Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Schwarzenegger's Hydrogen Highway Plan

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Terminator plans on building a Hydrogen service station every 20 miles along California highways by 2010 to buil a 'hydrogen fuel' infrastructure.

    Isn't that case of the chicken coming before the egg? The Hydrogen technology being developed by the automotive industry is still years away from a practical, affordable, and reliable hydrogen system. Then there's the issue of hydrogen supply and manufacturing, again an industry probably not ready to meet the estimated demand. There are a lot of plusses to hydrogen as wel all know, but as I'm sure Bitonti will remind us, there are some minuses as well.

    I've always maintained that America's #1 domestic priority should be creating a viable alternate energy source because without oil, the middle east is a sandbox. Without oil, we don't care what happens over there and most importantly, without oil, a large chunk of terrorist funding $$$ dries up, thus eliminating a number of headaches in one move. Yeah Saudi Arabia says their reserves are starting to dwindle, a statement I don't buy. Our 'good Saudi friends' are trying to drive the price of oil up in my personal opinion.

    We're getting close to a monumental decision as a nation. Continue our reliance on foreign oil and place our economy and way of life in the hands of the money grubbing OPEC ministers. Begin tapping new sources of oil within the United States and off-shore locations to increase domestic production, a move that would set enviromentalists jumping off cliffs. (You can thank them as aprt of the reason gas is nearing $2 a gallon now) Or as the country that put men on the moon, get off our collective asses and create a new form of fuel, something clean, reliable, plentiful and abundant.

    One day it's going to be a major problem. The oil 'game' has the power to shut this economy down single-handedly. One OPEC embargo and boom, there goes the economy. Like I asked my boss during the blackout last August, "LT, how can I get to work for this state of emergency when I have no gas to get to and from home' Imagine that on a national scale. Ridiculous environmental controls, laws and procedures have made it nearly impossible for the domestic oil industry to provide an adequate supply. I can see the riots now as I get my 'monthly allocation' of gas rations. This country lives and breathes on its highways, shut it down and look out, the 1930s will look like a picnic.



    And on that note, or should I say rant, I'm off to go jogging.


    [url=http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm18619_20040226.htm]http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm186...19_20040226.htm[/url]

    Schwarzenegger's vision for 'hydrogen highway' realistic by 2010, official says

    Thursday, February 26, 2004

    BY DON THOMPSON
    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's top environmental aide told state lawmakers the governor's vision of a "hydrogen highway" that would usher in an age of cleaner cars is realistic by 2010, and won't even cost the state much money.

    Schwarzenegger pledged to build hydrogen fueling stations every 20 miles along major highways, allowing motorists to buy clean-burning hydrogen-fueled vehicles without fear they will run out of gas.

    He chose 2010 because that's when automakers have said such vehicles will be affordable and readily available, said Environmental Protection Secretary Terry Tamminen.

    "California does invent the future," Tamminen said. Though there are plenty of unknowns, "there are no show-stoppers. The only area where some of us disagree is on timing."

    California Energy Commission member Jim Boyd warned that the cost is too high. And Toyota Motor Co.'s Bill Reinert said that despite a decade of research and development, any promises are premature.

    The automotive industry still is years away from developing the smaller, cheaper, more efficient and longer-lasting fuel cells that are needed before consumers will buy many hydrogen-fueled vehicles, Reinert said.

    "We're not even close to solving storage technology issues yet," Reinert said. Though he expects technology will develop "dramatically" over the next few years, "we still have significant challenges along the way."

    Other witnesses before the Assembly Select Committee on Air and Water Quality said a strong push by the state and federal governments is needed.

    S. David Freeman, a top energy aide to former Gov. Gray Davis who now heads a company involved in hydrogen-powered vehicles, said the state should consider floating more long-term debt to pay for the project. But Tamminen said the cost to the state could be minimal.

    Schwarzenegger's proposed network amounts to about 200 fueling stations, a fraction of California's 10,000 retail gasoline stations, Tamminen said.

    Twenty-five of those stations will soon be available, and Tamminen projected more can be built by universities, waste conversion stations and automakers at little cost to the state.

  2. #2
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,713
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's funny you use the "chicken befre the egg" analogy. That is the main problem with the development of alternative energy vehicles. On one hand, The automakers wanna build them but claim that it isn't practical because there aren't enough places to refuel an alternative fuel vehicle. Then, larger companies say it isn't cost efficient to build alternative fuel stations because the demand is so low seeing as there aren't very many alternative fuel vehicles on the road. And this goes back and forth and back and forth again. The technology is there folks. We have scientists who have figured out how to do it long ago.

