Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Fuel Cells Are Here

Expand Messages
  • phillip m. torrone
    ... i m not shrugging it off at all. it s all about trade-offs. some folks look at those, some don t. ... i m not a fuel cell fan for many reasons, that s
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Jym Dyer wrote:
      > =v= All absolutely true and worthy of consideration. Why just
      > shrug it off as something "you'll have people say?"

      i'm not shrugging it off at all. it's all about trade-offs. some folks look
      at those, some don't.

      > =v= Fuel cells have nice "tailpipe" emissions, but they require
      > other emissions. "Out of sight, out of mind" is hardly a sound
      > policy.

      i'm not a fuel cell fan for many reasons, that's certainly one of them.


      > P.S.: Fuel cell cars would still pollute with tire dust and
      > lead poisoning from wheel weights, of course. Plus they'd
      > still kill and injure people, cost lots of money, and prop
      > up a Hellish transportation infrastructure based on sprawl.

      yep, we need to not only work on improving the cars that are out there but
      all the other things you mentioned.

      cheers,
      pt
    • Wes Ballew
      How will the U.S. pay for streets, etc? What will be taxed? Will all roadways be paid for out of the general fund (I know it is something like 60% now)? Just
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1 6:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        How will the U.S. pay for streets, etc? What will be taxed? Will all roadways be paid for out of the general fund (I know it is something like 60% now)? Just curious.

        >>> bookofseg@... 04/30/03 08:57PM >>>
        Jym Dyer wrote:
        > =v= All absolutely true and worthy of consideration. Why just
        > shrug it off as something "you'll have people say?"

        i'm not shrugging it off at all. it's all about trade-offs. some folks look
        at those, some don't.

        > =v= Fuel cells have nice "tailpipe" emissions, but they require
        > other emissions. "Out of sight, out of mind" is hardly a sound
        > policy.

        i'm not a fuel cell fan for many reasons, that's certainly one of them.


        > P.S.: Fuel cell cars would still pollute with tire dust and
        > lead poisoning from wheel weights, of course. Plus they'd
        > still kill and injure people, cost lots of money, and prop
        > up a Hellish transportation infrastructure based on sprawl.

        yep, we need to not only work on improving the cars that are out there but
        all the other things you mentioned.

        cheers,
        pt


        To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
        Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • r walter
        I just wanted to say as far as solar: When I said solar energy I should have said all renewable energy sources. Wind power ultimately comes from the sun,
        Message 3 of 12 , May 1 8:57 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I just wanted to say as far as solar: When I said
          "solar energy" I should have said "all renewable"
          energy sources. Wind power ultimately comes from the
          sun, and is non-polluting. You can make wind
          generators without a lot of exotic elements.
          Geothermal is the only "renewable" not having a solar
          source.

          All in all someone really argue that the resources
          that go into making this equipment once, pollute more
          than refilling up a fuel cell time and time again with
          energy from a polluting source? Not to mention making
          the fuel cell in the first place.

          I think that the process of converting coal, or other
          fossil fuels into fuel for fuel cells probably
          pollutes more than just using gasoline. I'm saying
          this because the process of converting coal to
          electricity to hydrogen to power the fuel cell uses up
          more energy in total than the energy you would get if
          you just burned gasoline. You lose energy each time
          you convert. So why are fuel cells better? It just
          seems like a big farce - is there something I don't
          get?

          We've got about 300 years of coal left, I'd hate to
          see all that go into the air. Coal is cheap,
          alternative energy is not. I'm worried that the U.S.
          will take the easy way out.

          --- Wes Ballew <wes.ballew@...> wrote:
          > How will the U.S. pay for streets, etc? What will be
          > taxed? Will all roadways be paid for out of the
          > general fund (I know it is something like 60% now)?
          > Just curious.
          >
          > >>> bookofseg@... 04/30/03 08:57PM >>>
          > Jym Dyer wrote:
          > > =v= All absolutely true and worthy of
          > consideration. Why just
          > > shrug it off as something "you'll have people
          > say?"
          >
          > i'm not shrugging it off at all. it's all about
          > trade-offs. some folks look
          > at those, some don't.
          >
          > > =v= Fuel cells have nice "tailpipe" emissions, but
          > they require
          > > other emissions. "Out of sight, out of mind" is
          > hardly a sound
          > > policy.
          >
          > i'm not a fuel cell fan for many reasons, that's
          > certainly one of them.
          >
          >
          > > P.S.: Fuel cell cars would still pollute with
          > tire dust and
          > > lead poisoning from wheel weights, of course.
          > Plus they'd
          > > still kill and injure people, cost lots of money,
          > and prop
          > > up a Hellish transportation infrastructure based
          > on sprawl.
          >
          > yep, we need to not only work on improving the cars
          > that are out there but
          > all the other things you mentioned.
          >
          > cheers,
          > pt
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to:
          > carfree_cities@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          > Group address:
          > http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to:
          > carfree_cities@...
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          > Group address:
          > http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
          http://search.yahoo.com
        • J.H. Crawford
          ... It s crucial to do net-energy-gain calculations on this. When you do, it appears that the ethanol subsidies in the USA are simply causing petroleum to be
          Message 4 of 12 , May 2 2:19 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            r walter said:

            >I just wanted to say as far as solar: When I said
            >"solar energy" I should have said "all renewable"
            >energy sources. Wind power ultimately comes from the
            >sun, and is non-polluting. You can make wind
            >generators without a lot of exotic elements.
            >Geothermal is the only "renewable" not having a solar
            >source.

