G
M
Moving Target
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
It's true, saw it on The Wright Stuff.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
It runs on "compressed air", and the compressors that make the "fuel cells" for the car in the first place run on ...
As with electric cars, at the end of the power cable is a big power station normally running on fossil fuel and putting pollution in the atmosphere.
As with electric cars, at the end of the power cable is a big power station normally running on fossil fuel and putting pollution in the atmosphere.
S
Scooba Da Bass
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
However, Power Stations are a lot less polluting than cars
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
Cars account for a ridiculously low amount of the total pollution belched into the air. Making a car produces more pollution than running it its entire life.
I
isuck
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
Vehicles still pollute the air to an enormous degree though.
"Cars, trucks and buses account for 20 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, as well as soot and smog that damage human lungs. " (http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/default.asp)
im bored, so leave me alone
"Cars, trucks and buses account for 20 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, as well as soot and smog that damage human lungs. " (http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/default.asp)
im bored, so leave me alone
B
bodhi
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
Yes, but they get all anal and shit about the 20 percent and let the other 80 do what they want. A bit more taxing companies and a bit less 76.9 pence for a litre of super unleaded pls thx.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
Who was tha bloke in the US government a few years back who was advocating that the world should switch to Hydrogen power ? He was appointed as head of some scientific body. True, hydrogen can be used as a non-polluting fuel which simply leaves behind water as a by-product. And also true, there is loads of hydrogen available in water which can be extracted. However he obviously had no knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics not to realise that it MUST take more energy to extract the hydrogen from water than you get from using it as fuel.
Bah, could have been an amusing story if I remembered the details
*leave*
Bah, could have been an amusing story if I remembered the details
*leave*
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
Originally posted by Wij
Who was tha bloke in the US government a few years back who was advocating that the world should switch to Hydrogen power ? He was appointed as head of some scientific body. True, hydrogen can be used as a non-polluting fuel which simply leaves behind water as a by-product. And also true, there is loads of hydrogen available in water which can be extracted. However he obviously had no knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics not to realise that it MUST take more energy to extract the hydrogen from water than you get from using it as fuel.
Bah, could have been an amusing story if I remembered the details
*leave*
You may be referring to cold fusion....it was similar and also complete fuckin rubbish
Googleise cold fusion.
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
Not true. I work for a company who are developing a new vehicle exhaust catalyst.
Car pollution is not rediculously low and is the single biggest cause of atmospheric pollution. It is however not the biggest chunk of the over all pollutants.
Car pollution accounts for 20% of the overall atmospheric pollution.
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #11
I think we need to clarify things, because "pollution" and "greenhouse gases" (or "atmospheric pollution") for example are two different things.
In terms of air quality, the word "pollution" generally applies to toxins or particles, whereas a greenhouse gas is something like carbon dioxide, which is not really a "pollutant" (otherwise you pollute the atrmosphere every time you exhale).
L
legendario
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
good point