The Future is Coming! Fuel Cell Cars are Closer Than You Think...

[Fsiphskilm]

http://netscape.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/102059/article.html

Please read the WHOLE, article, it talks about a lot of important issues having to do with USA's dependance on Oil, Bush's Fuel Cell Insentive, and California.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'm very liberal, but fuel cell cars are one thing I don't support. I think a better approach to these problems is to limit car use and design cities in such a way that cars are not necessities. public transportation is a wonderful thing. if we keep up our automotive dependency, we'll keep up our transition to ever-sprawling cities filled with strip malls and cookie-cutter houses. I believe strongly in stopping the effects I just described, and fuel cells lead us to believe that limiting car use is unnecessary. the old european cities are the ones I believe we should return to. much healthier, much more culturally active, and much prettier. sorry to go on about city design, but I feel it is relevant.

[Shinja]

well i dont think hydrogen fuel cell cars will ever replace the internal combustion engine unless ice's become illeagal and to tell the truth theres no real need for them anyway, cars nowdays put out almost nothing in the way of pollution, and the problems with battery life and then how dispose of those batteries can become just as bad if not worse than the current pollution from ice's. also i dont thinkpeople will want to shell out thousnads of dollars on a regular basis for new batteries, and thsoe that like to mod thier cars will be severly dispointed when they cant.

[The Mad Hatter]

"cars nowdays put out almost nothing in the way of pollution"

um...cars still produce more than 50% of the air pollution in the world...one car doesn't put out much, but when you account for all the cars in the world, it's quite a lot.

[Shinja]

im talking about american cars, cars in the rest of the world contribute to way more ploution than americas, and the polution on the whole also include the militries of the world and the airlines which wont ever stop buring 100,000's of tons of fuel a day, so really cars even suvs arnt that big a deal

[Fireproof]

Yay ! Fuel cell cars rock! They're still a bit off, because it's hard to find a good way to store the hydrogen. They're going to use cabon nanotubes last I heard.

[Ducky]

As cool as that sounds it seems rather impracticle at this point. I don't see where the money to refit gas stations nation-wide to sell a more expensive fuel is going to come from. Still, it is good that they are trying to come up with better ways to power cars. As to what the mad hatter mentioned about public transport, as good as that sounds it cannot really work because there are areas where it is absolutely nessecary to have your own car in order to even get groceries... out in the country there is no public transport (other than scheduling a taxi) and it would be ridiculous to have it.

[Stephen]

Yeah public transportation is awesome....in big citys....rather then drive in peace in your own car, you can get mugged by some crackhead....woo. Give me good ol' gasoline powered cars.

[Fsiphskilm]

I'm very liberal, but fuel cell cars are one thing I don't support. I think a better approach to these problems is to limit car use and design cities in such a way that cars are not necessities. public transportation is a wonderful thing. if we keep up our automotive dependency, we'll keep up our transition to ever-sprawling cities filled with strip malls and cookie-cutter houses. I believe strongly in stopping the effects I just described, and fuel cells lead us to believe that limiting car use is unnecessary. the old european cities are the ones I believe we should return to. much healthier, much more culturally active, and much prettier. sorry to go on about city design, but I feel it is relevant.

The whole "let's just get rid of cars and put in really good public transportaion" won't work in america, Europe and USA are two different ways of life. In europe families live closer, work closer, and they don't really move out of their local areas. In America, people travel up to 40 miles just to get to work, the whole little streets, and cute cafe's will NEVER work in the USA. We live farther from our parents. we travel a lot more. And imaging trying to get from "here to there" wihtout your own car... a NIGHTMARE.

I see exactly what you're saying, but it's never going to happen. That's what makes AMERICA, America We aren't europe, and I agree that Europe is very beuatiful because I lived there, I'm from there and I visit every few years.

Europe is like a Beautiful, but foolish Woman - while europe is quite pretty with it's history, and museums, and ruins, and anciet this and that. It's not practical, the street layouts, the way of life. The whole, Family business passed down from generation to genereation. I urge you to go to europe, and try to find a good job out of no-where.

America is like an Ugly, yet practical woman Hey America isn't europe but it is Practical, you know where wallmart is, you know where everything is and you can go where-ever you want, when-ever you want, because we have the world's biggest Highway systems. Everything is spaced out, practical, and efficient, no Tiny little cute streets thought.

[indent]Eventually and right now, Europe is turning into it's own version of America, with convenient supercenters, wider streets, and a more modern look and appeal to the younger genereation. The old houses of Europe are going down, to make way for newer more spacious homes.

Also America is still a young country, It's only a few Hundred Years old, which is nothing compared to europe's Thousand year old land. Eventually America will beutify as time progresses.[/indent]

[Shinja]

thought i post this link http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_tra_fue_con

[ssj2gohan61]

I agree with everything that Volt said and no matter what i wouldnt trade living in America for any other country in the world

[The Mad Hatter]

Yeah public transportation is awesome....in big citys....rather then drive in peace in your own car, you can get mugged by some crackhead....woo. Give me good ol' gasoline powered cars.

you sound like the type of person who hasn't taken much public transportation before. I wish you wouldn't treat my personal beliefs with such sarcasm. I put a lot of thought and research into this, and it's never fun to have someone treat it as a joke.

anyway, if you want to bring safety into this, consider how many people die in car crashes each day.

im talking about american cars, cars in the rest of the world contribute to way more ploution than americas, and the polution on the whole also include the militries of the world and the airlines which wont ever stop buring 100,000's of tons of fuel a day, so really cars even suvs arnt that big a deal

once again, I have to disagree here. the cars in europe are meant to accomadate the extremely high gas prices. (if you think they're bad in america, they're about 4 times as high in europe.) I don't know where you're getting your info, but suvs are the worst. unfortunately, the american concept of "bigger is better" is at play here. america alone consumes 1/4 of the world's oil.

The whole "let's just get rid of cars and put in really good public transportaion" won't work in america, Europe and USA are two different ways of life. In europe families live closer, work closer, and they don't really move out of their local areas. In America, people travel up to 40 miles just to get to work, the whole little streets, and cute cafe's will NEVER work in the USA. We live farther from our parents. we travel a lot more. And imaging trying to get from "here to there" wihtout your own car... a NIGHTMARE.

there is a lot of truth to this, but you have to understand that the american system you described only emerged in the later half of the 20th century. people often commute so far simply because of the city design. everything is so spread out that there really isn't much choice.

with your analogies of america and europe, I see what you mean. but what I'm going to explain is more of a personal thing, since any other response would turn this into a heated political debate. the more I think about it, the more I realize that efficiency isn't that great a thing. we've become so obsessed with making our lives more efficient - we go in cars to spend less time traveling; we go to drive-through fast food "restaurants" to spend less time waiting for our food; we shop at big-box department stores like wal-mart so we don't waste time shopping. we're always trying to eliminate as much "wasted" time as possible.

edit: sorry, I really have to run...I'll finish this later...(don't comment on it yet please...)

my apologies...

[Shinja]

dont forget were cheap!

[Fsiphskilm]

I understand ya:thumb:

Europeans eat worse than Americans, but they walk all that junk off. Literally, I went to europe and we had no choice, we walked about 4 miles a day, I got into a car only once every few weeks.

And I understand your veiwpoint, but we just have to give it time, Soon America's spaced out layout, will become a bit a more crowded and one of two things will happen.

1) We'll go even further into the wilderness, expanding into untouched forests and destroying the homes of critters everywh..OH WAIT! We'll already done that

2) Start planning more efficiently, so that things are practice AND grouped together.

[Stephen]

you sound like the type of person who hasn't taken much public transportation before. I wish you wouldn't treat my personal beliefs with such sarcasm. I put a lot of thought and research into this, and it's never fun to have someone treat it as a joke.

anyway, if you want to bring safety into this, consider how many people die in car crashes each day.

*laughs* and you sound like a naive 16 year old who just got his liscence and has a big view on everything. (stinks to be judged in ignorance huh?) I take it quite serious when people start talking about forcing others into there own views...that sounds kinda communist or tyranical to me. Spoken like a true hardcore green party person. But, since you brought up stats lets talk stats. These are from 2001 in the USA.

Deaths in Car-14936
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances-14078
Falling-15029
Death by various transport(Bus, train, etc)-656

So yes, your odds are better if you ride in a transport vehicle...but they would also be better if you got football pads on and hid in your house. There is a risk of death everywhere and at any time....whenever the Lord has decided your gonna go...your gonna go. It does not matter what kind of vehicle you are riding in. My point still stands, its not right for the government to tell people what they can drive or how much they can drive it.

