Stop saying "energy carrier"!
From: Mike Ackerman (mackermNOSPAM_at_mailpuppy.com)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Previous message: Tony Wesley: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Scott A Crosby: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:33:58 -0700
After much consideration, I've decided that "energy carrier" is a stupid
term. It seems to be used by the pro-hydrogen advocates instead of the
more descriptive term "synthetic fuel."
What's wrong with "synthetic fuel": something which comes from a
chemical reactor instead of a still? (and no nit-picking about
cracking). Hydrogen peroxide is a synthetic fuel. Nitromethane is a
synthetic fuel. Why not hydrogen?
Mike Ackerman
- Next message: william mook: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Previous message: Tony Wesley: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Reply: Scott A Crosby: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
