George Bush - selfish!!!

I think this says it all:

Quote:

---

George Bush

"So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country."

---

It is shocking to think this man has the power to change the world for the better, but seems so wrapped up in his own self interests that nothing seems to be getting through. There has been alot of coverage recently on the state of Africa and the threat of global warming - we'll see on Wednesday wheather any of them have listened. :sick:

There is no scientific concrete evidence that global warming even exists. And not too many things are getting through (like the judges he selected for example) because the Democrats are philibustering in the senate, which means they don't vote yes or no. As a result, things are put on hold. Bare in mind, the president isnt in charge of everything like a king. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

There is no scientific concrete evidence that global warming even exists.

---

Look a Venus - thats the evidence, also the fact that it has happened several times in the Earths past.

The US being the worlds only super power, Bush has an incredible amount of power. Its a shame he only uses it to benifit his country - the USA may as well be a different planet.

The president doesnt have as much power as you think. Like for example, people are complaining that the deficit is so high thanks to Bush, when he doesnt have control over spending at all. The only people that have control over the spending is Congress.

Ever heard of Checks and Balances? That's to make sure that the president doesnt have total control. And he doesnt. So you can't blame Bush over every little thing.

Its not the little things though, its the big things (global issues). It appears the only country that exists in his mind is the US. The UK is just as much to blame, we always crumble under peer pressure from the US :rolleyes:

It would be interesting to see what happens in Scotland this week. In my opinion all it is, is the 8 leaders of the greediest countries in the world meeting for a social and discussion on how they can make themselves and their countries look better.

Leaders represent people though and for every luxury we/you have there is someone suffering unnecessarily in its cause and for every trip we make in our cars we've just made life for future generations that little bit harder. Living the life we do, we all have blood on our hands :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

The US being the worlds only super power, Bush has an incredible amount of power. Its a shame he only uses it to benifit his country - the USA may as well be a different planet.

---

Nothing he does benifets the USA, his foreign policy is aimed at the middle east.
Bush would bomb American cities if he could generate fear and revenue out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CORONA BEER

Nothing he does benifets the USA, his foreign policy is aimed at the middle east.
Bush would bomb American cities if he could generate fear and revenue out of it.

---

:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CORONA BEER

Nothing he does benifets the USA, his foreign policy is aimed at the middle east.
Bush would bomb American cities if he could generate fear and revenue out of it.

---

That's just [REMOVED BY MOD] stupid. I guess you think some tinfoil hat wearing idiot could do a better job. [REMOVED BY MOD].

It's a real shame that my nations leader is looking out for the best interests of my country. :confused:

Funny how the US should stay out of everyones business in some cases, then save the world in others. If you're that concerned, contact your local government and plead with them to stop "global warming". Or start a personal campaign. Or, just blame George Bush for not stopping it, give me a break.

Those damn liberals blaming Bush for everything, which is just so ridiculous, has gotten so bad, that Janet Jackson last year has blamed Bush for her breast being shown on national TV during the superbowl.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

There is no scientific concrete evidence that global warming even exists.

---

Are you a redneck?

I think some countries like China should do a little clean up. CNN had a show about China's pollution problem and by the looks of it, it's bad. People couldn't even see ten feet from their face.

As for the US liberals, it's funny how the same people that complain are the same people that shop at Wallmart and buy their kids ten Brat dolls that are mass produced in China and shipped on over to the USA.

Lets keep this orderly and be nice to each other ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

Lets keep this orderly and be nice to each other ;)

---

Are you a redneck? :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Are you a redneck? :afrog:

---

Only after I've been out in the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

There is no scientific concrete evidence that global warming even exists. And not too many things are getting through (like the judges he selected for example) because the Democrats are philibustering in the senate, which means they don't vote yes or no. As a result, things are put on hold. Bare in mind, the president isnt in charge of everything like a king. ;)

---

I think that you'll find that global warming - the idea that the world is warming up - does exist. So does global cooling, global dimming and a whole host of other things. We measure these things - temperature - and it fluctuates up, down and sometimes keeps to the mean average. This is the nature of the planet.

The 'Global Warming' argument is more precisely about anthropological climate change; is it mankinds releasing of greenhouse gases into the the atmosphere that is causing the climate to warm?

There is no specific evidence for this. There is only consensus. Scientists agree but cannot prove this (either way) Otherwise the evidence would be presented and we wouldn't consistently hear phrases like 'we agree that' 'we believe that' We would hear phrases like 'scientific fact'

One thing's for sure: pumping out biological and environmental toxins into the atmosphere has got to stop. Polluting our home - Earth - can never be a good thing.

I don't think that we should wait to find out whether it is mankind's fault that the climate is changing. We should act now. I can't see that we can do much harm (except a short dip in the economic cycle, perhaps) by reducing carbon emmissions.

The United States is like a bad neighbour. Imagine a neigbour where the neighbour dumps it's toiletry waste into it's back yard. The neighbours complain about this. The neighbour simply states: 'If I invest in the plumbing and sort out a toilet then it will affect my expected monthly expenditure. Sorry. I have to think about my money more than the health of those living in my house, and around the whole neighbourhood'

As a postnote: we are currently at the beginning of a phase of significantly less solar activity. I would expect the mean (in the UK the Central England Temperature CET) to fall slightly over the next eight years. Winters will once again get longer, and colder. Summer's will get, on avergae, cooler- but dryer. Climate change is not about this sort of micro-pattern. It's about the pattern over thousands of years.

As another postnote (mark as one to think about) How can scientists predict the temperature of say -/+ 6C over the next hundred years when the forecast for seven days time is often in error by -/+ 6C?

Quote:

---

Posted by yrwyddfa

The United States is like a bad neighbour.

Sorry. I have to think about my money more than the health of those living in my house, and around the whole neighbourhood.

---

Actually other countries are worse. Why is it that coutries such as China, Brazil and India get a pass when it applies to the Kyoto Protocol? What cause they are emerging countries? Too bad. They should have shifted their economies in high gear a long time ago. Don't get me wrong the United States does play a large roll in the increases of greenhouse gases emmited but when i go to get my car inspected if it dosen't meet the requirements then i fail. Can i say the same for the Indian that drives a two wheeled mud cart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

The United States is like a bad neighbour. Imagine a neigbour where the neighbour dumps it's toiletry waste into it's back yard. The neighbours complain about this. The neighbour simply states: 'If I invest in the plumbing and sort out a toilet then it will affect my expected monthly expenditure. Sorry. I have to think about my money more than the health of those living in my house, and around the whole neighbourhood'

---

The economic disaster caused would cripple the USAs economy, which in turn would destroy the worlds economy. You think there is a hunger and war problem now, imagine if the US economy tanked. I'll guatentee within 20 years the US will be the leading country in the use of clean alternative fuel sources like hydrogen. We're already spending billions on developing these technologies. It only makes sense for us to do that. There will be a huge market for it. Comparable to the US governments development of the internet and the cooresponding economic boom following it. It goes a lot deeper than just saying "it will affect my expected monthly expenditure". Hybrid gas/electric cars are flying off of the showroom floors right now. Everyone wants to save the environment. It will never happen until we set ourselvs up to be able to do it without going bankrupt. One thing about George Bush, he has spent more money on the research of alternative fuels than any other world leader. Regardless of his motivations.

Well said MasterBlaster. :thumb:

These threads always drive me nuts...

People from outside the US think that George Bush is the boss here. That is such a laugh...

We are 50 different states (that's why it's called the United States of America).

Those 50 states have incredibly different economies and political agendas.

Bush is in charge of the "executive" branch of the federal government - he does not have control over state governments.

The federal government has three branches (thus the checks and balances mentioned earlier).

Most of the decisions are made by the legislative branch (Congress) - a group of Congressmen that "represent" the states - elected by the states.

We even break the legislative branch into two pieces - one that has two "senators" for each of the 50 states and the other one that has a group of representatives based on the states populations. That way a state with a big population wouldn't overrun the federal legislative branch...

At any rate - why would I not want Bush to go forth with an agenda that is in the interest of the USA? Who should our president represent?

Do you want Sony to ask Panasonic what's the next best move in the electronics industry? Should Microsoft check and see what IBM is needs more then what Microsoft needs?

Bad neighbor? We've been pouring our hard earned capital (oh yeah - us evil capitalists) into supporting all parts of the globe - economically, militarily... I would not want anything other then my interests brought through from my reps in Congress and pushed through Bush laid out across the globe.

If you don't like us - then see what you can do to live without us.

Quote:

---

Posted by szlamany
If you don't like us - then see what you can do to live without us.

---

:thumb: Give em hell szlamany. :D

I mean seriously. Every time there is a natural disaster the US has to help either financially or phisically or both. Every time there is a political crisis we have to calm the waters. We have to have concerts to support countries who simply canno't sustain their own people. We have to find a way to cure Aids because foreign people simply can't abstain from having sex. We have to come up with alternative fuel sources to save the environment. Oh yeah and we have to stop global terrorisim before it gets worse. The list goes on and on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

These threads always drive me nuts...

People from outside the US think that George Bush is the boss here. That is such a laugh...

We are 50 different states (that's why it's called the United States of America).

Those 50 states have incredibly different economies and political agendas.

Bush is in charge of the "executive" branch of the federal government - he does not have control over state governments.

The federal government has three branches (thus the checks and balances mentioned earlier).

Most of the decisions are made by the legislative branch (Congress) - a group of Congressmen that "represent" the states - elected by the states.

We even break the legislative branch into two pieces - one that has two "senators" for each of the 50 states and the other one that has a group of representatives based on the states populations. That way a state with a big population wouldn't overrun the federal legislative branch...

At any rate - why would I not want Bush to go forth with an agenda that is in the interest of the USA? Who should our president represent?

Do you want Sony to ask Panasonic what's the next best move in the electronics industry? Should Microsoft check and see what IBM is needs more then what Microsoft needs?

Bad neighbor? We've been pouring our hard earned capital (oh yeah - us evil capitalists) into supporting all parts of the globe - economically, militarily... I would not want anything other then my interests brought through from my reps in Congress and pushed through Bush laid out across the globe.

If you don't like us - then see what you can do to live without us.

---

Exactly my point. People treat George W. Bush like he's a king and is in charge of everything, when it is not true. And as a result, people blame Bush for the stupidest things. Take an American Government course in High School or College, and you will see that the President isn't as powerful as you think. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman

Exactly my point. People treat George W. Bush like he's a king and is in charge of everything, when it is not true. And as a result, people blame Bush for the stupidest things. Take an American Government course in High School or College, and you will see that the President isn't as powerful as you think. ;)

---

We've had 200+ years of reasonable cooperation among our 50 states...

Europe would like to model our structure - but the EU can't agree on anything. The "elite" European states don't want to give anything to the "less fortunate" European states. What a joke - they disparage us for something they want, but can't create because they are ultimately more selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Hybrid gas/electric cars are flying off of the showroom floors right now. Everyone wants to save the environment.

---

Bull****. That's a side effect.

Gasoline costs about twice as much or more than it did four years ago. That's why people are focusing on more fuel efficient cars.

Quote:

---

Gasoline costs about twice as much or more than it did four years ago. That's why people are focusing on more fuel efficient cars.

---

see? Someone finally realised it. Nothing changes these days until there's an economic incentive to do so. Nobody's buying eco-cars unless it's financially sound to do so. If the oil prices drop, the sales of said cars will drop as well.

And comparing the US states to EU membership countries is shortsighted, impossible and shows a profound lack of geopolitical knowledge, not to mention centuries of history.
If anything it proves that thinking along simplified, general black-and-white lines is far too prevalent these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

The economic disaster caused would cripple the USAs economy, which in turn would destroy the worlds economy. You think there is a hunger and war problem now, imagine if the US economy tanked. I'll guatentee within 20 years the US will be the leading country in the use of clean alternative fuel sources like hydrogen. We're already spending billions on developing these technologies. It only makes sense for us to do that. There will be a huge market for it. Comparable to the US governments development of the internet and the cooresponding economic boom following it. It goes a lot deeper than just saying "it will affect my expected monthly expenditure". Hybrid gas/electric cars are flying off of the showroom floors right now. Everyone wants to save the environment. It will never happen until we set ourselvs up to be able to do it without going bankrupt. One thing about George Bush, he has spent more money on the research of alternative fuels than any other world leader. Regardless of his motivations.

---

I agree.

I didn't say that the US was the only bad neighbour in the neighbourhood. BTW an awful lot of clean technology has been around for many many years, but has not been implemented because of the economic interests, particularly, of the Western World.

As for the world relying upon the US economy. I think that you're right there. But the tide is turning. The poor economic performance of the US, and thus the reference currency - USD, means exports go elsewhere. Perhaps this is why there is much more of a furtive interest in dropping trade barriers. I mean you don't really believe that it's to help the poor do you?

And as for the comment - by whoever- about the proud efforts the USA give to aid:

Quote:

---

Bush bragged about the U.S. commitment of $35 million to help respond to a tragedy that has cost more than 100,000 lives and displaced millions of people in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Somalia and other countries.

What the president did not say is that this initial commitment was less than the planned expenditure for his Jan. 20 inauguration: $40 million.

It was, as well, less than the initial commitment by smaller and less wealthy nations such as Spain, which moved immediately to guarantee a $68 million line of credit for relief and rebuilding efforts.

---

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=2093

(I should add that in the face of such an embarrassement the White House changed their offer, quickly, to $350m of aid; the British people gave £200m of their own money and the UK govt matched it.)

For me, it put's it somewhat in context, if it's true. I know that the US puts more $ into aid, in total, than any other country, but I'd like to see the figures per capita, rather than absolute figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We've had 200+ years of reasonable cooperation among our 50 states...

Europe would like to model our structure - but the EU can't agree on anything. The "elite" European states don't want to give anything to the "less fortunate" European states. What a joke - they disparage us for something they want, but can't create because they are ultimately more selfish.

---

I do not think that the people of Europe want to copy the US state structure. Far far from it. The 'elite' states - as you call them - where a referenda has been given, the people have entirely rejected any form of 'union' consitution. It's a dead duck.

But as you've already said, you've only been around for 200 years. A teenage nation by any standard you choose to pick.

A naughty, rich, teenage neighbour . . . .
;)

Europe will never become a united nation simply because of thousands of years' history. France and Britain especially have issues and simply do not trust each other, and frankly I do not like the idea of British law/interest rates etc being controlled by Brussels. Europe is simply an alliance of European nations.

As for George Bush, well I certainly think he could do more about the environment. In the end this is not only about "Global Warming" but also about pollution of the seas and land. The US is the only country who haven't signed the Kyoto agreement to reduce pollution (land, sea and air) which is selfish as it will affect the American future generations too.

As for alternative technologies.....where are they? Hybrid cars have been around for decades but have been held back by both the US and EU as it was not "economically viable". As for Hydrogen fuel cells, they are far more explosive than a petrol tank and as such are far more dangerous....hence why they are not being mass produced.

The whole point of this G8 summit is to not only think about the respective countries but also issues relating to ALL countries.
1. Poverty cannot be made history overnight, it will take decades but at least the first steps can be taken.
2. The environment needs to be protected for future generations before the air is too dirty to breathe
3. Trade should be fair to everyone, with no subsidies given to anyone (including African countries)


However, before the US residents start ranting I will agree with George Bush on one subject....what is the point in giving extra aid when the corrupt governments keep them for themselves? Once the African countries clean house, then improvements can be made. After all, the Zimbabwe people were happy to watch the white farmers being kicked out of their homes...now they are distraught because Mugabe is knocking down their houses. You wanted him, you got him.

Here we go then: For the tsunami only:

US gave $1981m
UK gave $795.2m

So on the face of it the US has given a vastly larger figure. But if you compare that to 'ability to pay' and extrapolate that as 'willingness to give aid' then the permille of GNP is quite useful

US gave 0.17 pm/gnp
UK gave 0.47 pm/gnp

The US, in this light, does not appear to be particularly generous, does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanit...f_major_donors

Check out France! >0.03 pm/gnp!?!

At least the US have out-done France, once again ;)

My point is, is that the USA (wheather it be Bush, his congress men or the US as a whole) have a lot of power and weight where world politics are concerned and it just seems that all the decisions they are making are not for the good of the world as a whole but just for the good of the developed world.

Its not just the US who are bad neighbours, its also the UK, France and the other G8 countries. Compared to the majority of the world we all live a life of luxury, I once saw a statistic that the amount of food wasted in one year in the UK would be enough to feed a small country for 5 years. So why are people dieing of starvation? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

My point is, is that the USA (wheather it be Bush, his congress men or the US as a whole) have a lot of power and weight where world politics are concerned and it just seems that all the decisions they are making are not for the good of the world as a whole but just for the good of the developed world.

Its not just the US who are bad neighbours, its also the UK, France and the other G8 countries. Compared to the majority of the world we all live a life of luxury, I once saw a statistic that the amount of food wasted in one year in the UK would be enough to feed a small country for 5 years. So why are people dieing of starvation? :confused:

---

Yes that's a good point. I think the reason why the US are always highlighted is because of their disproportionate apparent power against almost any statistic: GDP, GNI, Population, or Wealth.

The UK wastes huge mountains of food. It's certainly something that needs to be looked at. The UK also is not really on the recycling gravy train yet; which should be tackled as soon as is possible.

I think that the UK's apparent influence around the world, is also disproportionate for the same reasons as the US.

Quote:

---

As for Hydrogen fuel cells, they are far more explosive than a petrol tank and as such are far more dangerous....hence why they are not being mass produced.

---

This is a popular misconception that has been disproved by manufacturers the world over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

This is a popular misconception that has been disproved by manufacturers the world over.

---

I'd like to see the evidence that shows that one of the most reactive gaseous elements known is safer than a petrol tank.

really... it has been used in space programs, it has been stored, used, transported and handled in various industries for over 50 years. It has a higher ignition rate, it has lower weight which makes it dissipate faster and burn for a far shorter period of time.
It may be the Hindenburg syndrome speaking here (which incidentally burned because of the ignition of the iron oxide/aluminium skin used inside).
You aren't driving a small H-bomb. Besides, it's been extensively tested. Do you really think they'd be promoting it if you were sitting on an explosive time bomb? I think not.

Of course, like any other fuel it needs to be stored properly.

Google for it yourself. You'll probably end up on many sympathiser and green sites but you can find it.

Well I saw, think it was Fifth Gear on Five, two separate tests. One with a petrol car and the explosion sent the car up in the air about ten feet. The hydrogen car simply destroyed the car.

What they also found was that if a Hydrogen car exploded in a traffic jam it would destroy the cars around it, and if they were Hydrogen based also....well, do the words chain reaction mean anything?

Quote:

---

Thus, the main fuel-related issues for fuel cell safety regard the use of hydrogen. While being a very clean and energy-dense fuel, hydrogen has the tendency to disperse quickly under normal pressure. This causes the need for higher pressure of hydrogen in the fuel transport system than for natural gas. Additionally, hydrogen molecules are so small that they can easily escape through miniature holes and can even enter the molecular structure of some steels, making them brittle over time. Also, the use of very fine membranes in Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells can lead to direct combustion of hydrogen with oxygen. In normal operation of the vehicle, slowly escaping hydrogen that collects to form a flammable or even explosive mixture with air is the main matter of concern. An accumulation of gaseous hydrogen is seen as particularly dangerous in the enclosed passenger or storage compartments of any hydrogen-fueled vehicle.

---

www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/ Response/FuelCellHydrogenFuelVehicleSafety.pdf

I wouldn't call the safety issues 'a popular misconcepetion' myself.

no, please enlighten me :rolleyes:

there's safety issues with every kind of fuel but no manufacturer would get away with producing a system that blows up an entire block. And as I said, storage and handling is vital to using the system but the same goes for petrol tanks. Sadly, most people seem to think in apocalyptic terms when it comes to hydrogen.

Perhaps you've lived too long in the shadow of the bomb ;)

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, there are some who speculate that hydrogen is simply too dangerous to ever be safely used for cars. Peter Voyentzie of Danbury, Connecticut’s Energy Research Corporation, which makes large stationary fuel cell power plants, is skeptical about automotive applications. “Hydrogen is a strange beast,” he says. “It’s the smallest molecule, and it leaks out of everything. You also can’t see it burn. In a car, it has to remain stable through collisions and constant agitation. That’s a lot to expect.

---

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?171

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Well I saw, think it was Fifth Gear on Five, two separate tests. One with a petrol car and the explosion sent the car up in the air about ten feet. The hydrogen car simply destroyed the car.

What they also found was that if a Hydrogen car exploded in a traffic jam it would destroy the cars around it, and if they were Hydrogen based also....well, do the words chain reaction mean anything?

---

It would save having to clear away all those motorway pile ups :lol:

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "jam busting" :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

there's safety issues with every kind of fuel but no manufacturer would get away with producing a system that blows up an entire block. And as I said, storage and handling is vital to using the system but the same goes for petrol tanks. Sadly, most people seem to think in apocalyptic terms when it comes to hydrogen.

Perhaps you've lived too long in the shadow of the bomb ;)

---

It's the fact that it leaks through steel, that worries me. It's a particularly hard chemical to enclose. I'm sure the technology will be there one day, but I suspect we need to invent new ceramics before it will deemed safe for regular road use.

I don't see the extensive proof of safety you mention, either. Please can you point me to a link?

Quote:

---

Hydrogen is regulated as a hazardous material by the U.S. Department of Transportation and is subject to many requirements found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (GFR) Parts 100-185, hazardous materials regulations. Hydrogen is also regulated under OSHA's hazardous materials regulations, 29 CFR Part 103. The OSHA material is extracted from the 1973 editions of NFPA 50A, Gaseous Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites, and NFPA 50B, Liquefied Hydrogen Systems at Consumer Sites.

---

I'm sure we can learn to handle it correctly at some point - perhaps in the very near future - but piping hydrogen under pressure around my car after proton exchange embrittlement to metals contained in my car is not my idea of 'particulary safe.' and is certainly not consistent with 'popular misconception'

What am I, Ask Jeeves?

lol

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you said that that issues over safety were a popular misconception and that it's all be thoroughly tested and deemed to be safe.

What was the car honda have just created powered by? It cost 1 million at the mo, but non the less its there.

Pino

I agree. Imagine going over a speed bump a little fast (which we all do) or hitting the kerb and in doing so a small hairline fracture appears on the tank. Thus the hydrogen leaks to mix with the oxygen...as explained by yrywddfa.

Perhaps it is best that Hydrogen is not used as a fuel until we can better contain it

Well NASA use hydrogen fuel cells but all the do is ignite the whole thing and blast their payload vertically upwards and hope for the best. Its really just a controlled firework with people inside it :D

Don't satellites use them too for maneouvering around up there in space where you have cosmic radiation constantly bombarding it, making it an environment even more hazardous than a speed bump? :)

Perhaps, but then sattelites are not made of a few mm's of steel are they

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

lol

Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought you said that that issues over safety were a popular misconception and that it's all be thoroughly tested and deemed to be safe.

---

I was referring to the hysteria surrounding it. The tech today can store and handle hydrogen just fine.
That's not to say that accidents can't happen. They happen with petrol as well. But that's safety and testing. I assume that, as stated, car makers spend so much money on getting it on the road, they didn't thoroughly test it first. Which tells me it isn't safer or more unsafe than any other fuel out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree. Imagine going over a speed bump a little fast (which we all do) or hitting the kerb and in doing so a small hairline fracture appears on the tank. Thus the hydrogen leaks to mix with the oxygen...as explained by yrywddfa.

Perhaps it is best that Hydrogen is not used as a fuel until we can better contain it

---

It's a little worse than that. Hydrogen extracts (slowly) the protons from the materials around it. This means, of course, that any metal that is slowly losing it's protons is not going to be as strong, or as stable.

NASA may indeed be using hydrogen fuel cells - the Apollo, and Gemini missions, for a start, but, in my opinion, it doesn't mean it's safe for Mrs Jones who insists on driving the 3/4 mile for little Jack to get to school in her huge 4x4 whilst doing her hair and makeup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Perhaps, but then sattelites are not made of a few mm's of steel are they

---

They're more delicate and in some areas, as thin as paper.

I agree with Wally's point though. All fuels are dangerous, but manufacturers do know what they're doing. Shell has already started an experimental hydrogen fuel station somewhere near New York, for "testing" purposes.

Keep in mind that we're not chemical or automotive engineers, so we have the role of armchair critics. We're always wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

I was referring to the hysteria surrounding it. The tech today can store and handle hydrogen just fine.
That's not to say that accidents can't happen. They happen with petrol as well. But that's safety and testing. I assume that, as stated, car makers spend so much money on getting it on the road, they didn't thoroughly test it first. Which tells me it isn't safer or more unsafe than any other fuel out there.

---

I don't understand - and can't find any reference to - the technology that can keep compressed hydrogen safe in a car.

Sure you can keep it safe in a cylinder for transportation. But in a car it will need to moved from storage to somewhere where it will be burnt. This, clearly, will require moving parts and valves and all sorts of other things. It won't be like a fuel tank leak with a bit of petrol or diesel spilling out. This could be a highly reactive gas. In the open air, yes, it will dispel quite quickly but if it does ignite then it becomes a very serious problem indeed.

A system is only as safe as it's weakest component.

Regardless, I'm sure the technology will become available in the near future that will allow all of the safety issues to be resolved.

Wouldn't they also need to protect from vandalism? Setting a hydrogen car alight could cause some serious damage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We are 50 different states (that's why it's called the United States of America).

Those 50 states have incredibly different economies and political agendas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

We've had 200+ years of reasonable cooperation among our 50 states...

Europe would like to model our structure - but the EU can't agree on anything. The "elite" European states don't want to give anything to the "less fortunate" European states. What a joke - they disparage us for something they want, but can't create because they are ultimately more selfish.

---

Now you sound like an American talking about Europe.

- In Europe they does this, and europe does that.


Well we are 50 differnet countries. With differnt types of leader ship. I guess if Mexico had a monarky (SP?), and you where told to cooperate with Mexico, you would probably feel that it was impossible too. Or what if you had to do it with China and India. So everytime they made a law, you had to follow them, and if you tried to say something against it, you would get a VETO in your face, because you are only 1/20 of their size. So right now I am just laughing at you. We are not even a part of the EU. Why should we. We are not the same country. We have different intrests. Like the US and Mexico has. It is impossible to compare the US and Europe like this. It is too different. Not the same at all. Even if the US states have different agendas, you are not even near the problems in Euope when it comes to culture, Language barrieres, money, and leader ships. Un comparable. And I am so sick of hearing this, because the average american I am talking to can name 4-5 countries in Europe, and have no idea what they are talking about (not saying that you are one of them), but it is true. What happens outside the US, never enters the US. And there is proofs for it too. Like the test that was done on 125++ countries. And the US barely managed to do it better then Mexico, but more or less ended on the last spot when questions about the world came up.


- ØØ -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Wouldn't they also need to protect from vandalism? Setting a hydrogen car alight could cause some serious damage

---

I see a lucrative market for "Please don't set me on fire" bumper stickers 10 years from now. :afrog:

:lol: