Electric cars, a fad and its own demise?

There are another 10 to 15 additional shale oil and gas features found in the US and about 8 big ones in Canada (even adjacent to the Shield). These "plays" have always been known to contain gas and oil.

FOR EXAMPLE, consider The Marcellus fields inNY, Pa, Oh, W Va, Md, and Va. In 1953 through 1955, several field geologists working for the US and Pa surveys mapped the oil and gas "plays" in the Devonian rocks of the state of PA. They wrote in their published volume of 1957:

"Several interesting (geologic, paleontologic and stratigrphic) features are apparent from the study of the (OUR) maps... That is, the deep marine source rocks of the Helderberg through the Tully Formations contain hydrocarbons (This includes the HAmilton rocks that include the MARCELLUS FORMATION) These formations have NOT been evaluated wty their high carbon ratio lines (an early hydrocarbon assessment tool), Though this criterion should enter into their final analysis"
The authors, Jons and CAte, merely were stating that there is a high carbon ratio line within these rocks (Not below and not above) tThis carbon ratio is indicative of a Hydrocarbon "Play' (A word that means either recoverable or non-recoverable petroleum and gas based upon the technology of the day). Since Jones and CAte Weve only begun tapping all these new gas and oil fields (and reworking some older ones like the Bakken and the Green River). All this is just because because of entirely new drilling and exploration technology. Weve been developing micro accurate logging tricks to tell us just how much pwtro the rocks contain and where. The paleo gives is the biological reasons for the deposits and then, on top of it all, A technology for packing-off and liquid shooting formations (Fracking) coupled wih all new slant drilling techniques has opened entirely new petrol fields for development (once thought marginal or non recoverable (like the Marcellus) WE HAVE NOT FOUND ONE JOT OF ABIOTIC OIL OR GAS OUT HERE.

Youve got your little gunga head firmly up your gunga ass again if you
"believe otherwise"

Jones Thomas A. and Addison S CAte (1957). A Preliminary Report on a Regional Stratigraphic Study of DEVONIAN ROCKS of Pennsylvania .Pa Geol Survey (IV Series). Special Bulletin 8.

In 2005, the P Survey just dumped all the extra copies of these entire series of Stratigraphic reports of the Paleozoic Rocks . I was there to get my free copies and have been offered good bucks to buy the special included maps.
Course, since then, the survey had set up a fund for Penn State to copy nd post all these reports on the P Survey's website so my paper copies are just anoter relic of the past .

BUT , my point was that there was no NEW findings about Abiotic oil in any of these finds. These fields qere known for decades but were just considered un workeable and the hydrocarbons were considered non- recoverable

My father used to warn me about Fiats.
He told me: "back in my day, we had a name for em lemons: Fix It Again Tony"

It could be so that at the sign of impact, sensors would detect and lead to the automatic shut off from the main tank to the fuel cell. So the hydrogen in the pipelines, whatever is left, would be evacuated into the fuel cell, leaving the pipes void of hydrogen. Furthermore, autoignition temperature of hydrogen is much less than gasoline.
As I said before, due to the properties of hydrogen, it rapidly rises and disperses before ignition. So unless it is an unventilated area, it is unlikely to be serious. So as I said before, seal the under side of the cock pit, so the hydrogen will diffuse to the sides of the underbelly of the car, as an extra precaution.

The hydrogen storage tank I'm sure would be put through demanding testing procedures, such as enduring extreme heat and external pressure forces as well as collision impacts.

As you mentioned, there is a slight danger (as with the current ICE cars), but not to the point that it is seen as a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode at the moment of impact.

Design/ Safety engineers would put better safety measures as well. I'm not one, but I'm sure these guys who got a degree in such a field would be able to minimize danger to less than 1%.
Any chance of blowing up I'd imagine happening is maybe a hydrogen fuel tanker under very unfortunate circumstances.

Sure you can minimize the dangers but you can't change public perception. All it takes is one major disaster to create a public perception that will be difficult to overcome. See every time a nuclear plant has had issues. No one wants a nuclear plant in their backyard, if they even want them at all. Now you are dealing with a system that requires them to not only have them, but spend 2 hours a day in them. Airplanes are the safest transportation but any air disaster makes many feel unsafe. Emotions trump logic most days.

its kind of a toss-up. on explsovity. Gasoline hs a very narrow range between its LEL and UEL (lower and upper explosive limits), whereas hydrogen has a much wider range of xplocivity.

GASOLINE , LEL is 1.4 mg/L and the UEL is 7.5 mg/L

HYDROGEN , LEL is 4 mg/L and the UEL is80 mg/L

Well depends on how you look at it.
Because of hydrogen’s wide range of flammability, hydrogen combustion engines can run on a varying number air/fuel ratios. This also would mean pre-ignition problems. But redesigning the fuel delivery system can be ef-fective in reducing or eliminating pre-ignition, maybe by carburetor or central injection system. Or maybe using direct injection into the combustion cylinder during the compression stroke.
Even a direct cylinder injection where the formation of fuel-air mixture inside the combustion cylinder is allowed after the air intake valve has closed (that's gonna be a bit complicated to design).

