Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
11. And GM was confident enough to launch the EV-1.
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 05:56 PM
Apr 2014

Didn't turn out that well for them - they needed better battery technology than was available at the time.

The problem is we're talking about fundamentals of the particles involved, not something like "better battery technology".

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We've spilled enough oil in it Politicalboi Apr 2014 #1
Exxon just purchased the rights to the new technology to make fuel doc03 Apr 2014 #2
Um.....no. jeff47 Apr 2014 #3
Exactly. You need a nuclear reactor to run the whole process NickB79 Apr 2014 #6
You mean this isn't THE perpetual motion machine? Viking12 Apr 2014 #33
The technology to convert water to "Brown's gas" has been around for a long time. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #4
Browns gas nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #5
Hard doesn't particularly help with hydrogen fuel. jeff47 Apr 2014 #7
Toyota and Hyundai nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #9
And GM was confident enough to launch the EV-1. jeff47 Apr 2014 #11
Conversion at (or near)the point of ignition is key. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #14
The conversion requires energy. jeff47 Apr 2014 #30
Sorry, nope!!! longship Apr 2014 #8
Quick! Tell this woman before she wastes more time nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #10
She's not doing what this shitty article is claiming. jeff47 Apr 2014 #12
Converting sea water to Navy jet fuel nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #17
I assure you that she knows it, too. longship Apr 2014 #13
It's obvious you are a freedumb hating shill pscot Apr 2014 #15
Huh? longship Apr 2014 #22
I believe he was joking... caraher Apr 2014 #25
Sometimes it is difficult to tell. Especially on line. longship Apr 2014 #26
*Not* Always nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #18
Yes. ALWAYS!! longship Apr 2014 #21
Wait, how can it take MORE energy? Jim Lane Apr 2014 #19
Here's why. longship Apr 2014 #20
It seems you're agreeing with what I said. Jim Lane Apr 2014 #28
Yup. Or just general inefficiencies. nt longship Apr 2014 #29
Related nationalize the fed Apr 2014 #16
Note: hydrogen is not an energy source. longship Apr 2014 #23
Yep, sure, just what we need... defacto7 Apr 2014 #24
Seems a bit large for autos Warpy Apr 2014 #27
This isn't new, really. Yo_Mama Apr 2014 #31
Well, if you happen to have a mobile, floating nuclear reactor . . . . hatrack Apr 2014 #32
Trashing. Overblown hype, posted too many times already. nt eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #34
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Could you soon be filling...»Reply #11