ethonal and kyoto

[clibbon]

actually fuel cell cars are not that far off. you may want to check out the recent articles in discover or scientific american magazines. all that is really left for these things to be put in motion is to find a way to safely store hydrogen. bush's putting money into fuel cells represent's forward thinking instead of trying to improve the internal combustion engine which can never hope to be efficient.

why not kyoto? well because it would have bankrupted the economy. because of canada's acceptance of the treaty it will now cost us billions of dollars and simply put many out of business. while there is a call for setting higher enviromental standards the one's set by kyoto are to drastic. and what's the point anyways if third world countries are going to end up putting out way more pollution than the u.s. anyhow?

 

[elfyx]

I thought a company had already figured out how to safely store hydrogen. I know it was the big -IF. I read that the solution came in some form of storing the hydrogen in an inert solid. But it doesn't really matter I think, because hydrogen/fuel-cell technology will already be outdated before it's implemented, by vacuum scalar-electromagnetics. Still, I applaud GM, who has essentially put their entire business on the line in the future of fuel-cell vehicles. They will be leaps ahead of the competition when vacuum energy replaces fuel-cells.

 

[V Nura]

not only that



GM is supposedly moving to hydro forming to make their cars it's cheaper and actually makes the stucures of vehicles less dependant on welds.

 

[Klaus]

clibbon:
I guess Kyoto would have helped the US economy.
Now only the Europeans are forced to reduce emissions. They but in a few years the US customers just can't afford to waste 10x more fuel by buying American cars. US cars won't sell verry good in foreign countries, because they will be too dirty and too expensive (gas consumption) in the future. Same for Factories, the US economy might not develop filter systems and clean alternatives if the government dosn't force them to do so.
There is enough money in the economy - companies can either reinvest it or give it to the shareholders - for a few years the non-Kyoto signing countries will have the advantage of a higher shareholder value - on a long term view they might become 3rd world countries in future key technologies

1st you need the contract everyone signed - then you can lower the emissions every few years. Even a weak compromise (Weakened by Clinton) like the Kyoto paper is worth much more than no limit on emissions.

From my point of view GWB decision was a favor for the guys who paid his election campain - the problem is they only have short term interests (none of them will live in 50 years anymore)

Klaus