From: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu (Robert Fentiman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Cars (was: Re: Commodore announces price cuts on)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:17:36 -0600
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
NNTP-Posting-Host: ub.d.umn.edu

In article <1jpi62INN85p@coli-gate.coli.uni-sb.de> fettig@dfki.uni-sb.de writes:
:Matthew Simmons (zarthac@bradley.edu) wrote:
:: Skip Sauls (skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu) wrote:
:: : 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.

:: : 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, 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.

:: And you think that gas is flammable?!?!  Hydrogen makes gas look weak...

:Gasoline explodes and spreads all over. Hydrogen can't make your clothes wet 
:(not sure how to say it in english) and is much lighter than air, so you just
:lay yourself down and you're out of trouble. Try this with an exploding gasoline-tank.

Not to mention that Hydrogen can be stored as water and converted only
AS NECESSARY when running the car, therefore you don't have a tank full
of volitile liquid (unless you're the Wicked Witch of the West :-). 
Imagine filling your tank with a garden hose?  The interesting part is
that the exaust (water vapor) can be recycled back into your fuel supply.

:: : >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.

:: You do realize of course, that factories, etc... generate _far_ more pollution
:: than cars do, right?

: I don't think so. Most pollution comes from the heatings(sp?) of the houses
: (water and air). Then comes traffic. Then power plant's or factories (so say 
: the last numbers in Europe). The advantage of hydrogen is that you could 
: produce it easy and it doesn't loose energy while being transported (compare
: to electricity). And it can be easily converted to any useful energy-form.
: (btw what's the average consumption of american car's in Liter/100 Kilometers?)

It depends on what type of pollution your are talking about.  Factories
generate the most Sulpher Dioxide (SO2), but cars are by far the leader
in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pollution.

Here's an interesting fact to consider (from my high school's 5 year old
Contemporary Issues textbook I was using a year ago)

If fossil fues are used at the current increasing rate, it is estimated
that:

All petrolium (gas, oil, etc.) resources, tapped and untapped, will be
gone in 30 years.

All natural gas resources, again tapped and untapped, will be gone in 25
years. 

Coal has an estimated 300-400 year supply (but is the most inefficient
of the 3 for fuel used, and has the highest pollution rate). 

:: : ObAdvocacy:
:
: YEAH GREAT PRICE CUT ISN't IT ? GREAT FOR THE AMIGAN'S ECOLOGIE!
:
:>:)
:
:: : How good or bad is Commodore with regard to the environment?  I saw a report
:: : a while back which listed IBM and a few others as being some of the biggest
:: : polluters due to their manufacturing process.  Oh, I forgot, that sort of
:: : information is probably covered by the NDA...  :-)
: Perhaps there using recycled toilet paper.. from old NDA's ?

As I recall, pollution in the computer manufacturing has to do mostly
with a spray they use on the chips (for clearning or something).  CNN
did a report on it a while back.

	Thanks
	Robert Fentiman

UseNet: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy