From: peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM Announces Price Cuts on A4000/A1200
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:41:27 GMT
Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Dr Peter Kittel Germany)
Organization: Commodore Germany

In article <1993Jan21.224410.1853@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>In article <1jn457INNko0@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>>How much does it cost, you ask?
>>
>>For a few hundred bucks, you can get your engine converted to natural
>>gas.  Less air pollution, cheaper than gasoline.

You still have that carbon dioxide which causes the climate catastrophe.
When remebering the last few years, the climate definitely has changed
already. We hardly have winters here anymore, like we had 15 or 20 years
ago. Thus also electricity is no solution either, as you have to produce
it in powerstations that a) produce masses of carbon dioxide either, or
b) are nuclear and will transform the whole world into Tchernobyl area
earlier or later.

>Anyone heard anything lately about hydrogen power?  I recall seeing a 
>program on the television about such a beast.  The fuel was expensive to
>produce, 

Well, put some photovoltaic photocells in the desert and use them to
separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, transport the hydrogen via
normal (gas) pipelines to the customers. It could be done *today*.

>but they said it would be cheaper if mass-produced and the source
>(water) is almost limitless.  If I'm not mistaken, the only pollution was
>water vapor and the conversion from a gasoline engine was not difficult.

Yes. There is only one big problem: storage. For a car, there are
different ways to store such gas, as a fluid in a high-pressure tank
or at very low temperatures (rather dangerous, but not so much more
dangerous than current car gas); or as gas in metal-hydrid (sp?)
storages. All these are very heavy and allow only for much lower
transportation load. But when science finds a way here, then this is
probably *the* solution.

>>Not the ultimate answer, but it beats the hell out of killing our
>>atmosphere with the crap most cars put out.  I'd take electric over it
>>any day.

Hardly. As explained above, electricity pollutes in the end as much or
even more!

>The idea of electric cars didn't appeal to me until I thought about all
>the torque that one can generate.  Should be awesome for pulling trailers,
>hill-climbing, and mud-riding.  :-)

Oh, torque is no problem at all with electro motors. Ever seen a modern
locomotive? Even most of those where you hear a Diesel humming drive in
fact with an electro motor, where the Diesel only drives a generator.
This is because electro motors are much better able to work at different
rotational frequencies (there *must* be a better english word...) than a
combustion engine.

>How good or bad is Commodore with regard to the environment?  

You know perhaps that here in Germany we have new stricter laws about
trash. And Commodore Germany was among the first companies that had a
concept of how to deal properly with waste (defective, old) computers
and monitors without causing pollution. We made a deal with a specialized
company that can take care of these trash devices. - Though I don't
know about our chip production.

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to \\  Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
Wer's nicht kann, soll's bleiben klopfen oder Steine lassen!