Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Whilst "less polution" is of course better, I don't think this should cause all research into other options that may end up producing "no pollution" to be ceased or completely ignored.
|
Agreed. It is hoped that it will be easier and more efficient to convert major power plants to alternative fuels at their more limited locations, and to add smaller alternative fuel stations at more locations, spreading out the available load and taking the load off of oil and coal. Power can also be more decentralized if individual homes can provide more of their own power, economize on what they use, and sore some of it to charge things like vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Firstly, I do not take your comments regarding selfish people expecting others to change whilst they themselves refuse to, personally...
|
Good, as I was not directing that comment at anyone in particular (maybe Ralph, but just because he's a cynic, and therefore has set himself up to be picked on
). Without knowing the individual needs of each person, it is impossible to say what technology is best suited for whom. It is also worth noting that the EV is intended to suit 90% of the U.S.' driving needs... that obviously suggests that the 10% left (people like you, now that we know your driving situation better) may need other tech. But if we have taken 90% of oil-burning vehicles off the roads, we can afford the other 10% that is still there.
My only point was that
most American drivers are fully capable of using EVs, or public trans, for that 90% of their needs, but simply do not want to sacrifice the convenience of a gas-powered car, even if it actually costs them more in the long run. For most of them, it is a perception thing, or a vanity thing, or (let's face it) a laziness thing. Many of them have low opinions of public trans, and much of that is unfounded--as unfounded, in fact, as many of the advantages of personal cars (traffic and parking costs, for instance, do not come close to outweighing the convenience of my taking the train to work every day).
To be fair, there is a lot of need to improve public trans nationwide, to increase efficiency, comfort, convenience, safety and practicality. And that, in turn, could save money elsewhere, especially in the upkeep demands of an infrastructure sagging under the weight of all those individual cars.
On a hydrogen note, I remember few years ago hearing about a supposedly efficient method of safely storing and carrying hydrogen in sodium hydroxide--giving you sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Vehicles would literally carry baking soda in the tank, and the car would use a chemical process to remove the hydrogen for fuel. Once the baking soda had all been converted to sodium hydroxide, you pull into a service station and have the hydroxide replaced with the bicarbonate (or recharge hydrogen into the hydroxide to get more bicarbonate).
I don't have access to any of the process details, so I can't recall anything about the process, how fast or efficient it is, or if it would be suited to daily use vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
I couldn't agree more, I'd love to see Car3.0 come along. I'm just not convinced the one and only answer is the electric car and that all other means of propulsion should be summarily dismissed from the discussion.
|
Maybe we should start a Car3.0 thread...