[SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn

[Chris Byrne]

Quite a bit actually. I've been involved in both battery electric, and fuel
cell electric projects before. Fuel cells are probably the "cleanest" way we
know of to generate power absent the graces ofstrong natural forces (sun,
wind, geothermal what not).

Fuel cells are also VERY VERY VERY expensive, both because they are scarce,
and because they tend to use very expsnive materials (platinum, rhodium
etc..) and very expensive fabrication processes.

That being said, Mercedes no offer fuel cell powere busses and delivery
vehicles in germany.

Essentially you can take a page form those electric car sites, and instead
of a huge battery. use a small to medium sizd battery, and an on-board fuel
cell. THat is if you can find one or build one suitable to your needs, in
which I wish you luck.

Chris Byrne

-----Original Message-----
From: rescue-admin at sunhelp.org [mailto:rescue-admin at sunhelp.org]On
Behalf Of Joshua D. Boyd
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 09:17
To: rescue at sunhelp.org
Subject: Re: [SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn


I was searching the net to find info on building alternatively powered
cars.  I found lots of info on gutting my car and making it an electric,
but what I wanted to find was info on making my car hydrogen powered.
Anyone know anything on that topic?

--
Joshua Boyd

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 wa2egp at att.net wrote:

>     Actually you would be polluting less walking or
> riding a bicycle..so there!  Removing some the anti-
> pollution crap on the car will increase gas mileage
> without increasing pollution if you keep the engine
> tuned.  I had a 73 Corolla with 1.6 l engine and a two
> speed automatic (yep, no typo).  It got 29.5 mpg on the
> highway and 26-27 average.  It also passed the 85 CA
> standards before I got rid of it after 185,000 miles.
> When it went through inspection they always had to test
> the exhaust system because "your car doesn't pollute
> enough".  My present car is not as good in mpg as that
> car, but far better than SUVs....and it has been off-
> road more.  If we were really serious, a external
> combustion Stirling engine would be better if you want
> it fossil fueled.  BTW, I think the record for mileage
> is 358 mpg but you wouldn't want to drive that vehicle
> or they way it was driven.
> > It seems to me that there is no one in the U.S. who
> > is REALLY concerned about mileage, the environment,
> > gas prices, energy, tree hugging, any of that stuff, if you
> > drive ANY vehicle back & forth to work with only one
> > person in the vehicle.(except MAYBE a fuel efficient cycle)
> > 4 people in a car getting 10 mpg is lots better than 1 in a
> > vehicle getting 25 mpg.
> > AND I am not playing hole-e-yer-than-thou cause I drive a
> > Mark VIII and it only gets about 20 if I keep the foot light.
> > We all know that higher prices force economy, but we just
> > don't want to see those prices.
> > Les
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cyrus M. Reed" <reedc at cc.wwu.edu>
> > To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 6:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SunRescue] OT: CA: It's Our Turn
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Reagen Ward wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:17:54PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm lucky when the '58 gets 10-12mpg. If I hit the hammer a lot that
> > number
> > > > drops to 7-8. But I do my part, too... the 2000 gets around 30 when
> > driven
> > > > right. Should those of us who preserve history (drive classic cars)
get
> > a
> > > > price break on gas?
> > >
> > > I've heard an interesting theory:  Old gas guzzling classic cars burn
> > > less total energy than it would take to make a new car, so you're
better
> > > off with an old car if you're wanting to conserve energy.
> > >
> > > Dunno if it's true, but it sounds good.
> >
> > Don't forget that energy is not the same as pollution.  10kW/hr of power
> > from a hydroelectric plant is not the same as 10kW/hr of power from a
coal
> > or natural gas powerplant, IMHO.
> >
> > Also consider that leaded gas also puts out a lower amount of harmful
> > emissions than unleaded gas for short trips.  The catalytic converter
> > doesn't heat up as much as for longer trips, and unleaded gas actually
> > burns less clean on it's own than leaded.  Now think about a short trip
to
> > the grocery store in an SUV... I'll bet that at 7mpg, there aren't many
> > long trips made in those monster SUV's.  Ick.
> >
> > -Cyrus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> > http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> > http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>

_______________________________________________
rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue