, if we had visionaries…


  • F_ALK - just like a naazi to twist my words around. the differense (to me) is that as an individual, my situation doesn’t matter to the economy- and I did referense the economic feasablility of putting 100,000 gas stations out of business. that would have major repercussions.

    MY PROOF THAT THERE IS NO CORPERATE BOOGEY MAN- dragging his heels on hydrogen cars to force you to buy oil.

    and please bear with me.

    when the environmental lobbies first gained enough influence in congress to inact environmental laws (before most of you were born), the auto industry had cars that got 8-12 mpg. emmissions looked like this CO2= 1.% CO= 12% -14%, HC= 1500 ppm, (what does that mean- well todays standards to pass state e checks are co 1.% ± .2%, hc 120 ppm (or less for most) with the co2 raised to 14-16% (good).
    the initial direction the industry was to do exactly what you say they are doing. they put catalytic converters and air pumps (and a few other novelties) on cars. they still got 8-12 mpg, but boy did that clean up the emmissions. to near current standards.
    now had they not been serious about refining the technology to be more eco friendly this trend would have continued - right?
    but it did not. along came improvements in fuel metering and delivery, and gas mileage went up- and emmissions went down. so much so that converters are only 1/4 of their original size. and cars no longer use air pumps. mpg has progressed from 8-12, 12-16, to 18-22, to 22-28 and now far beyond that.
    there is no conspiracy, no legislation is needed, the changes will happen soon enough.
    that’s the problem with young people you always want things your way now. but when you start to see the consequenses of your rash and inexperienced decisions you will start to grow more conservative. either that or you’ll keep screaming about conspiracy theories in the right as you drift more left.
    TG- I drive from xenia ohio to pittsburg pen (to take my son to see the carnegie museum of natural history) about once a month or so. why? because it’s quality family time, we do it in a day and a half (sometimes only one day) , and we do it to spend time together. why should I give that up because someone not quite half my age feels the world will explode tomarrow if I don’t buy a hydrogen mini cooper? this is not an attack, but a seriuos question.
    you kids have no Idea how long your life is. you’ve got years and years ahead of you. but you are being fed information at such a high rate you want everything at that high rate. you can’t rush life, and you shouldn’t.
    like that old saying- “you can’t rush progress” and you can’t. the technology will come out and be progressively developed so that everyone gets the oportunity to benefit from it. not just a select few.

    and F_ALK- the idea that if we had a few visionaries to raise taxes and force people to convert is a bad Idea. once you give the government a precident they will keep it. do you think they’ll give that money back once the technology is out there. no- it will pad their wallet and benefit the social programs of their constituates. see federal income tax. IE… originally a temporary tax to pay for WW2. hmmm. and then what else will they force on us? GPS sensors- “well if you ever come up missing we can locate you instantly”, pretty soon we’re all doing government prescribed exercises, and living and working in ghettos.

    oh yes, and the germans found a way to easily Identifly the jews for racism, they made them sew a big yellow star on their clothes. that way you could easily Identify who you hated. you have to have some way to easily Identify who you hate.


  • ok alamein,
    You are losing considerable amount of credibility with these shots at F_alk. I’m really missing the whole nazi/F_alk/Jewhating connection here. Either demonstrate your point more clearly, or you run the risk of sliding into my “to be ignored” books (not that you necessarily care . . .).

    Also everyone - with respect to my comments about “roadblocks” by car manufacturers, you seem to either have taken this out of context, or i have not made my point more clearly. I was simply suggesting that gov’t should do what is necessary and work in partnership with the auto corporations to cut any needless red tape, and possibly make life a little easier on them with respect to the necessary conversions.


  • that was a reply from one of falks replies.
    Isaid I was not a racist because I didn’t hate anyone based on a particulaly identifiable trait. he replied that the jews had no identifiable triat and the nazis really hated them. I was merely commenting that they over came this by making them wear the stars.

    the naazi thing was only a poke at fun. I know F_ALK is not a nazi- he totally disregarded peiper. he is a socialist, and after arguing with him on some legitamate points (some of which he has swayed my opinion) I feel comfortable in discussion with him. he tends to offer specific counters to my arguments rather than vague gestures. that’s how you discuss.


  • cystic- most of the red tape they face is environmental policy. not access or implementation. and the only hold ups that I see is in field trials. you have to test and retest before you can turn these things loose. the technology has not proven itself to be durable enough for the average joe yet. but I understand your point.


  • @alamein:

    F_ALK - just like a naazi to twist my words around.

    Assume a harsher warning from me here than the one CC gave you.

    MY PROOF THAT THERE IS NO CORPERATE BOOGEY MAN- dragging his heels on hydrogen cars to force you to buy oil.

    The fact is: the income gap widens
    You yourself say, that the government (in a position of at least some power) will not give back any income or influence they have, unless forced to.
    Now, in the US you can easily see that corperations have more influence and money than the government.

    Why the hell should they be “better humans” than the politicians?
    Why should they be better than us “normal humans”? Us, that’s the ones who can’t get communism to work because, we are too greedy and egoistic.
    There is no conspiration theory…… it is all logic and clear.
    To get more money, you do everything in your power… that’s what coperations do. Problem is, that ethics does not count anything anymore, expect to pretend to be ethical to sell more and earn more.
    to me it’s totally logical bahavior. Disgusting, but logical.
    a small PS: why is the coperate bogeyman a conspiration, but the Saddam Hussein bogeyman is not? The amount and validity of “evidence” is pretty much the same.

    when the environmental lobbies first gained enough influence in congress to inact environmental laws …
    now had they not been serious about refining the technology to be more eco friendly this trend would have continued - right?

    No, because the environmentalists pushed on… and after one technology has been optimized (which means they could not get out more of it for a decent amount of costs), the car companies had to change they way to keep their profits.

    but it did not. along came improvements in fuel metering and delivery, and gas mileage went up- …
    there is no conspiracy, no legislation is needed, the changes will happen soon enough.

    There was no legislation in the first place? No legislation that kept pushing?
    Why are suddenly all these SUVs so hip? Because the legislation makes them hip… big cars with little tax… isn’t that so (the low tax) ?

    that’s the problem with young people you always want things your way now.

    Not refering to me anymore now?

    … I drive from xenia ohio to pittsburg pen … why should I give that up because someone not quite half my age feels the world will explode tomarrow if I don’t buy a hydrogen mini cooper?

    If you pay for it, it’s fine…. but you have to pay for all the hidden costs as well, not only for the obvious, like gas or insurance.

    you kids have no Idea how long your life is. …

    I have… and i see that each generation has only borrowed this planetr from the next generation. We are responsible for what we leave for our kids and grandkids.
    You refer to Darwinism in economy quite a lot… then go back to the roots of it: The only aim of each species is to keep existing. So, our only goal should be, that our species can exist on for many many generations.
    But, at the moment, it looks to me more like the following metaphor:
    A bunch of bacteria infected a human. They multiplied and multiplied for many generations, being quite happy with that.
    At some stage, the human starts to sicken… the bacteria keep multiplying, because that’s what they have done for generations, and that’s what was successful for those many generations. Still, if they multiply once more, the human will die, and all of them will die as well…
    but… why change this very successful strategy, that has worked so wonderfully for so many countless generations… “it’s only some weirdos who want to create panic” the bacteria thought and multiplied once more…

    like that old saying- “you can’t rush progress” and you can’t. the technology will come out and be progressively developed so that everyone gets the oportunity to benefit from it. not just a select few.

    Can everyone afford the best medical health care? Or only a selected few?
    Can everyone benefit from the surveillance (like the one the US, UK, Australia and some others did on central europe, stealing patents?), or just a selected few?
    You call me follwoing a conspiration theory, i call you naive and giving away the bit of influence everyone possesses by your own choice.

    and F_ALK- the idea that if we had a few visionaries to raise taxes and force people to convert is a bad Idea. once you give the government a precident they will keep it. do you think they’ll give that money back once the technology is out there. no- it will pad their wallet and benefit the social programs of their constituates. see federal income tax. IE… originally a temporary tax to pay for WW2. hmmm. and then what else will they force on us? GPS sensors- “well if you ever come up missing we can locate you instantly”, pretty soon we’re all doing government prescribed exercises, and living and working in ghettos.

    So, here again… why is the government worse than CEOs? Why are CEOs not as greedy, when they are as human?
    How does everyone benefit from GPS and not just a selected few?
    You seem to be as suspicious of the government as i am, but you are blind towards the corperations, which i eyes as suspicious as the government (with the one difference, that i have to buy my votes for or against CEOs (by buying shares), whereas for the government i own a vote).

    oh yes, and the germans found a way to easily Identifly the jews for racism, they made them sew a big yellow star on their clothes. that way you could easily Identify who you hated. you have to have some way to easily Identify who you hate.

    The star was a later stage. Read some of the history books, i really recommend “History of a german” or “From Bismarck to Hitler” by Sebastian Haffner.

    From a later post, you said:

    Isaid I was not a racist because I didn’t hate anyone based on a particulaly identifiable trait. he replied that the jews had no identifiable triat and the nazis really hated them. I was merely commenting that they over came this by making them wear the stars.

    Ok, so you really belive the hate started with the invention of the star? Or with the forced second names? No. It started before that. And it was not about any recognisable traits…

    the naazi thing was only a poke at fun.

    Sorry, there is one thing i do not at all understand any fun about. I would without any hesitation take the ban from this board if you do that once again.


  • F_ALK- sorry you feel that way- that was not my intent.

    and you’ve got some of the replies jumbled together.

    my point was to reflect that the auto industry IS NOT holding back technology. but I’m really getting tired of arguing about it. yes environmentalists push for newer standards, but my point was that these can be easily circumvented if your goal is to cheat. once again my point was lost.
    I too care about the environment as a matter of personal responsibility. it is legal here to dump ethylene glycol into the drains here. and I believe it takes on the neighborhood of 100 gallons of water to distill one ounce of anti freeze. now I could dispose of this in the ohio river, but I don’t. I recycle it, not because we need more laws to force me to, but because I choose to. I’m not anti environment - but because I disagree with your methods you insinuate I am. just like when you said I have racist tendencies because I think that if you can’t work you should starve, or even though I am extremely anti government you accuse me of being brainwashed by their propaganda. come on now.

    I can see that many of you will not accept anything but your own view of the world. that is fine, you asked my opinion and I gave it. then you said I was wrong and critisized me for it. that’s fine too. I won’t argue, say whatever you believe to be the facts and ignore all those in opposition.
    and before you say that I do this too, please bear in mind that I have listened to all of your arguments, and where applicable acknowledged my mistake.


  • Its not the auto industry holding fuel cells back. Its the oil lobby and Auto industry unions.


  • @alamein:

    and you’ve got some of the replies jumbled together.

    that can ahppen if you have to watch the number of your replies :9

    once again my point was lost.

    yup, it seems like i misunderstood you there…. but then, when you notice i drift off, why do you drift with me in the first place and don’t clear up my possible misunderstanding (see the copererate bogeyman).

    I too care about the environment as a matter of personal responsibility.
    …I’m not anti environment - but because I disagree with your methods you insinuate I am.

    Not really….
    I just wonder how you can say these two points:
    (1) Mankind is “selfish”, as i deduce from your statements about life and the “law of the jungle”. They are more often animal than “humanistic”.
    (2) To promote the “better for all” we don’t need laws, but it is everyones responsibility.

    These two match pretty fine on the first thoughts.
    But:
    If i am concerned only about me, and everyone else is as well (especially those who hold the power!), why should anything i do help the rest, make life better for the rest? The others are my competitors, my “natural enemies” when it comes to achieving any goals. I don’t want to do any good for them, i want to do “good for me”. Therefor, those in power can use (and do use) their power, to stay in power an accumulate more of it, to be “More successful”. Laws, that could channel or limit their activities, are of course nothing they want. These laws would not help them in their aim of “getting more”, but be “contra-productive” to them.
    The weak on the other side… they also want more power, and if they join in this fight “each vs. each”, they are easy tools for the powerful, and will do a lot for simple promises given by the powerful (like “promotion in their job” or even “keeping their job”). On teh other hand, if they join together, to follow a common goal, and add up their little powers to a single bigger one… well, that could be a threat to those in power, and has to be fought.

    I don’t know if you have read about gaming theory (you might have seen “a beautiful mind” though, that’s just the topic)… but there it is proven, that cooperation between individuals is much more powerful than these individuals each fighting for their own goals.
    I really recommend to read a book on this, if you want me to look up a good, i would not hesitate to do that.

    So, in short: you say “good for one leads to good for all”, i say “good for all includes good for one”.
    I hope you can agree that what is good for all must be good for one. If it was not, it wouldn’t be good for all. But to prove that things that are good for one lead to things that are good for all… that will be a hard task, especially if the aims of the “ones” are selfish.

    just like when you said I have racist tendencies

    i say everyone has racist tendencies… i agree with you that basically mankind is “selfish”, “evil”, whatever you want to call it… but we have the brains to overcome that (although we don’t use it unfortunately).
    (I also say everyone has prejudices… and was attacked here severely for that… but not to have prejudices means that you have been everywhere and talked with everyone and saw everything. As soon as you hear someone saying something, as soon as you have to “believe”, that soon you have prejudices…)

    … or even though I am extremely anti government you accuse me of being brainwashed by their propaganda. come on now.

    where did i call you brainwashed by the government? It’s more “brainwashed” by the powerful (that’s not necessarily the government). In my previous post i called you suspicious of the government, how could i call you brainwashed by them?


    please bear in mind that I have listened to all of your arguments, and where applicable acknowledged my mistake.

    Yes, and i listen to yours, and think about them. Problem is, not all are not really new to me.
    As well, we communicate just by what we write and read. It is very easy to have misunderstandings here…. and once you settle you own opinion (or prejudice, as we have never seen each other but rely on this limited channel of communication)… i know how hard to it is to change…
    i had some trouble with CC at the beginning… I came to learn that there are points where i think others are utterly wrong, just to agree wholeheartedly on something else… but that takes time and more than a handful of posts on one topic.
    Remember you once said i would hate you…
    just ot clear up some points. i never accused you of being anti-environmentalist, i was suprised to read your posts and see your opinion. But to me, it looks like you took my reply to negative: All i wanted was to point out that we disagree about the “ways” and which would workl, not the “aim” that seems to be the same for us.
    And i still disagree about the ways with you, i hope thsi point made it clear that it’s (more or less 🙂 )just about that


  • @F_alk:

    i had some trouble with CC at the beginning… I came to learn that there are points where i think others are utterly wrong, just to agree wholeheartedly on something else… but that takes time and more than a handful of posts on one topic.

    with me? but but but,
    i thought everyone liked me, and agreed with everything i had to say 😢
    THERE!!! See what you’ve done? You’ve gone and made CC cry again.
    Gee . . . if you “had some trouble” with me, i’m thinking Fin damn near had a coronary. Yikes.
    Stupid Christians . . . .
    😛


  • I’ve finally got around to reply to you (granted it’s at 5 am, but still . . .@TG:

    From USA,

    1. It’s the right thing to do in the efforts/battles to be more environmentally sound. Gov’t must set an example in this regard. Particularly if they are going to support Kyoto (Canada) - they need to be more forward looking then simply applying fines and penalties. They must lead the charge to cleaner air.

    Yes, I’m for the environment (just as long as TM doesn’t find out)… however there is a BIG Difference between task that should be done in the public and private sector. When there are profits to be made, than it should be the job of the private sector (as in FCVs). However, environmental dollars should be going to fund such initiatives as protecting the wildlife habitats (which if you read, Mr. Bush isn’t too keen on) which make no return profit.

    well, profits will at some time be made. It is not the gov’ts role to say “whoops, the auto industry may be making a profit if we help them convert to environmentally friendly cars - maybe we shouldn’t help”. I’ll stand by my point that it is a moral issue for gov’ts to get involved regardless of whether they help the auto-manufacturers out inadvertantly. Besides, if they did, and Canada were to become a great leader in this market, you can bet that the gov’t would soak up a lot of tax money on this technology - just because they can 😛

    1. They need to remove excuses from the auto industry and supply industries. When there are roadblocks, gov’t should help remove them.

    It is not that there are “roadblocks,” it’s just that car companies don’t want to make an effort. How much have are CAFE standards increased within the past decade. In most cases they have actually come down… :-?

    I think i’ve dealt with this . . . .

    1. Gov’t (at least in Canada) is too heavily involved in the energy sectors as it is. For them not to be involved in these kinds of options would be hypocritical. Also it levels the competition playing field - more incentive for industry to get involved if gov’t is too.

    Competition will help ensure advances in these fields. I am afraid that the government will unlevel the playing field (as they did in their bail out of Chysler)… :-?

    This happens all the time. It does not appear fair, but at the same time when/if this happens out here, i just close my eyes and pretend that they are doing this for the benefit of the people they govern. Pending legislation regarding not accepting corporate donations will help me sleep easier in this regard.

    1. They are already involved to some degree. Vancouver has public transport running on these fuel cells. It would be great to get these into every bus across the country.

    Yes, that would be a good idea. However, this should be made available by the private sector which can do things at more affordably

    ahhhhh . . . a capitalist after my own heart 😄
    at the same time, this is a moot point. Gov’ts fund/grant academic research which is seized by industry, and applied. I’d rather this in the hands of the academics initially anyway. Also with due regard to all the chirping about the auto manufacturers desire to be more enviro-friendly, i don’t buy them flowing along with the winds of change. These people are as old school as tobacco, smith&wesson, etc. Don’t tell them how to build cars . . . .

    1. Gov’t does not have to merely shell out money. In Canada it dearly needs to give more grant money to academic institutions to forward this research, but it needs also to find ways to reward businesses with tax incentives etc. who push research and development in these areas.

    Yes, as I mentioned before, gov. rebates on LEVs or ZEVs are a good thing. 🙂

    1. Gov’t needs to stop the flow of cash outside the country to the Middle East, etc. Canada is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world requiring a significant amount of money to be spent on transport energies. Much of this leaves the country. If it could stay in the country, be allocated to productive means instead, we’d be much further ahead of the game and be more competitive on a globel scale.

    The simplist way to reduce dependacy on oil is to hit it at the consumer where it counts - his wallet. The minute this happens, there will be a rapid turnaround to support FCVs, which will in turn move us away from the Middle East.

    i don’t know. The consumer many times takes a while. I don’t see changes in auto demand based on gas prices - we all need cars, and we all need to drive. I walk anywhere within 30-45 minutes of my home - even in -30 (celcius) temperatures despite owning a 2002 Nissan Sentra (very fuel efficient). At the same time, i’m trying to not be fat and not drive unless i have to. This does not apply to middle aged, middle income guys who need to drive it to work daily.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 4
  • 18
  • 11
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

43
Online

15.7k
Users

37.2k
Topics

1.6m
Posts