The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Green Electric Cars (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20125)

TheMercenary 04-21-2009 12:56 PM

Green Electric Cars
 
Maybe not so green for the enviroment after all. And at what cost?

Quote:

Hybrid cars and wind turbines need rare-earth minerals that come with their own hefty environmental price tag.

by Lisa Margonelli

Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret

Photo by Greg Vojtko/The Press Enterprise



The unincorporated community of Mountain Pass, California, has little to recommend it to tourists. A scraggly outcrop of rocks and Joshua trees alongside Route 15, it has no kitschy landmarks like the 134-foot-tall thermometer that nearby Baker, California, installed in the Mojave Desert, and no casinos like Las Vegas has an hour up the road. But behind a Band-Aid-colored industrial gate lies an attraction of sorts: a 55-acre open-pit mine created by a 21st-century gold rush, one result of the effort to keep the world from getting hotter than it already is.

Mountain Pass’s mine contains a rare-earth ore that yields neodymium, the pixie dust of green tech—necessary for the lightweight permanent magnets that make Prius motors zoom and for the generators that give wind turbines their electrical buzz. In fact, if we are going to make even a few million of the hybrid and electric cars that are supposed to help rescue the planet from global warming, we will need to double production of neodymium in short order.

But in 2006, nearly all of the world’s roughly 137,000-ton supply of rare-earth oxides came from China. And over the past few years, China has cut exports to nurture its own permanent-magnet industry, sending the price of neodymium oxide to a high of $60 a kilo in 2007. This worries analysts like Irving Mintzer, a senior adviser to the Potomac Energy Fund who sees shortages stifling clean-tech industry, and worse. “If we don’t think this through, we could be trading a troubling dependence on Middle Eastern oil for a troubling dependence on Chinese neodymium.”

Rare earths are actually fairly common. What’s rare is finding deposits that can be mined profitably, in part because most contain radioactive thorium. Relatively speaking, Mountain Pass—whose rare-earth deposits were discovered in 1949—is not too radioactive, and through the 1950s the ore was mostly used to make flints for lighters. In the 1960s, the pit grew deeper as demand increased for the rare-earth element europium, which was used to create the red tones in color TVs. In fact, until 1989, the expanding pit at Mountain Pass supplied most of the world’s rare earths.

But in the early 1990s, cheaper Chinese rare earths began eating into the mine’s market share. Deng Xiaoping famously compared China’s abundance of rare earths to the Middle East’s huge oil reserves. As Chinese ore came onto the market, the price fell from $11,700 a ton in 1992 to $7,430 a ton by 1996 (in constant dollars). Amassing strategic supplies suddenly seemed old-fashioned, and the U.S. government began selling off its stocks of minerals.

Mountain Pass couldn’t compete on price alone—especially given the mine’s growing ecological costs. In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake.

Mark Smith, the CEO of Molycorp, which bought Mountain Pass in 2000, thinks that the environmental problems that have made the mine’s operation so difficult have largely been resolved, and believes the site can be fully revived. Standing on the edge of what is now a 500-foot-deep pit, he touts his successful negotiations with 18 California regulatory agencies to reopen the mine, and points out some of the company’s newfangled environmental safeguards. (One involves interlocked 18-sided plastic balls floating on standing wastewater pools to limit evaporation and prevent salts from building up after the mine eventually shuts down.) “We want to be environmentally superior, not just compliant. We want to be sustainable and be here for a long time,” he says expansively before talking about opening a permanent-magnet factory employing 900 nearby.

But Smith’s effort to turn Mountain Pass into an environmentally friendly producer—call it the Whole Foods of premium free-range sustainable neodymium—comes with costs his Chinese competitors don’t have to pay: for starters, $2.4 million a year on environmental monitoring and compliance. Will carmakers really be willing to pay more for local minerals and homegrown magnets? “Absolutely,” Smith says, noting that the mine’s historic customers in the U.S. and Japan have given their assurances.

Over the next 30 years, Molycorp is permitted to make its pit 300 feet deeper, which could increase the world’s supply of rare earths by 10 percent or more a year. But the consequences of the nascent green nationalism behind the mine’s revival—a weird amalgam of environmentalism, economics, and national security—will likely be less predictable. Consider the views of the industry analyst Jack Lifton—by no stretch your standard environmental activist (“I don’t give a rat’s ass about global warming”). To protect U.S. industry from supply shocks, he has called on the government to mandate the recycling of strategic minerals. A “bottle bill” for cars, long dismissed as an environmentalist’s dream, is just one possible outcome. Another could be a backlash of resource nationalism in supplier nations like China. As green nationalism’s potent mix of idealism and fear changes the kinds of cars we drive, it also promises to change the course of globalization.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/20090...-cars-minerals

