Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.misc    |    Science fiction lovers' newsgroup    |    3,290 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,209 of 3,290    |
|    Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) to All    |
|    Re: cases where SF has predicted scienti    |
|    14 Jan 14 15:41:50    |
      XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science       From: seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com              On 1/14/14 3:32 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:       > On 1/14/14 3:22 PM, Your Name wrote:       >       >> Electric cars powered by plugging them into a socket will never really       >> be a workable option for most people.       >       > Especially if you want to recharge them FAST, as you're then       > requiring wattage that no ordinary residential neighborhood could manage       > to handle. Overnight works for commuters. Not sure how the energy costs       > work out.       >       >       >> That's why most manufacturers are       >> already moving towards hydrogen powered cars, which are a much more       >> senisible option since they are refuelled quickly in the same basic       >> manner as a petrol / diesel vehicle. It is also much easier to change       >> petrol / diesel pumps over time to be pumps for hydrogen car refuelling       >> or add more pumps.       >>       >       > Hydrogen's a terrible choice at the moment. You need to       > (inefficiently) use electricity to generate it,               Or you have to chemically process something else, like methane, to get       it. Fuel cells are easily poisoned, too, so using those can be a problem.              > then you need either       > SUPER high pressure storage for it (which means that even leaving       > combustibility aside, it's a bomb) or some of the       > somewhat-less-high-pressure absorptive materials which reduce its energy       > density effectively. It leaks easily (tiny molecule), requires       > high-pressure transfer, and it's not THAT easy to convert "dump liquid       > down a hole" storage and fill-up machinery to "send highly compressed       > gas into a compressed gas tank".               I'll add that while hydrogen is somewhat safer in open air as it tends       to make a straight-up flame if the vessel is punctured (though you       REALLY don't want to be in line with that flame!), in even vaguely       enclosed areas it's really nasty. Most gases/vapors have a fairly narrow       explosive mix range with air -- a few percent, maybe 10-20% wide at most.               Hydrogen goes from 4% to 75% mix.So if you get a hydrogen leak inside,       you're in real danger of a big boom.                     >       > If you're gonna use electricity to manufacture your fuel, why not       > manufacture gasoline? We already have the infrastructure to store and       > transport it, we're intimately familiar with its hazards and how to       > control them, it's got awesome energy density, and you don't have to       > convert 250 million cars over in order to use it.       >       > Just build a bunch more generating stations. Preferably nuclear,       > maybe thorium cycle if they get the bugs out.       >       >       >                     --        Sea Wasp        /^\        ;;;        Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:       http://seawasp.livejournal.com              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca