I will never own a .....................................

[5StringBlues]

Tesla... I like stick shifts.

Indeed, I prefer a manual transmission.


And can't afford a Tesla!

 

[Stewie26]

Tesla... I like stick shifts.

Who has time to shift when you go 0-60 in just a few short seconds.

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Who has time to shift when you go 0-60 in just a few short seconds.

Zzzzzzzz

 

[96tbird]

Right. We should be burning hydrogen in 5.7 liter v8’s, not screwing up the world with more heavy metals and toxic chemicals for batteries.

 

[bholder]

And can't afford a Tesla!

Actually, you probably can...

 

[Mrmatt1972]

Right. We should be burning hydrogen in 5.7 liter v8’s, not screwing up the world with more heavy metals and toxic chemicals for batteries.

How I wish this was possible. Sadly, because hydrogen extraction from water is electricity intensive this is akin to all those failed perpetual motion machines- doesn't work.

 

[Groove Doctor]

Winnebago
Humvee
Vespa
Penny Farthing

 

[D M C]

A politician. Can’t afford ‘em.

 

[bassdude51]

Rolex...............my Casio works just fine

 

[96tbird]

How I wish this was possible. Sadly, because hydrogen extraction from water is electricity intensive this is akin to all those failed perpetual motion machines- doesn't work.

^Brainwashed by Elon Musk.

 

[Mrmatt1972]

^Brainwashed by Elon Musk.

Thermodynamics predates ol' musky. But, feel free to show me why what I think I know is wrong.

 

[bholder]

… leech livery or a legless lizard license or a spittoon or a sporran or sandals. And no mice. Not even nice mice.

I have my grandpa's regimental sporran hung on my living room wall.

 

[IamGroot]

Actually, almost all commercial hydrogen is made by catalytic steam reforming of methane followed by purification using pressure swing absorption molecular sieves.

Ultra pure hydrogen is prepared by electrolysis.

Hydrogen burns very cleanly with no CO2 emissions , but the manufacturing process to make the hydrogen is CO2 dirty as you make one mole of CO2 per 4 moles of hydrogen, plus a substantial amount of CO2 for the fired heaters for the reforming process. "Clean Fuels" is something of a misnomer when the whole cycle is considered.

Likewise, if the electricity to power your car came from a power plant, it aint clean fuel either.

Solar, wind, tidal and hydroelectric generated power are "clean fuels".

So is nuclear until you consider the fuel processing, fuel rod reprocessing , plutonium burden and contaminated waste generation plus eventual decommissioning.

 

[D M C]

A doohickey. A thingamabob maybe but never a doohickey.

 

[96tbird]

Thermodynamics predates ol' musky. But, feel free to show me why what I think I know is wrong.

It’s a joke man

 

[Joe Nerve]

 

[96tbird]

Actually, almost all commercial hydrogen is made by catalytic steam reforming of methane followed by purification using pressure swing absorption molecular sieves.

Ultra pure hydrogen is prepared by electrolysis.

Hydrogen burns very cleanly with no CO2 emissions , but the manufacturing process to make the hydrogen is CO2 dirty as you make one mole of CO2 per 4 moles of hydrogen, plus a substantial amount of CO2 for the fired heaters for the reforming process. "Clean Fuels" is something of a misnomer when the whole cycle is considered.

Likewise, if the electricity to power your car came from a power plant, it aint clean fuel either.

Solar, wind, tidal and hydroelectric generated power are "clean fuels".

So is nuclear until you consider the fuel processing, fuel rod reprocessing , plutonium burden and contaminated waste generation plus eventual decommissioning.

Solar wind and tidal are so very inefficient energy density wise. They’re visual pollution as well. Then there’s maintenance of vast fields of the devices.

I don’t get the hangup over nuke. One accident in North America in 60-70 years. Zero incidents of waste contamination over the same time. Extremely energy dense and efficient. Tiny footprint.

Nuke could electrolyse plenty of hydrogen.

Oh well, rational though and public opinion are seldom linked.

 

[IamGroot]

Solar wind and tidal are so very inefficient energy density wise. They’re visual pollution as well. Then there’s maintenance of vast fields of the devices.

I don’t get the hangup over nuke. One accident in North America in 60-70 years. Zero incidents of waste contamination over the same time. Extremely energy dense and efficient. Tiny footprint.

Nuke could electrolyse plenty of hydrogen.

Oh well, rational though and public opinion are seldom linked.

In a perfect world, nuke/hydrogen would be the best option. Technical issues including cycle life and plutonium utilization are doable, but not in the current political situation.

 

[saltydude]

Boat
Hoffner violin bass
Cat
Person

Could say private island etc but being realistic.

 

[Biffa]

Actually, almost all commercial hydrogen is made by catalytic steam reforming of methane followed by purification using pressure swing absorption molecular sieves.

Ultra pure hydrogen is prepared by electrolysis.

Hydrogen burns very cleanly with no CO2 emissions , but the manufacturing process to make the hydrogen is CO2 dirty as you make one mole of CO2 per 4 moles of hydrogen, plus a substantial amount of CO2 for the fired heaters for the reforming process. "Clean Fuels" is something of a misnomer when the whole cycle is considered.

Likewise, if the electricity to power your car came from a power plant, it aint clean fuel either.

Solar, wind, tidal and hydroelectric generated power are "clean fuels".

So is nuclear until you consider the fuel processing, fuel rod reprocessing , plutonium burden and contaminated waste generation plus eventual decommissioning.

I seem to remember the Hindenburg giving off a hell of a lot of smoke