Bullitt 04-21-2009 01:28 PM

We gotta get power from somewhere, whatever method gives us the best cost/benefit ratio whether that be nuke plants, solar, wind, tidal, etc. Personally, I'd love to see hydrogen technology take off all across the board. Finding a cheap, efficient way to split water into usable hydrogen and oxygen could be a god-send. There's been some recent exciting work done for example on a photocatalytic water splitting technique that utilizes a powder and sunlight to split the water molecules. Wouldn't that be a trip, one day no electricity needed to even get the hydrogen in the first place. No huge banks of toxic batteries in cars that will need replaced after a few years, and depending on where the technology could go, may one day have a decentralized power grid where nearly everyone's home is self sufficient for it's electric needs as well as fueling the car, lawn mower, whatever. Cheap, plentiful fuel that's easy on the environment too, hope progress continues.

lumberjim 04-21-2009 02:11 PM

'green' = sucker bet

piercehawkeye45 04-21-2009 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 558662)
We gotta get power from somewhere, whatever method gives us the best cost/benefit ratio whether that be nuke plants, solar, wind, tidal, etc. Personally, I'd love to see hydrogen technology take off all across the board. Finding a cheap, efficient way to split water into usable hydrogen and oxygen could be a god-send. There's been some recent exciting work done for example on a photocatalytic water splitting technique that utilizes a powder and sunlight to split the water molecules. Wouldn't that be a trip, one day no electricity needed to even get the hydrogen in the first place. No huge banks of toxic batteries in cars that will need replaced after a few years, and depending on where the technology could go, may one day have a decentralized power grid where nearly everyone's home is self sufficient for it's electric needs as well as fueling the car, lawn mower, whatever. Cheap, plentiful fuel that's easy on the environment too, hope progress continues.

I haven't looked into it but we will need a way to convert the hydrogen and oxygen back into water. In a hundred or so years, water will most likely be much more precious then it is now.

glatt 04-21-2009 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 558689)
I haven't looked into it but we will need a way to convert the hydrogen and oxygen back into water.

burning it takes care of that.

Bullitt 04-21-2009 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 558689)
I haven't looked into it but we will need a way to convert the hydrogen and oxygen back into water. In a hundred or so years, water will most likely be much more precious then it is now.

I thought you could just throw some of each in a martini shaker, whip it up a bit, and bam water.

piercehawkeye45 04-21-2009 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 558696)
burning it takes care of that.

....blah...long day

sugarpop 04-21-2009 05:57 PM

Cars powered by compressed air...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4w6aJMNXSk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq8aZVLpf-c

TheMercenary 04-21-2009 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 558774)

None of that supports your continual asertion that electric cars are the way to the future.

sugarpop 04-21-2009 06:13 PM

Those are not electric cars. They are compressed air cars.

I think the future will be a variety of choices, from electric, to compressed air, to hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen cars won't be available for another 15 years though. The other ones can be made and sold NOW.

TheMercenary 04-21-2009 06:16 PM

So you don't care that the technology to make a battery for these "green cars" totally scews up the environment?

glatt 04-21-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 558774)

What's the range?

sugarpop 04-21-2009 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 558793)
So you don't care that the technology to make a battery for these "green cars" totally scews up the environment?

Of course I do. You know me.

sugarpop 04-21-2009 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 558802)
What's the range?

I'm not sure. Google it. ;)

glatt 04-21-2009 07:29 PM

I tried to google it, but all I could find was a range of less than ten miles. I figured it had to be better than that, since CNN did a gushing story. I figured you might know. But less than ten miles is a joke. Hopefully it will improve dramatically as they refine it.

Aliantha 04-21-2009 07:29 PM

Green Electric Cars
 
Do they come in red too? :)

sugarpop 04-21-2009 07:30 PM

I don't know. I will try to find out for you. It will have to wait though, because I have to go to the store.

glatt 04-21-2009 07:57 PM

What I found said they currently have a range of 7.22 km. What is that, like 4 miles?

The PR people seem to be making all sorts of claims about what they can do in theory. But initial results are extremely disappointing.

Aliantha 04-21-2009 07:59 PM

1.6 km in a mile, so about 4.5 miles. :)

classicman 04-21-2009 09:39 PM

Uh no, thats not gonna work then.

tw 04-22-2009 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 558662)
Personally, I'd love to see hydrogen technology take off all across the board. Finding a cheap, efficient way to split water into usable hydrogen and oxygen could be a god-send.

Technology facts have been discussed extensively including citations in The Cellar. Hydrogen as a fuel works in myths and science fiction. Even White House lawyers could not make the science work. Numbers made that obvious even years ago when the ignorant were promoting hydrogen as a fuel. Nothing exciting about a technology that cannot even work sufficiently in best conditions.

If it cannot work theoretically, then it is not possible. Or do you believe principles such as conservation of energy can be violated?

Hydrogen as a fuel has been promoted by some of America's greatest enemies. Enemies: people who promote this stuff without first learning science. Enemies such as George Jr and Rick Wagoner both promoted hydrogen. Later, both went strangely silent - no longer recommend that solution. Even they finally learned how dumb that solution was.

Get used to reality. We have no alternative to fossil fuels. Anything that would replace fossil fuels decades from now must currently be possible using thermodynamic principles. Nothing exists to replace fossil fuels.

The solution was always obvious. Doing more by consuming less. Therein lies the advantage of the hybrid - the electric car - which also explains why steam engines were replaced by diesel electric locomotives even 70 some years ago. But again, I am simply reposting (this time without the details) what anyone here would have known a year ago. Hydrogen as a replacement for transportation fuel is obviously mythical.

Where does hydrogen provide advantages? Read those previous posts where the solution is about adapting to changing loads.

xoxoxoBruce 04-22-2009 01:35 AM

I'm picturing a tractor trailer load of neodymium magnets, tooling down the highway dragging hundreds of cars... brakes smoking, tires squealing, and drivers wide eyed with terror.:lol2:

sugarpop 04-22-2009 05:14 PM

“I want to stress that these are estimates, and that we’ll know soon more precisely from our engineers,” ZPM spokesman Kevin Haydon told PM, “but a vehicle with one tank of air and, say, 8 gal. of either conventional petrol, ethanol or biofuel could hit between 800 and 1000 miles.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4251491.html

Why are you guys having so much trouble finding the information? *scratching head*

glatt 04-22-2009 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559155)
Why are you guys having so much trouble finding the information? *scratching head*

Your quote is a wild claim by a PR guy about an imaginary future car. You said that these cars exists. That's true. The ones that do exist only go 4 miles.

sugarpop 04-22-2009 06:32 PM

OK, maybe they haven't been perfected yet, I don't know, but here are some more links...

According to some sources, they have much better mileage than gasoline vehicles. (Air Cars can travel 200 kilometers for just 1.5 euros)
http://aircarfacts.com/

one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph and has a range of 125 miles. It will take only a few minutes for the CityCAT to refuel at gas stations equipped with custom air compressor units; MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car’s carbon-fiber tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi. Drivers also will be able to plug into the electrical grid and use the car’s built-in compressor to refill the tanks in about 4 hours.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4217016.html

achieves over 100 gas-equivalent mpg and over 90 mph, has zero to low C02 emissions,
http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

classicman 04-22-2009 06:49 PM

Quote:

planned Air Car models,
Quote:

on the way to production
Quote:

Of course, the Air Car will likely never hit American shores, especially considering its all-glue construction.
Quote:

The "next summer" production release date of this July 2007 article refers to was Summer 2008. No air cars have been produced.
Quote:

The truth is not on MDi affiliated websites, that is advertising
If you want the entire truth about air cars, do not waste your time on a company affiliated website. Just look at the history of MDI, the claims they made for the past 9 years, the fact none of their plans for production ever materialized, and the path they are currently taking with their vehicles. The small vehicles on their website are proof that air can not power a normal sized vehicle. MDI needs to come up with something already after lying for 9 years, so they come up with a pathetic looking "Airpod" that weighs less than 500 lbs. develops less than 6 hp. and CAN NOT be used on a roadway.
All from your link.

xoxoxoBruce 04-23-2009 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559171)
snip~ one of a handful of planned Air Car models, can hit 68 mph

And after I leave the driveway?
Quote:

MDI says it should cost around $2 to fill the car’s carbon-fiber tanks with 340 liters of air at 4350 psi.
Jesus fucking christ, 4350 psi! Have you any idea how dangerous that is? :eek:

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 559328)
Jesus fucking christ, 4350 psi! Have you any idea how dangerous that is? :eek:

Hey, but they are safer for the environment. I wonder if we can get some hydrogen powered cars on the road soon. Can you imagine the fireball after two of those babies run into each other?

"We would like to unveil the very first hydrogen powered car!.... we will call it The Hindenberg."

Shawnee123 04-23-2009 11:43 AM

The Mini Hindi!

glatt 04-23-2009 12:00 PM

Useless trivia:

The skin of the Hindenburg is what actually caught fire. When it was burning enough that it ruptured, it released the hydrogen, and the hydrogen ignited at that point, way up high in the sky above the burning blimp shell.

The common belief that a hydrogen blimp was inherently dangerous because of what happened on the Hindenburg was disproved in the early 1990s when scientists reexamined what was known about that accident. If I recall correctly, it was some sort of coating on the skin that made it flammable. Hydrogen is actually less flammable than gasoline. 932F versus 536F

Shawnee123 04-23-2009 12:04 PM

That is actually useful trivia (not that I'm building a dirigible or anything, but it's one of those facts I just KNOW will come in handy someday.) I did not know that.

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 559426)
Useless trivia:

The skin of the Hindenburg is what actually caught fire. When it was burning enough that it ruptured, it released the hydrogen, and the hydrogen ignited at that point, way up high in the sky above the burning blimp shell.

The common belief that a hydrogen blimp was inherently dangerous because of what happened on the Hindenburg was disproved in the early 1990s when scientists reexamined what was known about that accident. If I recall correctly, it was some sort of coating on the skin that made it flammable. Hydrogen is actually less flammable than gasoline. 932F versus 536F

Thanks glatt. Very interesting. I didn't know that factoid. I will need to read some more about it.

Undertoad 04-23-2009 12:14 PM

Quote:

I wonder if we can get some hydrogen powered cars on the road soon. Can you imagine the fireball after two of those babies run into each other?
Even better, compress the hydrogen to 4000 psi.

Bullitt 04-23-2009 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 559328)
And after I leave the driveway?
Jesus fucking christ, 4350 psi! Have you any idea how dangerous that is? :eek:

Compressed air tanks for paintball guns can run in the 3000-4500psi range. Granted they are around 68 cubic inches, not 340 liters. Minor detail really.

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt (Post 559436)
Compressed air tanks for paintball guns can run in the 3000-4500psi range. Granted they are around 68 cubic inches, not 340 liters. Minor detail really.

I saw a video the other night of some kid who was killed when one of the paint ball canisters failed. A bit blew off and hit him in the neck.

Bullitt 04-23-2009 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559446)
I saw a video the other night of some kid who was killed when one of the paint ball canisters failed. A bit blew off and hit him in the neck.

Sounds like he may have had a faulty burst disc. It's a little piece of safety equipment installed on all compressed air and co2 tanks that is designed to fail when the pressure inside the tank becomes dangerously high, releasing the gasses from the tank quickly and preventing a hazardous over-pressurization. If that malfunctioned and did not fail as it was designed to, then some other part of the tank must have eventually succumbed to the over-pressurization and catastrophically failed, sending pieces of the metal or fiberglass tank flying at high speed no doubt.

Paintball is a very safe sport if safety guidelines are strictly adhered to. All you may end up with at the end of a hard day playing are some bruises/welts and minor scrapes from crawling and sliding around on the ground. When players and field operators/owners/refs neglect their safety equipment like facemasks, barrel blocking devices, gas system, etc., serious injuries, and in this case death, can and do occur. That said, this could have been entirely not the kid's fault. Could have been a cheap tank, not hydro-tested recently, or the fill station operator damaged/overfilled the tank placing this kid in harm's way. I will definitely encourage my future kids to play paintball. It's an exciting, physically demanding, team-building sport that is statistically safer than many other popular sports when safety standards are adhered to.

lumberjim 04-23-2009 01:24 PM

here's a green electric car:
http://www.zapworld.com/files/images...ectric-car.jpg

classicman 04-23-2009 02:21 PM

yebbut what are those egg shaped things in the background?

sugarpop 04-23-2009 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 559328)
And after I leave the driveway?
Jesus fucking christ, 4350 psi! Have you any idea how dangerous that is? :eek:

I have no idea what it even means. I am stupid about the mechanics of cars. Explain to me please why it is dangrous. Thank you.

sugarpop 04-23-2009 02:42 PM

I watched this show on NOVA last night about the cars of the future. It was very interesting. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/

Shawnee123 04-23-2009 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 559459)
yebbut what are those egg shaped things in the background?

Pods, classic. We call them pods. Watch out for Pod People.

classicman 04-23-2009 02:52 PM

You're one of them aren't you ... that explains so much.

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559463)
I have no idea what it even means. I am stupid about the mechanics of cars. Explain to me please why it is dangrous. Thank you.

It is just a discussion about taking a potentially flamable glass and putting it into a container under great pressure. PSI = Pounds per square inch.

Quote:

The pound per square inch or, more accurately, pound-force per square inch (symbol: psi or lbf/in² or lbf/in²) is a unit of pressure or of stress based on avoirdupois units. It is the pressure resulting from a force of one pound-force applied to an area of one square inch:

1 psi (6.894757 kPa) : pascal (Pa) is the SI unit of pressure.
Gases or gases in a liquid phase which become pressurized are potentially more dangerous in that state than at atmospheric pressure.

Shawnee123 04-23-2009 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 559468)
You're one of them aren't you ... that explains so much.

Well just great. Now I have to kill you.

Ix-nay on the od-pay, assic-clay.

sugarpop 04-23-2009 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 559469)
It is just a discussion about taking a potentially flamable glass and putting it into a container under great pressure. PSI = Pounds per square inch.



Gases or gases in a liquid phase which become pressurized are potentially more dangerous in that state than at atmospheric pressure.

Is compressed air a gas then?

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559474)
Is compressed air a gas then?

Compressed air is a mixture of gases. The majority of which is nitrogen and oxygen.


Nitrogen N2 78.084% 99.998%
Oxygen O2 20.947%
Argon Ar 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide CO2
0.033%
Neon Ne 18.2 parts per million
Helium He 5.2 parts per million
Krypton Kr 1.1 parts per million
Sulfur dioxide SO2 1.0 parts per million
Methane CH4 2.0 parts per million
Hydrogen H2 0.5 parts per million
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.5 parts per million
Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million
Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million
Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million
Carbon monoxide CO trace
Ammonia NH3 trace

sugarpop 04-23-2009 04:08 PM

So would it blow up then if the cannister was damaged? Because from what I remember reading, they are supposed to be very safe.

sugarpop 04-23-2009 04:10 PM

Personally, I wish the guy in Australia would develop that engine, because it would seem to be a much better choice. As far as I know though it is only being used on warehouse vehicles that go really slow.

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 04:10 PM

Compressed air is one of the safer compressed gas mixtures. Many gases are compressed for industrial and health care use.

sugarpop 04-23-2009 04:12 PM

So it would be safe to use as fuel then?

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 04:13 PM

I would think so if it was practical.

glatt 04-23-2009 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559520)
So it would be safe to use as fuel then?

depends on how compressed it is and how strong the tank is. It's potential energy. If it's released slowly, it's fine. All at once, it's a bomb.

sugarpop 04-23-2009 05:07 PM

So in crash there is a potential explosion?

classicman 04-23-2009 05:27 PM

Whoosh .....................................................................WHAP

sugarpop 04-23-2009 05:30 PM

Check this out...

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php

Damn I would like one of those! Or these... http://www.teslamotors.com/

Bullitt 04-23-2009 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 559562)
So in crash there is a potential explosion?

Potential for one yes. Guaranteed no, but never the less the potential is there. Think of these tanks like balloons sugar. When you blow up a balloon, you are forcing gas (your minty fresh breath, air) into a confined space, hence pressurizing the interior of the balloon while the outside normal air pressure remains relatively constant. The balloon will hold that gas and pressure in until it is released somehow. Whether that be a slow steady leak, or a big stomp on it (i.e. car crash), both jeopardize the structural integrity of the balloon and can result in a very sudden release of that stored pressure (the explosion). The pressurized gas is released so violently because gases expand to fill whatever container they are placed into, and the air pressure surrounding the balloon is much lower than what is inside the balloon, thus the compressed gases are constantly "trying" equalize with the outside pressure and will do so quickly when the high pressure gases are exposed to a lower pressure environment.

Bullitt 04-23-2009 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 559581)
Whoosh .....................................................................WHAP

dang get a baggy, I think it's dead.

xoxoxoBruce 04-24-2009 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 559426)
Useless trivia:

The skin of the Hindenburg is what actually caught fire. When it was burning enough that it ruptured, it released the hydrogen, and the hydrogen ignited at that point, way up high in the sky above the burning blimp shell.

The common belief that a hydrogen blimp was inherently dangerous because of what happened on the Hindenburg was disproved in the early 1990s when scientists reexamined what was known about that accident. If I recall correctly, it was some sort of coating on the skin that made it flammable. Hydrogen is actually less flammable than gasoline. 932F versus 536F

Addison Bain's theory about the Iron oxide, aluminum, and cellulose nitrate coating on the skin causing the fire doesn't jibe with the eywitness or newsreel accounts. For one thing it wasn't cellulose nitrate, it was really cellulose acetate butyrate which will burn but is not flammable. Although Bain cause a sensation when he proposed his theory, it has not stood up to peer review as conclusive.

Quote:

So in crash there is a potential explosion?
I've seen the aftermath of a mere 300psi air tank that failed and flattened a cement block building.

sugarpop 04-24-2009 11:35 AM

Damn.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.