engineless tractor

[MikeFarm]

Hi

Fuel cells are a nice idea but are not really an option for any sort of mass scale use. For a farmer who has animals and has a large waste pit they could capture the Methane. But since methane can be used as a fuel without splitting it into CO2 and H2 what would the advantage be? You need less electricity than if you wanted to split water but you still need electricity.

Your correct. You can have a fuel cell designed to run on CH4. But such a fuel cell won't work on H2. My guess is that NH had to pick one or the other as one would not be able to just swap out the H2 fuel cells for a CH4 ones in a tractor.

Lets say a CH4 version would sell to pig and chicken farmers while a H2 version would sell to other farmers. The NH engineers and marketers didn't want to visit lots of pig farms so they picked H2

Mike

 

[Don87]

What most people don't know, is that the most prominent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 is but a mere .02% of the total(IIRC).

And to go a little farther, if one actually looks up the statistics, you'll find that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are 'just above the bare minimum for plant growth'.

 

[crazyal]

That is why the future survival of the universe is dependant upon the discovery of unobtanium, I mean Unicorn farts... :laughing:

David

My money is on Pixie dust. If it can make them fly then it should work well in a tractor.

 

[crazyal]

What most people don't know, is that the most prominent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor.

CO2 is but a mere .02% of the total(IIRC).

And to go a little farther, if one actually looks up the statistics, you'll find that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are 'just above the bare minimum for plant growth'.

And the amount of human made CO2 is something like 3% of the total being added to the atmosphere each year.

 

[Soundguy]

any stats on sequestered carbon in.. say.. underseas / water rock deposits.. like granite.. or etc?

 

[Don87]

And the amount of human made CO2 is something like 3% of the total being added to the atmosphere each year.

I think you misunderstood what I typed, or you would not have responded with that post.


I'll type it again.


The CO2 in the atmosphere is just above the minimal level needed for plant growth.(we go much lower and plants do not exist).


CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas, measuring at .02% of the atmosphere


Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

The 3% increase you speak of may be true, but, it is being absorbed by plant life, because that's what plants live on to make oxygen for us to breathe, and we are at the lower level of CO2 for plant life to exist.

These facts are indisputable!


EDIT: to go a little farther on CO2 issues, look up how many greenhouses are 'adding CO2' in order to make the plants grow better.
And look up high CO2 levels and water usage by plants under these circumstances...........the results will totally amaze you. (why would they need to do that?)(and why does 'talking to your plants' make then grow better?)

 

[Don87]

any stats on sequestered carbon in.. say.. underseas / water rock deposits.. like granite.. or etc?

Actually, yes there are.

But, the stats that I've found do not coincide with the needs and usage of plantlife.

Either more studies need to be done, or the stats are false.(IE: Michael Manns hockey stick)

The reason I say this is because during the dinosaur era, the CO2 levels in our atmoshere were 1,000 times as high as they are now.

The results were(according to archaelogical data), that plants were a lot larger than they are today. And adding CO2 to greenhouses seems to support that.

 

[Soundguy]

interesting. thanks

I'll have to poke around ...

 

[rsewill]

We could use a few more dinosaurs.

 

[bigtiller]

Here is my idea of an engine-less tractor.