sci.energy

On Aug 9, 10:27 am, BradGuth wrote:
> On Aug 9, 8:26 am, Charlie Edmondson wrote:
>
>
>
> > BradGuth wrote:
> > > On Aug 8, 5:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > >>On Jul 28, Eeyore wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs
> > >>>>>>have too many limitations.
>
> > >>>>>If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out
>
> > >>>>What about these?
> > >>>> /
>
> > >>>Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries.
> > >>> /2006/07/
>
> > >>Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the
> > >>ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre.
> > >>What are you, a greedy Republican?
>
> > >>Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's
> > >>why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men
> > >>not afraid to take on the special interests, leading
> > >>by example.
>
> > >>--
> > >>Rich
>
> > > How much cheap h2o2 would you like for your electric cars?
>
> > > How about a Hummwe/SUV at zero NOx and 100 empg?
> > > - Brad Guth
>
> > Brad,
> > Just go away now. This ain't SEH where you have a couple of logical
> > engineers around, this is SED where the REAL engineers will tear you a
> > new one!
>
> > Charlie
>
> Why are you Yiddish folks so deathly afraid of allowing any surplus of
> the 100% renewable energy, as for such clean energy going into the
> productions of LH2 and h2o2?
>
> Why are you against a Hummer/SUV that gets 100 empg and creates zero
> NOx?
> - Brad Guth


As someone who understands what it might take to get a Hummer or SUV
to 100 empg and zero NOx, I want a Hummer/SUV that can seat at least
one person, accelerate from zero to sixty mph in less than thirty
seconds, and not crumple if I inadvertantly lean against it.

There are only two ways to produce useful amounts of LH2 and H2O2,
economically-- new coal generation and new nuclear generation. While
I personally want the latter, thanks to wrongheaded environmentalists,
the former is more likely.