    But between political pressure from Big Oil Co's, and the persistant back and froth between automakers and alternative fuel providers, I suspect we may never see widespread alternative fuel vehicles until it is an absolute necessity ala the oil fields drying up.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bio-Diesel is the answer.

    Bio-Diesel is made from soy. You grow your fuel, instead of using oil to produce hydrogen. Farmers could grow soy instead of being paid to leave their land barren. They havn't come up with a viable way to capture hydrogen from water, so essentially we will be just as dependant on oil. Why do you think Bush is pushing for these fuel cells? Bio-Diesel is said to work in most exsisting Diesel engines.

  4. #4
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    Environmentalists are not to blame for $2/gallon gas. George Bush is.

    We had environmentalists when Clinton was President, and I bought gas for 99 cents/gallon. How convenient that an oil man takes over and the price goes up 100%, eh?

    I completely agree about developing cheap, sustainable power sources. It astounds me that we aren't using wind turbines for more of our electrical generation. Granted, that's not the answer for transportation, but it sure would divert a lot of the fossil fuel that's now being used to generate electricity.

    Requiring vehicles to get decent gas mileage would help, too, but it won't happen while the White House is in the pocket of the extraction industry.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob - you certainly are a funny guy. Everything is that black and white, huh?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    Come on Bob, after 16 years the Bush and Oil thing has gotten old.

    As for wind turbines, who do you think is stopping it.....THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS THEMSELVES!!!



    [url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0605-10.htm]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0605-10.htm[/url]

    [url=http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/jul01/fowl.htm]http://www.heartland.org/archives/environm.../jul01/fowl.htm[/url]

    [url=http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/7834379.htm]http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctime...mes/7834379.htm[/url]

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    lately people have been saying the key to this whole nut could be photosynthesis instead of electrolysis to isolate the hydrogen...

    [url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0008006A-EC03-1023-A42B83414B7FFE87]Scientific American[/url]

    as for Arnie's dream alot has to happen for it to be a viable fuel source by the end of the decade - its not out of the realm of possibility... but without honest gov't research its not gonna happen (and i mean hundreds of millions of dollars not 5M here and 3M there)

    it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that Bush's goal is basically to keep the status quo as long as possible... or at least long enough that the oil companies can affordably switch their infrastructure from bilking the american consumer on oil sales to bilking the american consumer on h2 sales


    well to say its' Bush's goal is inaccurate - the man is a meat puppet that does what he's told.

    hey now seems as good a time as any to remind everyone that in the mid ninties there was a Chevron Supertanker named "Condelezza Rice" - its name has since been changed to the "altair voyager" if you don't believe me look it up... but be warned they won't tell you that on Foxnews.com or drudgereport.

  8. #8
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree that the Bush and oil thing is getting old. I'm hoping fervently that the voters will put an end to it in November.

    I can't argue your point that environmentalists are among those slowing the development of wind power. In many cases, it's true.

    The ones protesting it here where I live, however, are wealthy NYC douchebags who buy second homes here and do their best to make sure no economic development can happen because they think we exist only to serve their vacation needs.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    From an environmental perspective, hydrogen is cleaner than bio-diesel, so the greens would throw their usual hissy fit (until a democrat was in power and suggested going bio-diesel). The hydrogen technology is there, the infrastruce isn't.

    Bio-diesel would benefit farmers, be cheaper to produce and the infrastructure wouldn't have to change much to accomodate it.

    I like the inference how democrats have all the answers. Make clean, cheap energy with just a wave of your magic tax dollars. Liberals don't mind massive tax increases as long as gas and ATM fees stay at $1. In liberal Mecca (Europe), they pay almost $4 a gallon for gas! Last time I checked, GWB or the CEO of Halliburton wasn't the president of [color=green]green-friendly, KYOTO supporting[/color] France or Germany.

    [u]Our reliance on a foreign entity called OPEC is why gas is $2 a gallon[/u], not GWB. We are slaves to the ME until we drill our own oil AND develop an viable alternative that American's buy into. GWB wants to drill ANWAR, create jobs (see the AFL-CIOs position on it) and drasically reduce dependance, [b]it's the dems that don't support it[/b]. GWB has proposed and funded development of hydrogen fuel cells (or BS according to bitonti). The [b]ULTRA WEALTHY[/b], co-owner of Heinz [b]CORPORATION[/b], John Kerry, doesn't want windmills near his plush [b]ESTATES[/b]. But I'm sure the [b]WEALTHY[/b], Mr. Heinz would gladly have his scrubs (the remaining scrubs that Heinz corp. hasn't [b]OUTSOURCED[/b]) fill his many [b]JETS[/b] and [b]YACHTS[/b] with bio-diesel if you all would agree to a modest 20% tax increase. By the way, I'm sure the vegetables for the bio-diesel will gladly be supplied by Heinz CORPORATION agricultural division to the energy industry, for a small surcharge per gallon. As long as it ain't Haliburton.

    More of the same liberal hogwash!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 26 2004, 12:31 PM
    [b] The Terminator plans on building a Hydrogen service station every 20 miles along California highways by 2010 to buil a 'hydrogen fuel' infrastructure.

    Isn't that case of the chicken coming before the egg? The Hydrogen technology being developed by the automotive industry is still years away from a practical, affordable, and reliable hydrogen system. Then there's the issue of hydrogen supply and manufacturing, again an industry probably not ready to meet the estimated demand. There are a lot of plusses to hydrogen as wel all know, but as I'm sure Bitonti will remind us, there are some minuses as well.

    I've always maintained that America's #1 domestic priority should be creating a viable alternate energy source because without oil, the middle east is a sandbox. Without oil, we don't care what happens over there and most importantly, without oil, a large chunk of terrorist funding $$$ dries up, thus eliminating a number of headaches in one move. Yeah Saudi Arabia says their reserves are starting to dwindle, a statement I don't buy. Our 'good Saudi friends' are trying to drive the price of oil up in my personal opinion.

    We're getting close to a monumental decision as a nation. Continue our reliance on foreign oil and place our economy and way of life in the hands of the money grubbing OPEC ministers. Begin tapping new sources of oil within the United States and off-shore locations to increase domestic production, a move that would set enviromentalists jumping off cliffs. (You can thank them as aprt of the reason gas is nearing $2 a gallon now) Or as the country that put men on the moon, get off our collective asses and create a new form of fuel, something clean, reliable, plentiful and abundant.

    One day it's going to be a major problem. The oil 'game' has the power to shut this economy down single-handedly. One OPEC embargo and boom, there goes the economy. Like I asked my boss during the blackout last August, "LT, how can I get to work for this state of emergency when I have no gas to get to and from home' Imagine that on a national scale. Ridiculous environmental controls, laws and procedures have made it nearly impossible for the domestic oil industry to provide an adequate supply. I can see the riots now as I get my 'monthly allocation' of gas rations. This country lives and breathes on its highways, shut it down and look out, the 1930s will look like a picnic.

    And on that note, or should I say rant, I'm off to go jogging.


    [/b][/quote]
    Great post Guns. I really mean it that is a great post.

    Of course Guns I'm sure you realize that President Bush doesn't have a plan to make America energy independent. In fact during the course of the past 3+ years his policies have only compounded the problem of America's dependency on foreign oil.

    If you're truly concerned about this issue then Senator Kerry is your man. He is the only candidate who proposes to solve the issue of America's reliance on foriegn oil once and for all.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tailgators I see your signature comes from one of my favorite movies. Dr. Strangelove or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

    [img]http://www.tigersweat.com/images/slove07.jpg[/img][img]http://www.tigersweat.com/images/slove06.jpg[/img]


    While those on you on the left may have read that and suffered some chest pains :P I meant what I said. I really worry about our dependence on foreign oil the vulnerability it puts our nation in. Seriously...what happens if Saudi Arabia falls into the hands of some fundementalists? We're in for a serious hurting. We all know the Saudi's aren't one of the most liked Arab governments.

    Tail, I can't say I pin the blame for our dependence on Bush solely, because to be completely honest, this country's energy policy has been neglected for years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

    In retrospect, the Oil Embargo of the 1970s should have been the real catalyst for energy reform in this country. The Big 3, the oil companies and their lobbyists have sweet talked members of both sides of the aisle everytime it comes to energy reform or a new direction in this country.

    Just like anything else in our history, we all know that real progress will not be made until our backs are truly against the wall and it is 'economically feasible'. We are a nation the likes to cast history aside at all the wrong times and ignore lessons learned, only to realize it when it's too late. (Sorry I have a bachelors in History and looking at precious lessons learned is one of my favorite things to do)

    I think when you go back and read Weeb's previous post, he makes some good arguments. Like it or not, we have to drill for new oil sources within our own country and shores. The 1st step in getting away from the ME is enabling our own supply. Not only will this help the economy through new jobs, it will drive the price of oil down and give us some breathing room against the middle east. The 'green revolution' of the 90s has in all effect made drilling for new sources of oil next to impossible. Furthermore they have opposed clean methods of energy producing such as hydro and wind for environmental purposes. It's about time, we as a nation, took back our national policies from the 4% minotiry.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    We also need to mine the moon - it'd pay ifself off and then some!

    Helium-3

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    Guns, another good post.

    I don't mean to suggest for a minute that President Bush is solely responsible for America's dependency on foreign oil. However, in his 3+ years in office his administion's policies have only made America's situation worse.

    The bottom line is that the total amount of America's known oil reserves only amounts to 3% of the world's oil. Yet every year the U.S. consumes 67% of the oil produced in the world. The fact that America cannot drill its way to oil independence is a matter of basic arithmetic.

    John Kerry calls for America to develop new energy technologies. I've yet to hear the president call for anything but more drilling.

    Perhaps a combination of some increased drilling (as a stop-gap measure) along a serious effort at developing new technologies is the answer.

    BTW...On Saturday afternoon I went to a special screening of [i]"Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop worrying and learned to love the Bomb"[/i] @ Upstate Films in Rhinebeck. It was great after all these years to see that movie on the big screen!

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Mar 1 2004, 04:08 PM
    [b] Guns, another good post.

    I don't mean to suggest for a minute that President Bush is solely responsible for America's dependency on foreign oil. However, in his 3+ years in office his administion's policies have only made America's situation worse.

    The bottom line is that the total amount of America's known oil reserves only amounts to 3% of the world's oil. Yet every year the U.S. consumes 67% of the oil produced in the world. The fact that America cannot drill its way to oil independence is a matter of basic arithmetic.

    John Kerry calls for America to develop new energy technologies. I've yet to hear the president call for anything but more drilling.

    Perhaps a combination of some increased drilling (as a stop-gap measure) along a serious effort at developing new technologies is the answer.

    BTW...On Saturday afternoon I went to a special screening of [i]"Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop worrying and learned to love the Bomb"[/i] @ Upstate Films in Rhinebeck. It was great after all these years to see that movie on the big screen! [/b][/quote]
    Tail,

    I agree that we could in no way ever drill our way to independence. We consume an absurd amount of oil in relation to our production. I guess my argument was that for the time being, we still need to increase it as more of a stop gap measure and most importantly since I'm always thinking strategically, as a 'protection' should an unforseen world oil event occur. Even with our strategic reserves, this economy and country would come to a grinding halt. Yeah I might be able to get fuel for my police car, but how I would get to work would be a different story.

    Bush did initiate an energy plan/funding towards Hydrogen Fuel Cells (a technology that Bitonti disagrees with) but I think it has become lost in the fog of the war on terrorism, and the economy until its recent improvement.

    Republican or Democract, this issue will one day confront us all like a ton of bricks. I want my kid on the way to live its life not worrying about whether he/she can power his/her car, house, etc. This is a classic episode of where we need to deal with an issue now, vs. pushing it off for another generation to deal with which could easily be done.

    I don't know why, but the blackout last summer scared the hell out of me. There was a feeling of complete helplessness for those 3 days. Being at work, not being able to get a hold of my wife for 7 hours. Hoping to god she was most importantly safe, and less importantly that she was getting some vital supplies. It wasn't the lack power generation that scared me, it was the fact that no one had gas, thus, no one could go to and from work, no one could deliver much needed supplies, etc. That could easily become a realistic possiblity should an unforseen even trigger a oil embargo or cutoff.


    The movie sounds sweet. I would have loved to seen it on the big screen. One of my all time favorite movies.

    .......a big plane like a 52, its jet exhausts frying chickens in a barnyard..........

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Mar 1 2004, 03:36 PM
    [b] Bush did initiate an energy plan/funding towards Hydrogen Fuel Cells (a technology that Bitonti disagrees with) but I think it has become lost in the fog of the war on terrorism, and the economy until its recent improvement. [/b][/quote]
    just to clairfy i don't disagree with it - however at the time Bush made the pronouncement RE: Fuel Cell research the idea made no logical sense... the cost of extracting H2 through electrolysis was too expensive to be feasible on a grand scale... now they are talking about using photosynthesis to extract the H2 its a very big breakthrough (see Sci American links in post above)

    what i disagree with is not the technology but the commitment to it... even with the breakthroughs of independant scientists it will take nothing short of a monumental gov't effort for the technology to become feasable on a day-to-day scale.

    to get this country running on H2 in the near future it would have to be an effort of the scale of the manhattan project, (but not secret) and for H2 fuel instead of H2 bomb.

    Bush doesn't care he only throws pittances toward the research. Why should he fund something that will hurt all of his family's investments?

    [b]Guns[/b] RE: further drilling if we really wanted to be independant we would institute some sort of MPG cap (or TAX) on non-commercial vehicles... just reducing the avg MPG by 1 would save Millions of barrels of oil per day.

    but again Bush doesn't care about making the country independant from oil he wants it as dependant as possible, and security ramefications will "easily" be dealt with cluster bombs and infantry.

    makes sense, right? :blink:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us