Is CA really building a hydrogen highway?
144285
Yes, they are planning for 2010.
909779
In Scotland, there is a big plan underway to set up a giant wind farm and generate hydrogen via electrolysis to sell commercially for use in hydrogen cars. \n\nhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1743952,00.html\n\nI read somewhere else that there is a big controversy surrounding the building of these wind turbines, by another environmental group since they will interfere with the golden eagle population.\n\nhttp://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=270&id=1472282006\n\nIt’s kind of rare that you see two environmental groups going at it with one another, so this caught my attention.
426504
It's not necessarily a matter of corruption.  California also has a huge population and a large debt.  In the past few years we have suffered many cutbacks in all areas of government.  Cracking down harder on traffic violations has the joint effect of helping to alleviate the fiscal problems as well as getting people to be more careful when they drive.
513474
General Motors is currently researching a Hydrogen Cell Vechicle.  If successful this vehicle would run on H2O.  The have a video on the research.  I wish i had the cash to buy stock in the company making the motor/cell.
340221
Depends on what you mean by "new". There are lots of new sources in development, but nothing that is practical or economical yet. Hydrogen fuel cells are clean, efficient and non-polluting. But they are still very expensive and you still need a source of elemental hydrogen to make them work. \n\nOur best bet is hydrogen fusion - thais is what powers the sun. But we are still decades away from a successful commercial power plant. Until then, we are dependant on oil and natural gas.
646470
Yes. In addition, you have to get a special endorsement to ride it. Go to the CHP link below for the law.\n\nhttp://www.chp.ca.gov/html/motors.html
732233
Producing hydrogen electrolytically.  A very current topic and of interest to all persons paying for gasoline.
75665
In the short term, it doesn't.\n\nIronically, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make solar cells.  It takes a lot of diesel and other fossil fuels powered equiment to mine, move, and process the raw germanium, arsinic, and/or silicon to make a solar cell. The it takes a lot of energy to make the silicon or germanium-asenide wafers, and the wafer processing to make the solar cells takes energy.  Much of this energy comes from electricity generates by fossil-fuel generators.  Then there is all the trucking required to move the wafer processing materials and equipment, and these trucks run on diesel.\n\nBy the time you're done, you used up a lot of fossil-fuel derived energy to make your solar cell- so when you start, you've already increased, rather than decreased, our reliance on fossil fuels.\n\nEventually, the hope is that the solar cell will make up for all the energy it took to create it.  Also, over time we should be able to use nuclear, hydroelectric, and other power souces to produce the cells- and many companies are working hard on finding new types of solar cells that take less energy (and therefore less cost) to produce.
33021
The most important thing right now is that it can be used as fuel. It is much cheaper than gas and also does not cause pollution. We have used it as rocket fuel for years but only recently have we developed vehicles that can run on it. They are in California.
433496
Mainly when the automotive ind. decides to earn less money and throw away part of the technology they've been using for about 90 years. But regarding alcohol it is already used in some countries like Brazil, but there is no big difference... we should go for hydrogen or solar... well actually water looks nice but I don't think it'll work.
437877
It is possible, but it will be a difficult road.  <---Get it.\n\nFirst Ethanol is a very small baby step, it won't save us.  It might burn cleaner and take slightly less oil to make, but the horrible gas mileage make you have to use more of it to get where you're going.\n\nHybrid technology is on to something.  Electricity is the way to go.  With the advancements of battery & motor technology, you will soon see electric cars and trucks out perform the internal conbution engine.  The current problem is the high voltages necesary to drive those motors make these cars potentially very dangerous for mechanics to repair.  They can also be very dangerous in an acident.\n\nSo my solution is nuclear energy.  But this scares too many people.  All you have to do is build several plants out in the desert that will provide enough electricity to power everything including: heating/cooling, transportation, manufacturing, and comercial consumption.  \n\nThis will make us more ecconimically independant (richer) so that we can develop better ways of cleaning or disposing of the nuclear waste products.  My vote is shooting it into the Sun.\n\nBush's solution really isn't one.  He has to politicise the issue to placate the American people while allowing American companies to retool, research & develop, and create a delivery system for a new power source.  The current problem isn't the alternate energy source as much as it is how do companies sell us that new source.
937002
The US tried this about 100 years ago. You should look it up. Also consider that transcontinental highway Lou Dobbs is always talking about, and its possible long term effects.
672238
Very good question.\nMy opinion is that city planners should consider traffic flow, retail locations in a more sensible manner.\nWhere I live, development is booming, but the planners have not considered the effects of all the vehicles being added to the roads. The roads are narrow and dangerous. there aren't any retail stores located within a reasonable walking distance. We still have to get in our cars and drive two to three miles to get groceries. Bike paths or lanes would be very helpful. It is too dangerous to ride a bike on the roads, because of the traffic and the fact that people exceed the speed limits. Our state voted on and passed a light rail system, but the governer is resisting building it. It has been about five years and there is no sign of construction yet. all of the green areas are being developed into gas stations and fast food joints. They do build retail centers, but you still have to drive to the center. We have a touris area that is very beautiful, but everyone is in their cars, and it takes hours to get from one attraction to another because the roads are clogged. Bicycles, or even mopeds would be a good solution and make the visit for our international guests more pleasant.\nAs far as a fuel, I think switching to ethanol or natural gas would be a good start. Eventually switching homes to solar power would also help. The technology is there, but the Big oil companies would never allow that.
1089221
As the energy crisis becomes real & collides with the baby-boomer retirement bill the 1st Worlds economy will collapse.  Expect by 2050 to have an 1850 economy.  This is based on nuclear energy being not used & the government not changing the economics of renewable energy from the either dollars out of pocket or out of taxpayers' pockets.\n\nI wouldn't offer up such a scarry prodiction except their is a solution that has been offered to our leaders.  This solution to make Renewable Energy economically viable is based on changing the value of land to subsidize the cost of infrastructure.  Mulholland may have had the technology to bring water to Los Angeles.  The documentary The Cadillac Desert hints at the way to pay for infrastructure.  The movie implies the taxing the areas land paid the bill for bring the water to Los Angeles.  This is only ½ right.  The head of the chamber of commerce, Frank P. Wiggins, marketed Los Angeles worldwide.  By populating the area he upped the quantity of water that would be consumed and increased the value of land.  The increase value of land increased the tax collected.  Renewable Energy infrastructure is so expensive that taxes collected will not be enough to adequately subsidize to cost alone.  To keep our energy bill from skyrocketing sellable spin-off benefits have to be designed in.   The utility has to participate in the increase land value that its design/vision creates.  No new technology is being offered, but if it does come, its not precluded!\n\nBoth governments & both sides of the aisle have been silent on this suggestion.  Well senator Fienstein at least wrote back patting herself on the back for doing exactly what I said in my email would do nothing more than raise the cost of our energy.  Needless to say she didn't answer that email.  Renewable Energy's infrastructure cost more than can be paid for at our present cost of energy with a return on investment for the entrepreneur.
492219
Hmmm....\n\nYour science grade cannot be helped if you can't figure out that Hydrogen, a gas, is not an alkali metal.
951077
Because they have pressure from American oil tycoons.  Look at your president!  We have capability to have cars run on hydrogen but because oil people don't like it, no one make it in great numbers.
988288
It takes more energy to make hydrogen from water than what you will get back burning it in a car (or anywhere else).  So while hydrogen may be a clean fuel, it won't be very practical until the overall cost of energy drops.\n\nIt's also hard to store a useful amount.  Storing enough hydrogen to run a typical car for 300 miles would require a pressurized tank that is much larger than the gas tank in a car.  What happens when the car is in a collision and the tank ruptures?  Any little spark, and the car starts looking like the Hindenburg.