Kevin's Watch

When I first started reading about hydrogen technology my first impressions were skeptical. I had concerns about safety issues. I wondered how existing internal combustion vehicles could ever be completely phased out. I even managed a few thoughts that were born from conspiracy theories about “Big Oil” never allowing hydrogen to put them out of business. I had been taught all my life that the answer to our transportation problems was electric cars but now I’ve come to the conclusion that hydrogen power is not only a better answer to energy issues, its seems much more realistic. Positive progress is apparently being made on many fronts and for the first time it appears that a full conversion to hydrogen power is not only possible but also preferable. There is debate on a realistic timetable. (I have included a link an article outlining the current issues in California) I don't think any of this is going to be easy but in my opinion it is worth the effort if we are in any way concerned about the future.

www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3 ... ge=english
www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,60926,00.html
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

I agree whole-heartedly. The best way to procure a sustainable economy is to eliminate the dependence on fossil fuels. Will the Shells and Exxons allow our gov't to pursue these technologies at hte speed at which we should? I dunno. Not with the current group we have...that much is sure!

Though I’m sure his sincerity may be questioned, it was Bush’s comments on the subject during the state of the union speech that inspired me to catch up on what the state of hydrogen tech was. I was happy to find that quite a lot had been accomplished. I find the process very interesting.

TOM C wrote:Though I’m sure his sincerity may be questioned, it was Bush’s comments on the subject during the state of the union speech that inspired me to catch up on what the state of hydrogen tech was. I was happy to find that quite a lot had been accomplished. I find the process very interesting.

I agree that his comments were interesting, I just doubt his follow through when you consider that the so called "energy plan" does not call for the research he said SHOULD (not SHALL) be done. A lot like his Mars comments. Designed to parley a FEELING, but no commitment.

Hydrogen power (and NUKES, mind you...I am all for NUKE unlike a lot of my moderate and lefty friends) are the future of energy...period.

Well, I'm payin $2.00 a gallon for gas right now, and a gallon of water costs about $2.50 in the stores, and nobody even uses it for anything useful like running their car yet. I'll stick with gas.

Nuke fusion would be great. Or fission if the safety issues and waste can be effectively dealt with. You have an interesting point, dAN. I'm not sure I understand it but its interesting.

Well, I completely misunderstood the part water has in the hydrogen engine, for starters. Water is the by-product, not the fuel. Which means that this engine would not only be pollution free, but it would also be generating water, and that can only be good for the environment. With that in mind, I'm all for it. I do not believe that this will change the middle east crisis, as terrorism seems to have religious motivations behind it. Unless, of course, we realize we don't need oil so we can nuke away!

I think it is one of those maybe ideas, I really cannot jugde on whether this will happen or not. Scientists have a way of making fanasitc uncompleted ideas look more realistic and closer than they actually are.

Jake wrote:...and closer than they actually are.

We are talking about the engine of the car, not the rear-view mirrors.....

I am sorry for making a few mistakes. And there is no need to demean my posts. I don't really like my posts to be made fun of by people I don't know; and also have not done anything wrong too be uncourteous. I'll leave.

As I said earlier. I'm all for Hydrogen and all for Nukes.

Jake wrote:I am sorry for making a few mistakes. And there is no need to demean my posts. I don't really like my posts to be made fun of by people I don't know; and also have not done anything wrong too be uncourteous. I'll leave.

I apologize, Jake. These discussions sometimes become spirited to the point of contention. I know dAN personally and I believe he meant no personal harm. He does enjoy the use of painful sarcasm. I hope you will return.

Trust me, if I meant personal harm, I'd use laser-guided stuff, not WMD's.

Come on... I doubt there ever going to make stuff like that in out life time.

Darth Revan wrote:Come on... I doubt there ever going to make stuff like that in out life time.

Based on what I've read and learned I have to disagree, Rev. All of the appropriate technology has been developed. Some of the first cars are already being manufactured. The Governor of California is pushing to create hydrogen filling stations all through the state. We could see hydrogen vehicles replace existing transportation in less than 20 years. I plan to be around then. I'm pretty sure you will if you give up bowling.

LOL! Shut it about my bowling! It's the shoes!

Yeah, it's the shoes. You realize they're the problem when they're up in the air, you're on the ground, and the ball is still attached to some of your fingers. Sure it's the shoes.

LOL! Shut up dAN!

I think you need a hydrogen powered bowling ball.

It would be useful