slowlane wrote:

It seems our moderators will tolerate our policy rants as long as we don't stray into partisanship. So I will now test the water with the following non-partisan comment:

When it comes to energy policy, unfortunately, both presidential candidates deserve to lose in a landslide.

slowlane wrote:

It seems our moderators will tolerate our policy rants as long as we don't stray into partisanship.

eltejano1 wrote:

LostMarbles:

I can't run video because of my phone lines, so let me ask a couple questions about hydrogen. I have heard it takes nearly as much energy to make hydrogen from water as you get out of it? Since we'd have to built more nuclear energy plants anyway, why not just run plug-in cars - and we wouldn't have to build the extensive service staton infrastucture? Does hydrogen have any advantage over plug-in? Isn't it highly explosive and dangerous to handle?

I'm excited about the new plug-in Chevrolet that's coming on the market in a year or so. They say it uses new, lighter-weight battery technology and will run 60 miles on a charge - not bad looking either. Sort of a small suv. I'd like to see some data on the operating cost at current electric rates - and the charging time required. I envision hi-speed, self serve charging stations outside convenience stores. I think the whole key here is battery technology. They'd have to be lighter weight, store more power and capable of taking a fast charge.

They'd be a lot simpler too - an electric motor and a gear box. We'd be able to work on our own cars again!

Jack

AO_hitech wrote:



They don't say what it really is. However, the explanation (hydrogen from the water converted into electrons to power the car) give the impression that it is a fuel cell. If they have advanced fuel cell technology far enough it is certainly possible to power an electric car with one.

sirdrakejr wrote:

Quote: "I don't think destroying native habitats is the answer. Congress has nothing to do with building oil refineries."

Give me a break!! I lived and worked in Alaska and had a chance to work at Prudhoe as well. There is no destruction there from the last oil field work, why would you expect it now? The ANWR site would use 2000 acres in a state that encomapasses 19,000,000 acres!! You would not even see it. And there are no tourists going there to see it either. When the first pipeline was built, the line equated to stretching a 18 Ga. thread across a room that was about 18 feet square. It was barely noticeable.

Congress has a lot to do with building refineries. If they don't allow permits, refineries don't get built. They have been denying permits since Clinton vetoed the ANWR bill and long before. They also required too many "hoops" to go thru to meet EPA and other regulatory requirements that never existed before the 70's.

Unless you KNOW facts don't say how bad the environment would be hurt. It wouldn't be! The Gulf isn't even after Katrina and Rite struck. Technology has come a lone way since the 60's and 70's. It is time the myths were debunked and common sense and reason determines how we build and allow our country to prosper. NOT thru fear and scare tactics.
Frank

eltejano1 wrote:

so let me ask a couple questions about hydrogen...Isn't it highly explosive and dangerous to handle?