Now it is a nice shiny well-produced ad, which does a good job at making its point visually ("What if we could replace something harmful with water") , and ends with the tag line "A car that emits no pollution, only clean water vapor"
Now forget for the moment that they are mass marketing this to the entire country, even though the car will only be available in limited numbers in Southern California, making it smack of a shakedown payoff to the Green Mafia to avoid further harassment. Focus only on the message...
"A car that emits no pollution, only clean water vapor"
Doesn't that sound great?
However in a New York Times website envrionmental column titled "Hydrogen Car Is Here, but Where’s the Hydrogen Economy?" (H/T: Instapundit), another NYT article is quoted as saying:
“Compared with alternatives like plug-in hybrids, the on-board energy supply is quicker to replenish and has a better travel range, 270 miles. Moreover, in Honda’s full-cycle calculation, a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle."Now, since we are told that Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas causing Global Warming, how does this:
"...a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle."
square with this:
"A car that emits no pollution, only clean water vapor"
It sounds to me like Honda is playing fast and loose with the truth to appease their new Green Overlords... or the NYT reporter has got his facts wrong.
3 comments:
What are they going to do when somebody discovers that water vapor does in fact do what carbon dioxide gets blamed for?
"...a fuel-cell vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide output by half compared with a gasoline vehicle."
square with this:
"A car that emits no pollution, only clean water vapor"
Since currently most hydrogen comes from fossil fuels and a fuel cell produces approximately twice the energy as burning that fuel you get twice the energy per unit of carbon produced. Not something that really needs to be squared.
Both statements are true:
1) the car only emits H20
2) It still indirectly produces carbon as the hydrogen it needs is produced from hydrocarbons or is cracked from water with electricity most likely generated from burning hydrocarbons.
IMO saying the net carbon is halved is probably an overstatement.
The enviros need to get their heads out of their a$$es and become pro [modern] nuke.
Post a Comment