Re: Hydrogen fuel
Posted by bobbapink on Jan 10, 2002 at 09:27
nen169-76.nosc.mil (198.253.169.76)Re: Hydrogen fuel (Richard Stover)
Bush has killed the Clinton plan to make gasoline cars more economical, and plans to convert to hydrogen fuel. The auto companies says it will take ten years. I say it will never happen because they're bucking the most powerful industry in the world. What's your guess?
On a large scale, I agree it will never replace current technology. The difficulties of switching to hydrogen as a point-of-purchase fuel source are phenomenal, not to mention dangerous, costly, and silly.
If I could inject a little political rhetoric here (you knew I would :-) ), I’d say this is fairly typical and quite clever GW slight-of-hand. While the idea of higher-efficiency gasoline combustion is near and dear to the green among us, it is not nearly so near and dear as what most [incorrectly] believe hydrogen technology to be. Does it matter that hydrogen technology hasn’t a chance in Detroit of coming about in terms of large-scale deployment? Only if you take off your rose colored glasses, which greens are loath to do. So, while the interests of the automobile and oil industries are upheld (and in my opinion the rest of the nation as well), Bush appears to be acting in the greens best interests and to what the greens may perceive to be the detriment of his own (oil). Clever.
On the bright side, good things will still come from funding research into this kind of technology, just not the things most people would expect. Things like new methods of hydrogen storage and transportation and all the offshoot technologies associated with each, nifty little very high performance hydrogen engines, and other stuff that only smart people could dream up.
Follow Ups:
- Re: Hydrogen fuel Richard Stover 11/1 03:00 (1)
- I don't know bobbapink 11/1 20:21 (0)