Article View: ca.environment
Article #434Re: Creeks and Sprawl (was: An example of how zealots . . .)
From: Mark Slagle
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1992 23:56
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1992 23:56
46 lines
3655 bytes
3655 bytes
In article <1992Jun9.164135.26596@clipper.ingr.com>, fenwick@clipper.ingr.com (Stephen Fenwick) writes: > BTW, what's the problem with a renewable-fuel vehicle? Mercedes is > showing off a methanol-powered car; electric cars have been around > for a long time (at least as long as IC engined cars). How about hybrids? There are several problems with using alcohol as a fuel, particularly with methanol. While it's easy to make alcohol, for ethanol just throw some yeast into some malted grain or fruit mixture, it is quite a bit more difficult to get it into a form that is useful as fuel. Most of the methods of which I am aware (I am not an expert) require a rather large energy input to concentrate the alcohol content. The net output is not all that great, and various byproducts need disposal. Also, while oil spills are a serious problem of using petroleum fuels, we have the potential for an even greater problem with methanol. Since it is miscible with water, and since methanol is highly toxic, you have the very real potential for an environmental disaster of the first rank in the event of a major spill. There is the terrifying prospect of rendering entire aquifers unfit for use. A few dead seagulls will look like a minor environmental insult compared to such a catastrophy. With electric cars, the biggest problem that know about is still the matter of storage. Completely aside from the problems of range and reserve fuel for emergency use, the present technology for storage batteries is wholly inadequate. The cost and weight of the various heavy-metal storage batteries is still prohibitive. And since they don't last forever, there is the problem of dealing with the disposal of them. And in the event of an accident, do you really want to be around when 50-100 batteries rupture and spew acid all over the place. I expect that some of these problems can be avoided with improvements in technology, and the upcoming projects in Southern California will probably come up with some new approaches. But even so, it doesn't seem quite right to be relying on remotely generated electricity unless we can come up with a better way of generating it than using fossil fuels. It displaces the problem, while arguably making it worse overall. Concentrating power in the form of electricity seems like inappropriate technology for use in a small, self-contained vehicle. -- ---- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088 408-756-0895 USA
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<SLAGLE.92Jun9165609@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!newsReferences:
<SLAGLE.92Jun3235820@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> <1992Jun9.002842.29188@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jun9.164135.26596@clipper.ingr.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fd3ff,32d0223205c36d8d X-Google-Attributes: gidfd3ff,public X-Google-Thread: 10df74,32d0223205c36d8d X-Google-Attributes: gid10df74,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-06-10 05:21:54 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) Newsgroups: ca.environment,ba.transportation Subject: Re: Creeks and Sprawl (was: An example of how zealots . . .) Message-ID: <SLAGLE.92Jun9165609@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> Date: 9 Jun 92 23:56:14 GMT Article-I.D.: sgi417.SLAGLE.92Jun9165609 References: <SLAGLE.92Jun3235820@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> <1992Jun9.002842.29188@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jun9.164135.26596@clipper.ingr.com> Sender: news@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (News) Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Distribution: ca Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca. Lines: 46 In-reply-to: fenwick@clipper.ingr.com's message of 9 Jun 92 16:41:35 GMT