Re: Honda's hydrogen-fuel-cell FCX Clarity

You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: Honda's hydrogen-fuel-cell FCX Clarity

JXStern

02 Dec 2007 20:20

>NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
>"ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.

Nobody rides for free.

>> Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
>> make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>years later, "What ever happened to that idea" because they didn't stop
>to think about ALL the implications, requirements, disadvantages, etc.

How about horses? Or do you think a careful scientific study would
find that they have emissions, too?

/hah

Matt Ion

02 Dec 2007 07:05

>> The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
>> generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> efficient than most vehicles, so if the resulting consumption is
> clean, it's a net winner.

NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
"ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.

> Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
> make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
> all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
> even hydrogen.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to see some VIABLE
alternatives to this petroleum-fueled society... it just, I dunno,
amuses me, I guess, to see people tripping over themselves to jump on
various "clean energy" pie-in-the-sky bandwagons, only to ask a dozen
years later, "What ever happened to that idea" because they didn't stop
to think about ALL the implications, requirements, disadvantages, etc.

JXStern

02 Dec 2007 02:03

>The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
>generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
>nuclear-generated electricity available).

If you mean someone is burning coal upstream, I suppose so, but the
idea is that big centralized power generation is both cleaner and more
efficient than most vehicles, so if the resulting consumption is
clean, it's a net winner.

Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
even hydrogen.

J.

Matt Ion

02 Dec 2007 01:18

> "...this is a true zero-emission vehicle, yet it looks, operates and
> drives like anything else on the road. There is simply no more
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Wall Street Journal: http://301url.com/f43

The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
nuclear-generated electricity available).

Nomen Nescio	01 Dec 2007 20:50
"...this is a true zero-emission vehicle, yet it looks, operates and drives like anything else on the road. There is simply no more realistic a peek into the possibly green future of the automobile, not the theoretical Chevrolet Volt from General Motors, nor the electric Tesla billionaire-toy, and not even the Holy Green Grail of the plug-in Prius..." Wall Street Journal: http://301url.com/f43

Quick links: