Re: OT; aircar, alternative to status quo

On 31 Aug 2005 07:13:05 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>
>> Most "zero pollution" cars use this same fallacy. See, this electric car
>> is totally pollution-free. You just plug it in overnight to charge it up.
>> There should be a required picture of a coal-fired power plant, belching
>> out black smoke, in the background on all these ads. It's the same for
>> hydrogen, since something has to provide the energy to separate out the
>> hydrogen from the oxygen if they use water. If they use petroleum it's
>> even worse.
>>
>> >
>> > It's really all just a question of whether the energy density is higher
>> > with compressed air or a battery. My guess is that the battery would
>> > win hands down - especially the latest ones.
>> >
>> > The other "interesting" issue would be the explosive potential of a
>> > large, high-pressure air tank in a collision.
>>
>> Hydrogen would be even better.
>>
>> All this talk about alternative fueled cars is absurd. We would save more
>> oil than we import if our cars were not so over-powered.
>
>
>No kidding. If tomorrow, all cars were suddenly electric or hydrogen,
>the sky would be black from the pollution from producing that much
>electricity to charge batteries or make hydrogen.
>
>Gotta get energy from somewhere, no such thing as a free lunch. Make
>energy, create pollution. Not a scientist but seems we need to look
>elsewhere for clean energy, like a 'Mr Fusion' type idea.

Dear Peter,

Watch the skies, everywhere! Keep looking. Keep watching the
skies!

(Particularly after dawn and before sunset.)

Ned Scott
.