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

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] (fwd) (fwd) Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake

Expand Messages
  • murdoch
    Another sig-worthy quotable comment. [Default] On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:52:03 -0800 (PST), Lee Dekker wrote: [...]
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Another sig-worthy quotable comment.

      [Default] On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:52:03 -0800 (PST), Lee Dekker
      <heprv@...> wrote:

      [...]

      >You would be amazed how hard it is to get someone to understand
      >something when their job depends on them not understanding it.
    • k9zeh
      The U.S. Department of Energy gave the same assessment of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle years ago, and yet space vehicles have used fuel cells for electrical
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The U.S. Department of Energy gave the same assessment of the
        hydrogen fuel cell vehicle years ago, and yet space vehicles have
        used fuel cells for electrical power. It should be obvious that if a
        fuel cell is not ready for prime time, the Internal Combustion Engine
        (ICE) runs quite well on H2. Therefore, it is not fuel cells, but H2
        for motor fuel that is up for debate. We have had some of that
        spirited debate here, with some using the 1937 Hindenburg disaster as
        proof that it is too dangerous to use, and others, like me, saying
        that gasoline is even more energetic, so safe handling is the key.

        The FCX Clarity is a concept car. It deserves to be developed. The
        goal of a zero pollution fuel that anyone can make from water and
        electricity is just too good to give up on that easily. I somehow
        think that the new president will give it a chance and fund it's
        development. You just have to believe in something and work at it to
        get it done.

        Rich


        --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, murdoch
        <murdoch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Paul finds this article for us and introduces it with some brief bit
        > of good writing of his own.
        >
        > One point of disagreement I have with Paul's comments:
        >
        > I don't think it is "tragic" (or that surprising) that Mary Nichols
        > has turned out to be an enemy of balanced environmental policy or of
        > giving plug-in technologies a truly fair chance.
        >
        > Maybe the word "tragic" here is being used not to connote any hopes
        > that were entertained for Ms. Nichols as to lament the lost time and
        > efforts of all those organizations who gave Ms. Nichols the chance
        to
        > work with them. We could say that it is tragic that organizations
        > such as Plug-In-America have had their time wasted, but that is a
        > somewhat different nuance.
        >
        > I may well be wrong, but in the final analysis I think it is one
        > possibility that she was hired to continue, deliberately, the
        > foot-dragging against plug-in vehicles and to mollify and delay, for
        > just a few more years, organizations like PIA.
        >
        > If that was her goal, (and this is just my fallible hypothesis),
        then
        > she has succeeded, somewhat, and it is somewhat tragic. I can't
        blame
        > PIA for wanting to maintain credibility and giving promising-looking
        > incoming CARB people the chance to work with them. At the same
        time,
        > I think we should all I think work not to be naive. We don't have
        to
        > be nasty or unprofessional or un-collegial to people of whom we are
        > understandably skeptical. We just need to work to be non-naive.
        >
        > >On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:06:53 -0800, Paul Scott <sunpwrd@...>
        > >wrote:
        > >
        > >With a resounding bang, Dan Neil pounds the final nail in the
        coffin
        > >of fuel cell vehicles.
        > >
        > >"Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic
        cul-
        > >de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game
        the
        > >California Air Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to
        build
        > >zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a
        lousy
        > >way to move cars."
        > >
        > >The members of CARB, specifically Dan Sperling and tragically,
        Mary
        > >Nichols, who still insist that we waste our money and resources
        on
        > >this classic boondoggle, are to share blame with so-called
        > >environmentalists like Terry Tamminen who for years has been
        > >counseling Gov. Schwarzenegger to build the "Hydrogen Highway".
        They
        > >were toadies of the oil and auto industries, helping to forestall
        the
        > >inevitable roll out of battery electric vehicles, and wasting
        billions
        > >of our tax dollars in the process. When asked about batteries,
        they
        > >would give lip service to plug-in vehicles, but all the money went
        to
        > >their pet fuel cell program.
        > >
        > >They are responsible for a massive fraud on the citizens of
        > >California, and by extension, the U.S. They joined ex-President
        Bush
        > >in pursuing fuel cells because the car companies wanted to kill
        > >battery electrics and the oil companies feared a loss of revenue.
        > >
        > >While Dan's words should smother this foolish idea, its heart
        will
        > >keep beating until Schwarzenegger and Obama finally pull the plug
        and
        > >deny them any more of our money.
        > >
        > >Paul
        > >*******
        > >
        > >http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-neil13-
        2009feb13,0,5876175.story
        > >
        > >DAN NEIL
        > >Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake
        > >Honda's striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the
        most
        > >expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built.
        > >By DAN NEIL
        > >February 13, 2009
        > >I've driven lots of cars. I've wallowed like a Russian oligarch
        pig in
        > >the gorgeous mud of a $1.6-million Bugatti Veyron. I've spit
        tailpipe
        > >fire across the midnight Mojave at the wheel of a Lamborghini.
        I've
        > >brushed gape-mouthed peasants aside with the chrome cowcatcher
        grille
        > >of a Rolls Royce Phantom.
        > >
        > >Yet I have never driven a car half as advanced, as futuristic, as
        > >blind-with-science as the Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell
        > >vehicle.
        > >
        > >Nor one so expensive. More on that in a moment.
        > >
        > >But first, let's get this out of the way: Hydrogen fuel-cell
        > >technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic cul-de-sac in the
        search
        > >for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air
        > >Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to build zero-
        emission
        > >vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move
        > >cars.
        >
        > [...]
        >
      • murdoch
        I advocate keeping an open mind toward hydrogen as fuel and toward fuel cells as fuel conversion devices. However, what has happened in California has not been
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 23, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I advocate keeping an open mind toward hydrogen as fuel and toward
          fuel cells as fuel conversion devices.

          However, what has happened in California has not been anything
          resembling this. What has happened, for something like a decade, is
          that both Hydrogen (as fuel) and Fuel Cells (as fuel conversion
          devices) have sopped up taxpayer money, funding, energy and attention,
          to the tragic exclusion of plug-in vehicles. This is wrong.

          While some plug-in advocates may be very black-and-white against any
          and all Hydrogen-as-fuel or Fuel-Cells-As-Conversion-Devices, others
          of us are very open to discussion (and then-some) of Hydrogen and Fuel
          Cells. Some of us, as a matter of principle, are open to discussing
          and advocating public policy attention be given to still other
          technologies (Boron as fuel, air pressure as de facto fuel,
          installation of innovative mass transit, etc.).

          So, I just want to make clear the point that some of us are open to
          some advocacy and push for these competing technologies, but we are
          adamantly against the (at times despicable) public policy farce that
          has taken place in California, which has been a concerted deliberate
          policy against plug-in vehicles, feigning lack of technological and
          economic viability, and consumer demand, when in fact these factors
          were in place moreso than taxpayer-funded commissioners were willing
          to admit.




          [Default] On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:08:23 -0000, "k9zeh"
          <rich@...> wrote:

          >The U.S. Department of Energy gave the same assessment of the
          >hydrogen fuel cell vehicle years ago, and yet space vehicles have
          >used fuel cells for electrical power. It should be obvious that if a
          >fuel cell is not ready for prime time, the Internal Combustion Engine
          >(ICE) runs quite well on H2. Therefore, it is not fuel cells, but H2
          >for motor fuel that is up for debate. We have had some of that
          >spirited debate here, with some using the 1937 Hindenburg disaster as
          >proof that it is too dangerous to use, and others, like me, saying
          >that gasoline is even more energetic, so safe handling is the key.
          >
          >The FCX Clarity is a concept car. It deserves to be developed. The
          >goal of a zero pollution fuel that anyone can make from water and
          >electricity is just too good to give up on that easily. I somehow
          >think that the new president will give it a chance and fund it's
          >development. You just have to believe in something and work at it to
          >get it done.
          >
          >Rich
          >
          >
          >--- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, murdoch
          ><murdoch@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> Paul finds this article for us and introduces it with some brief bit
          >> of good writing of his own.
          >>
          >> One point of disagreement I have with Paul's comments:
          >>
          >> I don't think it is "tragic" (or that surprising) that Mary Nichols
          >> has turned out to be an enemy of balanced environmental policy or of
          >> giving plug-in technologies a truly fair chance.
          >>
          >> Maybe the word "tragic" here is being used not to connote any hopes
          >> that were entertained for Ms. Nichols as to lament the lost time and
          >> efforts of all those organizations who gave Ms. Nichols the chance
          >to
          >> work with them. We could say that it is tragic that organizations
          >> such as Plug-In-America have had their time wasted, but that is a
          >> somewhat different nuance.
          >>
          >> I may well be wrong, but in the final analysis I think it is one
          >> possibility that she was hired to continue, deliberately, the
          >> foot-dragging against plug-in vehicles and to mollify and delay, for
          >> just a few more years, organizations like PIA.
          >>
          >> If that was her goal, (and this is just my fallible hypothesis),
          >then
          >> she has succeeded, somewhat, and it is somewhat tragic. I can't
          >blame
          >> PIA for wanting to maintain credibility and giving promising-looking
          >> incoming CARB people the chance to work with them. At the same
          >time,
          >> I think we should all I think work not to be naive. We don't have
          >to
          >> be nasty or unprofessional or un-collegial to people of whom we are
          >> understandably skeptical. We just need to work to be non-naive.
          >>
          >> >On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:06:53 -0800, Paul Scott <sunpwrd@...>
          >> >wrote:
          >> >
          >> >With a resounding bang, Dan Neil pounds the final nail in the
          >coffin
          >> >of fuel cell vehicles.
          >> >
          >> >"Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic
          >cul-
          >> >de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game
          >the
          >> >California Air Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to
          >build
          >> >zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a
          >lousy
          >> >way to move cars."
          >> >
          >> >The members of CARB, specifically Dan Sperling and tragically,
          >Mary
          >> >Nichols, who still insist that we waste our money and resources
          >on
          >> >this classic boondoggle, are to share blame with so-called
          >> >environmentalists like Terry Tamminen who for years has been
          >> >counseling Gov. Schwarzenegger to build the "Hydrogen Highway".
          >They
          >> >were toadies of the oil and auto industries, helping to forestall
          >the
          >> >inevitable roll out of battery electric vehicles, and wasting
          >billions
          >> >of our tax dollars in the process. When asked about batteries,
          >they
          >> >would give lip service to plug-in vehicles, but all the money went
          >to
          >> >their pet fuel cell program.
          >> >
          >> >They are responsible for a massive fraud on the citizens of
          >> >California, and by extension, the U.S. They joined ex-President
          >Bush
          >> >in pursuing fuel cells because the car companies wanted to kill
          >> >battery electrics and the oil companies feared a loss of revenue.
          >> >
          >> >While Dan's words should smother this foolish idea, its heart
          >will
          >> >keep beating until Schwarzenegger and Obama finally pull the plug
          >and
          >> >deny them any more of our money.
          >> >
          >> >Paul
          >> >*******
          >> >
          >> >http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-neil13-
          >2009feb13,0,5876175.story
          >> >
          >> >DAN NEIL
          >> >Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake
          >> >Honda's striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the
          >most
          >> >expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built.
          >> >By DAN NEIL
          >> >February 13, 2009
          >> >I've driven lots of cars. I've wallowed like a Russian oligarch
          >pig in
          >> >the gorgeous mud of a $1.6-million Bugatti Veyron. I've spit
          >tailpipe
          >> >fire across the midnight Mojave at the wheel of a Lamborghini.
          >I've
          >> >brushed gape-mouthed peasants aside with the chrome cowcatcher
          >grille
          >> >of a Rolls Royce Phantom.
          >> >
          >> >Yet I have never driven a car half as advanced, as futuristic, as
          >> >blind-with-science as the Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell
          >> >vehicle.
          >> >
          >> >Nor one so expensive. More on that in a moment.
          >> >
          >> >But first, let's get this out of the way: Hydrogen fuel-cell
          >> >technology won't work in cars. It's a tragic cul-de-sac in the
          >search
          >> >for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air
          >> >Resources Board's rules requiring carmakers to build zero-
          >emission
          >> >vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move
          >> >cars.
          >>
          >> [...]
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.