[Fsiphskilm]

*sounds bell*
Ladies and Gentlemen, it's about to start... tonight, someone is gonna get Served! lol... just trying to lighten up the mood

[Shinja]

no public transportation is great and all but i dont believe it should be public, its unconstitutional and should be left to private business to provide services. not to mention that alot of the money that goes into trasportation: road matence, constuction, public trasnport, is funded by gas taxes that are alreay too high, if we were to stop useing gas (or use extreamly fuel effecnt vehichles) we would be forced to pay out the nose for the upkeep in new taxes, some of which involve milage units to be put in our cars, by law.
people can chose what they want now but they must always have the choice.

[Fsiphskilm]

no public transportation is great and all but i dont believe it should be public, its unconstitutional and should be left to private business to provide services.

THAT"S CRAZY!!! lol, My Mother works for Bi-State Metro (public transportation) And Public Trans is NOT a profitable business... it's funded by the government, every year BILLIONS of dollars Go in and aren't expected to come out.

If Public trans was Privately owned you'd NEVER get to where you want, and you'd have to pay about $30.00 per one way trip, instead of $1.25

Public Transportation is by definition a Money Muncher. It's a nessessity that must be provided. That's why around 3 billion is put into the buget each year. This pays for everything from the "call a ride" to "supervisors" to "buses" to "Metrolink, and rail transportation". All those employees cost money, and in order to make about $1 dollar of profit per year, you'd have to charge riders about $27 per ride.

[Shinja]

doesnt matter, if its good or not weather its right to take others money and use it aginst thier will is whats at stake in public transport, most people dont realise if your in the city limits your going to be paying for it weather you use it or not, and to even use it you still have to pay. and most towns or states dont even give the people a chioce.

if its a state issue the people can have the consitution amended to suport thier desire, if its a city issue similar action can be taken at town hall. untill then its wrong

i believe private industry can haddle anything better than the government, a good example is ups or fed ex, i would never use the postal service if i didnt have to theyre just not as good. i may be a biased small government suporter but i firmly believe that people can take care or themselves and make the right choices for themselevs.

[Lehn]

Fossil fuels include coal, natural gas, petroleum and shale oil. They were formed over millions of years from decaying prehistoric plants and animals. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities.
Scientists have calculated how much carbon can be released into the atmosphere before the 'safe' limits of climate change are passed. If this limit is passed climate change will occur so quickly that ecosystems will be unable to adapt and an irreversible process will begin that could spiral out of control.

The maximum 'safe' global temperature increase is one degree celsius. If fossil fuels continue burning at present levels, this limit will be reached in just 40 years.

Industry already has around four times this amount of carbon in existing reserves of oil, coal and gas. In other words, we cannot afford to burn three quarters of the oil, coal and gas already found if we want to avoid dangerous climate change.

This means that we must start reducing carbon dioxide emissions immediately and begin the phase out of fossil fuels, investing now in renewable energy. Greenpeace refers to this as the 'carbon logic'.

Oil companies have already found enough oil to cause dangerous climate change. If they make available existing reserves, the effects on the climate could be catastrophic. Instead of spending money exploring for more dinosaur fuels, they must begin now to invest in the future - clean, sustainable energy. To continue with business as usual is to gamble with the lives of millions and risk major ecological and economic disruption.

.... Public transportation (metro, subway, busing systems) are good and all for city use, but when you're living out in the middle of nowhere land like me, 'tis a bit unethical. If I lived in the city, I'd ride the metro or the bus to where ever I need to go instead of driving and spending about four hours trying to find a parking spot. But I don’t, and there is no other choice in some situations other then driving meself.

Greenpeace is a little, uh, dramatic, but realistically, there does need to be other sources of fuel found.

[The Mad Hatter]

*laughs* and you sound like a naive 16 year old who just got his liscence and has a big view on everything. (stinks to be judged in ignorance huh?) I take it quite serious when people start talking about forcing others into there own views...that sounds kinda communist or tyranical to me. Spoken like a true hardcore green party person. But, since you brought up stats lets talk stats. These are from 2001 in the USA.

Deaths in Car-14936
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances-14078
Falling-15029
Death by various transport(Bus, train, etc)-656

So yes, your odds are better if you ride in a transport vehicle...but they would also be better if you got football pads on and hid in your house. There is a risk of death everywhere and at any time....whenever the Lord has decided your gonna go...your gonna go. It does not matter what kind of vehicle you are riding in. My point still stands, its not right for the government to tell people what they can drive or how much they can drive it.

I haven't gotten my license, and I don't plan to. I'm the one who brought it up? I don't know if you remember, but you're the one who said you'll get mugged if you take a bus. you're the one who brought up the safety issue. that's why I mentioned deaths by cars in the first place. also, I don't know if your statistics are right. here are the ones I got:

42,815 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2002. Seventy-six percent of motor vehicle fatalities were passenger vehicle occupants, 11 percent were pedestrians (including people getting hit by cars), 7 percent were motorcyclists, 2 percent were bicyclists, and 2 percent were occupants of large trucks. all of this is from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

doesnt matter, if its good or not weather its right to take others money and use it aginst thier will is whats at stake in public transport, most people dont realise if your in the city limits your going to be paying for it weather you use it or not, and to even use it you still have to pay. and most towns or states dont even give the people a chioce.

if its a state issue the people can have the consitution amended to suport thier desire, if its a city issue similar action can be taken at town hall. untill then its wrong

i believe private industry can haddle anything better than the government, a good example is ups or fed ex, i would never use the postal service if i didnt have to theyre just not as good. i may be a biased small government suporter but i firmly believe that people can take care or themselves and make the right choices for themselevs.

you're absolutely right...why have a government to begin with? they can't do anything right. they don't care about the citizens, and corporations never do anything mean. taxes are useless, I mean why help other people? poor people probably deserve to be poor...it's all their fault for not being competitive enough. sorry, but shatterheart has taught me to laugh at other people's opinions.

.... Public transportation (metro, subway, busing systems) are good and all for city use, but when you're living out in the middle of nowhere land like me, 'tis a bit unethical. If I lived in the city, I'd ride the metro or the bus to where ever I need to go instead of driving and spending about four hours trying to find a parking spot. But I don’t, and there is no other choice in some situations other then driving meself.

I actually agree with you here. there will always be rural areas, and there will always be a need for rural areas. I don't believe in eliminating car use completely. they are necessary in some situations, such as the one you mentioned.

[Shinja]

there is an old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions, alot of the laws we have today have been made in the name of progress in the name of saving lives, or helping the less fortunate, those are all falicies, i am reminded of a little thing we have here in most of the south, called click it or ticket. the reason is to save lives, wheather it has saved lives or not had not been proven but what it does more than anything else is take peoples right away to drive un buckled, and penalizes them for being free. that is why we have the system we have in america, so that the law would be restrained except on the demand of the people. ( the seatbelt inforcement is not a law, yet it is inforced as one)

now public trasportation may save lives, but that doesnt make it right to remove peoples right to own an automobile, people know driveing is dangerous, theyve seen the comercials, the graphic pictures, i personally have known people who have died at the wheel. but thats life. thats the chance we take for our daily freedom.

and about what the topic was originally ment for: hydrogen fuel cell cars, they probaly will catch on in states like calofornia where drivers are currently being rewarded for thier use.( this will eventually end) but i personally doubt they will become the standard form of automation. for that to happen one of 2 things would have to take place. extream oil shortage, or government mandate. niether of which is very likely to happen. also these new hydrogen cars pose threats of thier own, theyre amde of very light materials, mostly plastics, plastics are very toxic when burned, they have a almost indefanate lifetime. many of them as they decay produce radiation and radio active particles. unlike steel cars bodies they cannot be recycled. and with the way the current population goes through cars it wouldnt belong before you have a crisis on your hands of what to do with them. also the electronics are very expensive, poseing the threat that cars involved in accidents would almost all be totalled by insurance companys unable to pay the high repair cost.( this is already a problem with high dollar cars today) batteries pose recycling risks, chemical leaks, storage, and handleing. the logistics are staggering aginst these new cars.

i personally feel the answer lies in further reaearch of turbine engines for automobiles, and continued refinement of the current internal combustion engine( which only uses about 30% of the available power in fossil fuels).

for industry there are numerous powerplants that do not polute that are at the moment not being used to thier full ability, steriling engines are one of these,

[Ashley]

You know, this thread is getting very ugly very fast. The sarcastic barbs at one another is uncalled for--I apologize to those of you who had an opinion to express courteously, but this thread is being closed.