            It's crucial to do net-energy-gain calculations on this.
            When you do, it appears that the ethanol subsidies in
            the USA are simply causing petroleum to be converted into
            ethanol (by farmers) with approximately zero net gain.
            (Different studies give different results, with some
            claiming modest gains and some seeing slight losses.)

            >I think that the process of converting coal, or other
            >fossil fuels into fuel for fuel cells probably
            >pollutes more than just using gasoline. I'm saying
            >this because the process of converting coal to
            >electricity to hydrogen to power the fuel cell uses up
            >more energy in total than the energy you would get if
            >you just burned gasoline. You lose energy each time
            >you convert. So why are fuel cells better? It just
            >seems like a big farce - is there something I don't
            >get?
            >
            >We've got about 300 years of coal left, I'd hate to
            >see all that go into the air. Coal is cheap,
            >alternative energy is not. I'm worried that the U.S.
            >will take the easy way out.

            Remember, this is the Bush game plan, not yet public.
            You read it in an editorial at Carfree.com:

            http://www.carfree.com/z_editorial_03a.html

            Coal is the only way the USA can continue its profligate
            energy consumption.

            Regards,


            ----------------------------------------------------------------------

            Drop Bush
            Not Bombs

            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
          • phillip m. torrone
            this reminded me of a new segment i just saw. out in nantucket r.f.k jr as well as walter cronkite are speaking up against wind power in their area, here are
            Message 5 of 12 , May 2 3:24 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              this reminded me of a new segment i just saw. out in nantucket r.f.k jr as
              well as walter cronkite are speaking up against wind power in their area,
              here are their reasons....

              -might be harmful to migrating birds
              -noise might be harmful to fish
              -sailing / fishing might be suffer
              -aesthetics

              http://www.saveoursound.org

              the last one, aesthetics was brought up by the advocates for wind power,
              they say the wealthy folks don't want to "spoil their view" of the nantucket
              sound which could lower their property values.

              ...all interesting stuff to read about.

              cheers,
              pt

              r walter wrote:
              > I just wanted to say as far as solar: When I said
              > "solar energy" I should have said "all renewable"
              > energy sources. Wind power ultimately comes from the
              > sun, and is non-polluting. You can make wind
              > generators without a lot of exotic elements.
              > Geothermal is the only "renewable" not having a solar
              > source.
            • J.H. Crawford
              ... I get pretty upset with people claiming to be green who trash every possible replacement for fossil fuel without offering any other plan. I believe that
              Message 6 of 12 , May 3 1:11 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                phillip m. torrone said:

                >this reminded me of a new segment i just saw. out in nantucket r.f.k jr as
                >well as walter cronkite are speaking up against wind power in their area,
                >here are their reasons....
                >
                >-might be harmful to migrating birds
                >-noise might be harmful to fish
                >-sailing / fishing might be suffer
                >-aesthetics
                >
                >http://www.saveoursound.org
                >
                >the last one, aesthetics was brought up by the advocates for wind power,
                >they say the wealthy folks don't want to "spoil their view" of the nantucket
                >sound which could lower their property values.

                I get pretty upset with people claiming to be green who trash
                every possible replacement for fossil fuel without offering any
                other plan. I believe that electricity on Nantucket is still
                generated by large diesel-powered generators, which are about
                the worst way to generate power, saving aside coal-fired plants.
                (They're also quite noisy.)

                So, if no windmills are to be allowed in an area that's suited for
                them (high average wind speeds), what then?

                Regards,


                ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                Drop Bush
                Not Bombs

                -- ### --

                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
              • Matt Hohmeister
                I would not at all be surprised if the same people who despise wind farms for aesthetic and environmental reasons will also insist on driving their car
                Message 7 of 12 , May 3 11:14 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I would not at all be surprised if the same people who despise wind
                  farms for aesthetic and environmental reasons will also insist on
                  driving their car everywhere, demand multilane eyesores to handle the
                  traffic, and will stop any attempts to close streets, implement
                  traffic calming, or introduce any form of mass transit.

                  I rank these wind farm opponents up with the the folks who claim that
                  we need huge, wide roads [with no traffic calming, of course] right up
                  to every building for fire truck access, yet scream bloody murder when
                  they get a $100 violation for blocking the fire lane.

                  > I get pretty upset with people claiming to be green who trash
                  > every possible replacement for fossil fuel without offering any
                  > other plan. I believe that electricity on Nantucket is still
                  > generated by large diesel-powered generators, which are about
                  > the worst way to generate power, saving aside coal-fired plants.
                  > (They're also quite noisy.)
                  >
                  > So, if no windmills are to be allowed in an area that's suited for
                  > them (high average wind speeds), what then?
                  >
                  > Regards,
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.