Proof of concept (electric drag cars)
- Thread starter Joel W.
- Start date
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5042521925988317171&q=X1+electric
Looks fun, Needs a big loud speaker that makes it sound like an indy car though...:evil2:
I like that torque too... I bet it's a tire spinner..
Looks fun, Needs a big loud speaker that makes it sound like an indy car though...:evil2:
I like that torque too... I bet it's a tire spinner..
X1 inventor interview and how it works video! (1 forward gear) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBDeCthB7vs
Takeoff in the Wrightspeed X1 (sounds like my old RC car)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RvPrMIY728&mode=related&search=
Get your cruise on (0-60 in 3 seconds) Can you say G-force? :aigo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE01yUYq0_M&mode=related&search=
It's got to be fun if the camera man forgot he was even recording it!!!:1zhelp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBDeCthB7vs
Takeoff in the Wrightspeed X1 (sounds like my old RC car)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RvPrMIY728&mode=related&search=
Get your cruise on (0-60 in 3 seconds) Can you say G-force? :aigo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE01yUYq0_M&mode=related&search=
It's got to be fun if the camera man forgot he was even recording it!!!:1zhelp:
Ok Adjuster, This is for you and everyone else that wants to stick with gasoline. I wanted to make sure someone else said it first here and not me.
Here it is again incase anyone missed it!!!
Blksupra: Do you play chess much?? I like that game...
Good Job!!!
Here it is again incase anyone missed it!!!
Blksupra1jzed said:
Blksupra: Do you play chess much?? I like that game...
Good Job!!!
Joel W. said:Ok Adjuster, This is for you and everyone else that wants to stick with gasoline. I wanted to make sure someone else said it first here and not me.
Here it is again incase anyone missed it!!!
Blksupra: Do you play chess much?? I like that game...
Good Job!!!
Lol I used to, I have just had a logical mind. In all honestly everything affects everything. You just have to figure out how. Now like I said, the electrics will affect the pro gas people. Now the reason to keep gas cars from adjuster made no sense at all, as someone stated in this thread earlier, it takes pollution to even produce gasoline...then you burn it to produce more pollution. Then you have all the polution from the tankers to get it to the USA, then the trucks to get it to those polluting refineries....doesn't make much sense does it? Now the reasons for not wanting electric honestly sounds like someone that is just a little nervous about change. Personally, I wouldn't mind it...but I like new things. Now I am positive that as this idea grows older safety measures improve....I will definately keep the Supra, but if I come across a good electric DD, I'll be all over it.
Now gas is fun but to actually support the normal usage of gas and allow the foreign oil companies to continue reaming us is...well...pathetically stupid. There are huge benefits to be had with electric or any other hybrid concept. No matter if it's gas and electric in one car, none the less the gas usage for the average person is cut in half. For the soccer moms and their guzzling SUV's, well...yeah that one is self explanatory. Just go from 8-15mpg to 60.
Only problem in all this is the vast majority of electricity comes from Coal/Oil fired powerplants so it's not actually very green.
IJ. said:Only problem in all this is the vast majority of electricity comes from Coal/Oil fired powerplants so it's not actually very green.
Please re-read post 28, IJ,....It will work for every thing.
Common sense video: Pay attention to this one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXbDy-BgQqc
Who killed the electric car..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lojW5S401hQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXbDy-BgQqc
Who killed the electric car..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lojW5S401hQ
We may not need fuel cells anymore, that's what is cool I think..
I'll sell it to you if they won't..
I'll sell it to you if they won't..
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
What is the main output of hydrogen powered cars, and many fuel cells?
Water vapor.
What is like 300 times the greenhouse gas of C02?
Water vapor.
I can see it now. "Global warming due to hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles...!" We must limit their use and production to save the planet from distruction..!
LOL, there is no free lunch guys. Power has to come from somewhere, and you have to have a source to charge up your electric car, or produce your fuel cell. (A technology that is so expensive right now that a million dollars per car is a conservative estimate IMHO.)
You quote some guy thinking hydrocarbon demand will go down as a result of electric cars, but then say that nuke power and hydro dams will charge them up easy.. Yet there have been no more new dams built in this country for years, and no nuke power plants being built and planned for either. Where are you going to get the power to charge up all these nifty cars? (By burning hydrocarbons like natural gas and coal, so your adding more pollution to the air v/s your optional very clean running internal combustion engine. )
I'll tell you a funny story about power plants.
There is a facility here in Idaho called the INEEL. (It was the INEL when I was here first, but they put "environmental" into the name to keep the liberal elite socialists happy...)
So, what do they do out on on the 800 or so square miles this place takes up? They design, test and develop nuke power plants and technology to process and dispose of the waste products. There are over 20 active nuke reactors in Idaho, and NONE of them makes power outside of the facility. (The Navy is a large part of this facility, and they train and test new crews on reactors there, and test new designs for future ships and subarines.) The first town ever powered by nuke energy is just down the road, Arco, Idaho. It's power was short lived, and they have not had Nuke power ever since. (You can see EBR1, the plant that produced the power. It's now a museum, and has two nuke powered aircraft jet engines outside you can check out too.) You can also check out the sail and some other parts of submarines that used nuke power plants designed on the INEL.)
So, back to my story. During the Carter administration, the INEL needed more electricity to process the waste, and power the various labs, buildings and other sites. So, you would think that the nations premier nuke testing and development facility would have a cutting edge nuke power plant right? Nope, good old Jimmy and his Liberal Elite friends decided that a coal power plant was the right choice. Jimmy did not like Nuke, power, and he and his buddies said no way to nuke power.
So, what power plant is the worst source of downwind pollution now in the Yellowstone park and Jackson Hole area? You guessed it! The coal power plant that Pres. Carter just had to have. (They could have had Zero pollution power, but decided not to.) Those liberals know more than you do don't you know? And will tell you that if you just ask them why they did what they did....For your own good! LOL Whatever.
Water vapor.
What is like 300 times the greenhouse gas of C02?
Water vapor.
I can see it now. "Global warming due to hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles...!" We must limit their use and production to save the planet from distruction..!
LOL, there is no free lunch guys. Power has to come from somewhere, and you have to have a source to charge up your electric car, or produce your fuel cell. (A technology that is so expensive right now that a million dollars per car is a conservative estimate IMHO.)
You quote some guy thinking hydrocarbon demand will go down as a result of electric cars, but then say that nuke power and hydro dams will charge them up easy.. Yet there have been no more new dams built in this country for years, and no nuke power plants being built and planned for either. Where are you going to get the power to charge up all these nifty cars? (By burning hydrocarbons like natural gas and coal, so your adding more pollution to the air v/s your optional very clean running internal combustion engine. )
I'll tell you a funny story about power plants.
There is a facility here in Idaho called the INEEL. (It was the INEL when I was here first, but they put "environmental" into the name to keep the liberal elite socialists happy...)
So, what do they do out on on the 800 or so square miles this place takes up? They design, test and develop nuke power plants and technology to process and dispose of the waste products. There are over 20 active nuke reactors in Idaho, and NONE of them makes power outside of the facility. (The Navy is a large part of this facility, and they train and test new crews on reactors there, and test new designs for future ships and subarines.) The first town ever powered by nuke energy is just down the road, Arco, Idaho. It's power was short lived, and they have not had Nuke power ever since. (You can see EBR1, the plant that produced the power. It's now a museum, and has two nuke powered aircraft jet engines outside you can check out too.) You can also check out the sail and some other parts of submarines that used nuke power plants designed on the INEL.)
So, back to my story. During the Carter administration, the INEL needed more electricity to process the waste, and power the various labs, buildings and other sites. So, you would think that the nations premier nuke testing and development facility would have a cutting edge nuke power plant right? Nope, good old Jimmy and his Liberal Elite friends decided that a coal power plant was the right choice. Jimmy did not like Nuke, power, and he and his buddies said no way to nuke power.
So, what power plant is the worst source of downwind pollution now in the Yellowstone park and Jackson Hole area? You guessed it! The coal power plant that Pres. Carter just had to have. (They could have had Zero pollution power, but decided not to.) Those liberals know more than you do don't you know? And will tell you that if you just ask them why they did what they did....For your own good! LOL Whatever.
Last edited:
What insurance company do you work for? There must be a connection...
Do you know nothing about science? See post 28 for "free lunch" you goof..
Sets Adjuster to the "Ignore User" setting..lol
Moving on from hopelessly blind lost causes.. Bye bye now...:wavey:
Do you know nothing about science? See post 28 for "free lunch" you goof..
Sets Adjuster to the "Ignore User" setting..lol
Moving on from hopelessly blind lost causes.. Bye bye now...:wavey:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/BUSINESS01/607200340/1014
Now, as he reaches the latter stages of his career, the 62-year-old letter carrier is carrying his bundles of letters and packages in a vehicle that lacks any oiled parts in its engine compartment, offers an eerily quiet ride and emits droplets of water from the tailpipe
Droplets of water (also known as rain). <runs away> lmao...
In common speech, steam most often refers to the white mist that condenses above boiling water as the hot vapor ("steam" in the first sense) mixes with the cooler air. This mist is made of tiny droplets of liquid water, not gaseous water, so it is no longer technically steam.
Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming, many believe. The only waste generated from hydrogen fuel is pure water, a resource that theoretically can be recycled to produce more hydrogen.
Now, as he reaches the latter stages of his career, the 62-year-old letter carrier is carrying his bundles of letters and packages in a vehicle that lacks any oiled parts in its engine compartment, offers an eerily quiet ride and emits droplets of water from the tailpipe
Droplets of water (also known as rain). <runs away> lmao...
In common speech, steam most often refers to the white mist that condenses above boiling water as the hot vapor ("steam" in the first sense) mixes with the cooler air. This mist is made of tiny droplets of liquid water, not gaseous water, so it is no longer technically steam.
Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming, many believe. The only waste generated from hydrogen fuel is pure water, a resource that theoretically can be recycled to produce more hydrogen.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/motoring/2003175527_tesla04.html
The sleek carbon-bodied sports car is, by my reckoning, the first plausible electric automobile of the 21st century.
To appreciate the Tesla, it helps to compare it to the much-lamented EV1, GM's electric car that was, in the mid-1990s, the most advanced vehicle of its kind.
The Tesla Roadster has a range of 250 miles, says the company. The EV1, with the best nickel metal hydride batteries, could go about 150 miles under ideal conditions.
A full charge of the EV1 could take eight hours. The Tesla's lithium-ion batteries can be raised from the dead to a full charge in 3 ½ hours. Unlike the EV1, the Tesla will have its own portable charging pack so it won't be range-tethered to its home charging station.
Perhaps most important and most unlike the EV1, the Tesla offers fun, in large, hair-raising voltages. The company claims 0 to 60 mph acceleration in 4 seconds and a top speed of 130 mph.
Big brakes, racy suspension, optional leather and navigation system, air conditioning, heated seats. There's even room for golf clubs.
If steam (water dropplets) scares you..lmao,,,:biglaugh: There are other options..You can still make your money insuring green cars and save on gasoline prices from reducing the demand.. Wake up!!
i don't know if this has been said yet, but hydrogen power is not the answer. hydrogen is only attainable through electrolysis, but electrolysis NEEDS electricity to work. why waste electricity to make fuel when you can skip the process and use electricity as the fuel? besides, hydrogen explodes when it contacts normal air!
also, nuclear energy isnt better for the enviroment than other non-renwable energy sources. i know there are no emissions produced by nuclear, but the nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere! this obviously isnt good for nature... and don't think shipping it to pluto will work.
renewable energy sources are the best option! geothermal, solar, wind, etc...
also, nuclear energy isnt better for the enviroment than other non-renwable energy sources. i know there are no emissions produced by nuclear, but the nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere! this obviously isnt good for nature... and don't think shipping it to pluto will work.
renewable energy sources are the best option! geothermal, solar, wind, etc...
Adjuster
Supramania Contributor
Once again, your totally ignoring the reality of science.
C02 as a "greenhouse gas" is only a very small part of the total atmosphere, and it's not a very good thermal insulator. (Compared to other gases that is.)
Water vapor or gas if you want to use that word is present not just in clouds, but also in the air you can't see couds in all the time. It is a very potent greenhouse gas, and a major factor in our warming planet.
You have gone on and on and on, about how we need to reduce man's effect on the atmosphere, but then you advocate the use of a fuel source who's only emmision is water vapor. (One of the most potent greenhouse gasses.)
It does not just turn into clouds and then fall back as rain as you might want to belive. Much ends up diffusing into the atmosphere, and that raises the total water vapor content, and makes for the "Blanket effect" of greenhouse gases. (Trapping the heat radiation from the sun, which we all really know controls the weather anyway, but for the sake of your C02/"fossil fuel" reduction by using electric cars, or hydrogen powered cars, you choose to ignore the fact that your new "uber" car actually puts out more "greenhouse gas" than a ULEV hydrocarbon combustion engine.)
Someone says geothermal energy, or tap the waves... Blah blah blah. Why have we not already done that? Oh let us really look at reality for a moment.
1) Geothermal energy costs money to build, and then maintain. The mineral deosits build up rather fast, so your contantly trying to stay two steps ahead of the failure of your generating plant by limestone, sulfer and other deposits on the machinery.
2) Solar power is expensive, and for the money spent to build it, not a very good investment. (You need clear days for good power generation, so at night and during bad weather, your power supply is off line in many cases.)
3) Wind power is fickle as well, and costs quite a bit to setup and maintain. In some areas, it's a great idea. In others, it's only partly effective. In any case, it is not a power supply you can turn on and generae power any time you want.
4) That brings us to all other forms of energy. They pretty much can be turned on and off and output vaired based on demand and time of day.
Most of the liberal elite environmentalsist do not like nucular power becasue they don't understand it, and belive that waste can't be stored or delt with effectively. (And right now the largest problem with storeing and processing waste is silly ass lawsuits brought up by people who don't understand what is going on, or are just opposed to the nuke idea in any shape or form.)
These same people are opposed to any new refineries, oil drilling or exploration, logging and commercial fishing. They don't like hunters, sport fishers, and belive owning a gun is a crime. Especially automatic weapons.
They hate ATV's, dirt bikes, snomobiles, and pretty much anything that makes noise in "their" wilderness. (Like they own it? Right... Keep dreaming.)
They think all factories belch smoke and pollution, and hate coal fired electric plants, but yet many of them rely on that power to live. (But do not want to be reminded of this simple truth.)
They drive SUV's, but say they bought the ones with smaller, more fuel wise motors... You know they need to haul their mountain bikes and kyak's around..... so they need these larger vehicles, but if you commute in one, your the devil... But they can commute and haul the bikes and kyak's around all week adding to the areodynamic drag of the car/suv, but it's because they want to be seen as outdoors fanatics... Or they are just too lazy to remove the large cargo from the Yakima racks...
My point is everytime someone spouts off "we need altenative sources of energy" the oil compainies grin from ear to ear. It's more scare tactics driving up the price of hydrocarbons. All for a gas that is 3/8's of one inch on a football field of 100 yards. (Yes, the change in C02 has added 3/8" to the 3" of the total amount of C02 that is in our atmosphere. Nitrogen gets you to about the 78 yard line, then O2 is anoteher 20 yard or so, and the rest is waer vapor and some intert gases and stuff like N20, argon and way down on the list is C02, one of the weaker and less effective "greenhouse" gases.)
Please understand what your talking about before you post. Just spouting off liberal elite dogma is getting boring. (And it makes you look kinda silly actually.)
Oh, and while we are talking about C02, man made souces of C02 add up to less than 3% of the total increase since 1940. That means the other 97% is NATURAL C02 that has been released into the atmosphere by nature. (And don't go off saying it's because we have settled the rain forests or some other bovine scatoria. The earth does as it pleases, and we just go along for the ride. Man's ability to change what happens in the natual world is very limited indeed.)
If you like these electric cars so much, spend 100k and buy one.
C02 as a "greenhouse gas" is only a very small part of the total atmosphere, and it's not a very good thermal insulator. (Compared to other gases that is.)
Water vapor or gas if you want to use that word is present not just in clouds, but also in the air you can't see couds in all the time. It is a very potent greenhouse gas, and a major factor in our warming planet.
You have gone on and on and on, about how we need to reduce man's effect on the atmosphere, but then you advocate the use of a fuel source who's only emmision is water vapor. (One of the most potent greenhouse gasses.)
It does not just turn into clouds and then fall back as rain as you might want to belive. Much ends up diffusing into the atmosphere, and that raises the total water vapor content, and makes for the "Blanket effect" of greenhouse gases. (Trapping the heat radiation from the sun, which we all really know controls the weather anyway, but for the sake of your C02/"fossil fuel" reduction by using electric cars, or hydrogen powered cars, you choose to ignore the fact that your new "uber" car actually puts out more "greenhouse gas" than a ULEV hydrocarbon combustion engine.)
Someone says geothermal energy, or tap the waves... Blah blah blah. Why have we not already done that? Oh let us really look at reality for a moment.
1) Geothermal energy costs money to build, and then maintain. The mineral deosits build up rather fast, so your contantly trying to stay two steps ahead of the failure of your generating plant by limestone, sulfer and other deposits on the machinery.
2) Solar power is expensive, and for the money spent to build it, not a very good investment. (You need clear days for good power generation, so at night and during bad weather, your power supply is off line in many cases.)
3) Wind power is fickle as well, and costs quite a bit to setup and maintain. In some areas, it's a great idea. In others, it's only partly effective. In any case, it is not a power supply you can turn on and generae power any time you want.
4) That brings us to all other forms of energy. They pretty much can be turned on and off and output vaired based on demand and time of day.
Most of the liberal elite environmentalsist do not like nucular power becasue they don't understand it, and belive that waste can't be stored or delt with effectively. (And right now the largest problem with storeing and processing waste is silly ass lawsuits brought up by people who don't understand what is going on, or are just opposed to the nuke idea in any shape or form.)
These same people are opposed to any new refineries, oil drilling or exploration, logging and commercial fishing. They don't like hunters, sport fishers, and belive owning a gun is a crime. Especially automatic weapons.
They hate ATV's, dirt bikes, snomobiles, and pretty much anything that makes noise in "their" wilderness. (Like they own it? Right... Keep dreaming.)
They think all factories belch smoke and pollution, and hate coal fired electric plants, but yet many of them rely on that power to live. (But do not want to be reminded of this simple truth.)
They drive SUV's, but say they bought the ones with smaller, more fuel wise motors... You know they need to haul their mountain bikes and kyak's around..... so they need these larger vehicles, but if you commute in one, your the devil... But they can commute and haul the bikes and kyak's around all week adding to the areodynamic drag of the car/suv, but it's because they want to be seen as outdoors fanatics... Or they are just too lazy to remove the large cargo from the Yakima racks...
My point is everytime someone spouts off "we need altenative sources of energy" the oil compainies grin from ear to ear. It's more scare tactics driving up the price of hydrocarbons. All for a gas that is 3/8's of one inch on a football field of 100 yards. (Yes, the change in C02 has added 3/8" to the 3" of the total amount of C02 that is in our atmosphere. Nitrogen gets you to about the 78 yard line, then O2 is anoteher 20 yard or so, and the rest is waer vapor and some intert gases and stuff like N20, argon and way down on the list is C02, one of the weaker and less effective "greenhouse" gases.)
Please understand what your talking about before you post. Just spouting off liberal elite dogma is getting boring. (And it makes you look kinda silly actually.)
Oh, and while we are talking about C02, man made souces of C02 add up to less than 3% of the total increase since 1940. That means the other 97% is NATURAL C02 that has been released into the atmosphere by nature. (And don't go off saying it's because we have settled the rain forests or some other bovine scatoria. The earth does as it pleases, and we just go along for the ride. Man's ability to change what happens in the natual world is very limited indeed.)
If you like these electric cars so much, spend 100k and buy one.
Last edited:
The evidence that you are so wrong is undeniable no matter how hard you continue to try and spin it. You are wrong here again...
Define: greenhouse gas: The gases in Earth's atmosphere that cause the greenhouse effect; include carbon dioxide, methane, and CFCs..PERIOD... Water vapor actually removes CO2 and other gases from the atmosphere when it condenses and rains by bringing the CO2 with it to the ground and out of the air.
I do understand what I am talking about. Your arguments do not make any sense or you really do not know what is already happening out there right now... Either way, I am done trying to enlighten you..Moving on without you..,, (ok one last time)
Geo thermal heating/cooling is the best way to heat your home period. (as far as I know at this point in time.). (I have installed many geo thermal heat pumps)
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2006/09/c4422.html
GUELPH, ON, Aug. 9 /CNW/ - As oil, gas and electricity costs continue to climb with no end in sight, more Ontario home owners and businesses are discovering that 'going green' with renewable energy solutions from Selectpower Inc. is paying off for both the environment and the bottom line.
Homeowner Brian Cowan of Puslinch, Ontario, recently installed a Selectpower geothermal heating system to heat, cool and provide hot water in his 3600-square-foot house and swimming pool. Cowan has typically paid about $1,000 a month in energy costs for his home but the switch to Selectpower will
slash his bills to between $400 and $500 a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/09/EDGIFKCM0C1.DTL
Looking down from a cliff near Lands End on San Francisco's northwest shore, huge waves crash against rocks with impressive force. Further out, the currents of the Golden Gate create a complex dance of choppy waves and fluid streams that hint at the massive flow of water in a channel several hundred feet in depth. It is from this perspective that I see the untapped potential of wave and tidal electricity generation and, sadly, the failure of state policy-makers who have, thus far, "missed the boat" on the development of clean, renewable and predictable ocean power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5952907p-5240862c.html
If a full-scale project was developed, it could involve 64 underwater turbines near the north end of the Narrows, according to the study from the California-based Electric Power Research Institute.
Each turbine would be equipped with two blades, each almost 60 feet long. The blades would rotate at about 10 revolutions per minute and generate enough electricity to power nearly 11,000 homes.
Again, you are just wrong here.. You may think I am silly, that is fine with me.
BTW, steam mixes with cooler air inside the tailpipe to condense into liquid water dropplets..It's just water dude. it's not a green house gas.:biglaugh:
Define: greenhouse gas: The gases in Earth's atmosphere that cause the greenhouse effect; include carbon dioxide, methane, and CFCs..PERIOD... Water vapor actually removes CO2 and other gases from the atmosphere when it condenses and rains by bringing the CO2 with it to the ground and out of the air.
I do understand what I am talking about. Your arguments do not make any sense or you really do not know what is already happening out there right now... Either way, I am done trying to enlighten you..Moving on without you..,, (ok one last time)
Geo thermal heating/cooling is the best way to heat your home period. (as far as I know at this point in time.). (I have installed many geo thermal heat pumps)
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2006/09/c4422.html
GUELPH, ON, Aug. 9 /CNW/ - As oil, gas and electricity costs continue to climb with no end in sight, more Ontario home owners and businesses are discovering that 'going green' with renewable energy solutions from Selectpower Inc. is paying off for both the environment and the bottom line.
Homeowner Brian Cowan of Puslinch, Ontario, recently installed a Selectpower geothermal heating system to heat, cool and provide hot water in his 3600-square-foot house and swimming pool. Cowan has typically paid about $1,000 a month in energy costs for his home but the switch to Selectpower will
slash his bills to between $400 and $500 a month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/08/09/EDGIFKCM0C1.DTL
Looking down from a cliff near Lands End on San Francisco's northwest shore, huge waves crash against rocks with impressive force. Further out, the currents of the Golden Gate create a complex dance of choppy waves and fluid streams that hint at the massive flow of water in a channel several hundred feet in depth. It is from this perspective that I see the untapped potential of wave and tidal electricity generation and, sadly, the failure of state policy-makers who have, thus far, "missed the boat" on the development of clean, renewable and predictable ocean power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5952907p-5240862c.html
If a full-scale project was developed, it could involve 64 underwater turbines near the north end of the Narrows, according to the study from the California-based Electric Power Research Institute.
Each turbine would be equipped with two blades, each almost 60 feet long. The blades would rotate at about 10 revolutions per minute and generate enough electricity to power nearly 11,000 homes.
Again, you are just wrong here..
You may think I am silly, that is fine with me. BTW, steam mixes with cooler air inside the tailpipe to condense into liquid water dropplets..It's just water dude. it's not a green house gas.:biglaugh: