Ford Focus: Focus Hybrid: Petrol/Electric version

Robin Smith wrote: 

The hydrogen powered car will never be here. It's 20 years off and
always will be.
 

I haven't heard anything about a Focus hydrid. Here's hoping that they
do
come up with one in the near future.

Tony Wesley wrote: 
I don't know why everyones so up on hydrogen power, it's a net energy loser.
it takes more to make hydrogen then you will ever get back out of it.

http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf



*i'm not related to the site at all*

In message <newsguy.com>, Me <net> wrote 

I'm not sure why people believe electric cars are non-poluting.

--
Alan
mailto:clara.co.uk

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:16 +0000, Alan wrote: 

Well they are in the sense that they concentrate the pollution away from
the car. (Unless you happen to be driving past a power station ;P)

LJ

I think you need to think a little more outside the normal consumer/economic
envelope to get my question. As you can see its based on nuclear. Nuclear
power has major amounts of bad press and public opinion is now against it.
So the big hurdle is resetting public perception. Greenpeace are struggling
with this already as they know its true, but their story for the past 20
years has been on the contrary. They will be in a lot of trouble with the
world community...I'd say in the next 5 years or so. So

Nuclear power is safer than Fossil for the environment - net effect
Nuclear power on a large scale creates the hydrogen from water
Nuclear power means no or little CO2
Nuclear power is the only power source able to limit the global warming
spike


"Me" <net> wrote in message
news:newsguy.com... 
loser. 

In alt.autos.ford.focus Robin Smith <com>: 

 

The amount of usable nuclear material on our planet is limited,
it might reach longer then gas/oil, but we'll have used it all
one day. If you think of the perhaps about 2*10^9 people in
India + China, it won't take that long, once they start using as
much energy as people in western countries since decades.
 

Leaving us with the problem, how to ensure that we can safely
store the hazardous garbage, for a few ten thousand years, we
can't.
 

Questionable, our sun delivers much more energy to our planet on
any day then we need, with a reliability beyond our imagination
and looking at our lifetime we can safely assume it's endless
available. With a solar constant of 1.35 kw/h per m^2, minus a
little loss through our atmosphere.

Just a matter of using it where it's most effective (deserts)
making hydrogen out of it and transport it (pipeline/ships) where
people need it.

The only real problem global energy company face, this damn
nuclear fusion reactor doesn't send any bills.

IMHO before we can get to this point we need firstly fix our
completely broken financial system, based on interest/ compound
interest. This can't work out, since we are trying to work
against an exponential function and need permanent exponential
grow to keep up. But there's no such thing as exponential grow in
nature, only for short time, ending with death, sure you know
which cancer is meant.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 35: working as designed

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:22:30 +0100, Michael Heiming
<michael+heiming.de> wrote:
 


This is the problem with nuclear.

It isn't safe in the long run and who are we to create such a
dangerous problem for civilization in the future? We are talking
THOUSANDS of years. (I suppose the same argument can be made about
global warming and such if you want to believe man is causing
significant harm, but I think the scale of the problem is much larger
with nuclear.)

Find a way to neutralize the waste, and I will support nuclear 100%.

Matt
Focus owner

Michael Heiming wrote: 
 

Why? It's been succesfully done for thousands of millions of years.

The naturally occuring Oklo breeder reactors ran for about one million
years. The reactors created Plutonium and U-235. This sat in in
porous rock with water flowing through it. After two billion years, we
are able to see that most of it has been retained on site.

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/Why/Periodic.gif

Main page for above is at:
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/

 

"Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission
fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next
1.7 billion years."

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters_Jan_2005/Chapter05.htm