The wide range of LEL and UEL for hydrogen means that the release of hydrogen into an enclosed area is dangerous, for it will definitely cause an explosion. Explosion will only happen if the combustion must be contained, allowing the pressure and temperature to rise to levels sufficient to violently destroy the contained area.
Since cars are driven outside, the only problem I see with the lower and upper explosive limits in real life application is if hydrogen enters the car cockpit, and if someone lit a lighter, or something along those lines.

I still prefer fuel cells over combustion engines. More efficient.

More efficient in terms of energy in/energy out, or more efficient in terms of dollars per ton/mile?

both...
I can give you some good theoretical numbers from a bit of basic stoichiometry, if you insist.

I do not. I only suggest that when comparisons are being made, it is nice to know what is being compared.

Are we talking about an existing IC engine with a known cost to a fuel cell supported engine with a theoretical cost of production?

I'm comparing to existing IC engine in terms of the pollution, as well as efficiency.
I'm also comparing to existing Battery Electric Vehicles in terms of pollution, as well as efficiency.

By efficiency, I mean the miles that can be driven in a tank of fuel (where purely battery powered electric cars fail, currently).

The only negative aspect of purely switching to hydrogen I see is the expense in setting up a hydrogen economy. I know such a concept is too fictitious.

But if an economic segment as large as for the electric vehicles is started for hydrogen cars, people and industries will directly see that it is a better alternative to gasoline powered cars, as well as electric cars.
Well I'm guessing the oil industries and the cartel like OPEC will be pouting angrily if that were to happen.

The long run is the key however.
The greatest benefit of hydrogen fuel cells is its range, speed, and practicality, which is equal and maybe better to the vehicles that run on petroleum and its derivatives. Choosing hydrogen will also possibly alleviates expenses in the long run. For industries, there is less pollution to clean up, and for the public, less pollution in the environment amounts to healthier bodies and possibly fewer appointments to the doctor.

We must, yet again, consider "life cycling" again. Today the H2 for fuels is a steam reform process of methane and ethane. (Lotsa energy loss and pollution there because its ony about 75% efficient).
I think that theres plenty of research into renewable H2 production (fermentation, renewable electrolyses, metal acid reactions) However, these are NOT available now. So its the"If I had bacon, I could make you bacon and eggs,if I had eggs" rationale.

I drove the new Fiat today, probably the sport version of the thing we weren't sure, friends buy and sell cars for a living and just had one sitting around.

Anybody claiming this car is underpowered is smoking too much reefer, the 500 or at least the version I drove was more than fast enough and very nicely made, small but nice, seats very nice and comfortable, AC very good, interior appointments very nice. Fiat has in fact learned things from owning Alfa for the past few decades. Somebody looking for a car which was small enough to deal with urban situations and still fun to drive would have a hard time doing better.

The current process to create H2 is despicable.

Actually, nuclear reactors produce hydrogen gas.
The nuclear option for H2 generation would keep power production in the hands a few monopolistic corps. rather than decentralizing it for real energy and national security. Maybe reactors that would be devoted to H2 production. So that is entirely theoretical. Maybe thorium reactors that creates a high enough temperature may be an answer. A man can dream can't he .

I wonder if America is willing to use geothermal power to produce hydrogen on a large scale, like Iceland. Or even use solar, wind, and hydro power for large scale renewable electrolysis of water.

Or maybe some sort of biological hydrogen production from genetically engineered algae or bacteria, in sufficiently large amounts. Hey, that could be a good research project as well as a good topic for a doctoral thesis.

Our ability to convert, store and deliver electron energy through hydrogen will continue to evolve. Nanoscale science is possibly another key to solving this dilemma.

I was getting mixed messages when Jennifer Lopez was advertizing the Fiat 500 like almost every advertisement for the Fiat.

As a guy I'm asking:
is it a "girl's car?"

I think the Fiat 500 could be, but the Fiat 500 Abarth is definitely unisex.

It didn't strike me as a chick car. The model with the sunroof can be gotten to where somebody 6-4 or 6-5 would find his head touching just a tiny bit and I assume the problem would go away without the sun roof. I'd recommend the 5-speed which is what I drove, I couldn't vouch for the same car with an automatic.

Cars I've driven which struck me as under-powered include the Honda Civic with automatic transmisison prior to around 97 when they started putting real engines in them and, more recently, the "Smart Car" which struck me as dangerously under-powered and which I wouldn't wish on anybody other than enemies.

catrinel Mengia is listed as the supermodel who was doing those Fiat Abarth commercials. She di the one on the Superbowl.

GUNGA, The old Fiat Abarth was a fast little ****** but it had no history of any kind of longevity. I see in the web site that theres an aftermrket kit to jack up the Hp without any nitrous. They seem to port the car, make adjustments to the suspension and put on one of the great Abarth headers and exhaust systems. That jacks it up to 180BHp. and a top speed of 133 mph. It still hs a mediocre "get off the line" 0-60 of about 6 + seconds. I know a bunch of Hispanic kids who jigger their toyotas and old Hondas to 600 hp and then add Nitrous injectors.They can do 0-60 like a Ferrari
Ive seen pictures of the Fait ABrth 550 "Barbie" model.
You can have the thing.

The friends in question thought there might be an Abarth version which would be really fast and that the car I was driving was a "sport" model, which struck me as fast enough for normal purposes, while not exactly like one of the old 500cc Kawasaki triples or anything like that which felt like being fired out of one of the guns on the Iowa or New Jersey.

This car is a totally different world from the Fiats you are remembering from the 50s and 60s.