Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!
From: G. R. L. Cowan (gcowan_at_eagle.ca)
Date: 09/25/04
- Next message: Tony Wesley: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- Previous message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- In reply to: Mike Ackerman: "Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:57:54 -0400
Mike Ackerman wrote:
>
> 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?
"Synthetic fuel" is not any more descriptive.
Energy carrier, energy carrier, energy carrier.
Want to know what hydrogen advocates really say?
Google News (hydrogen "energy source"): http://tinyurl.com/7yal5
If lies were nitroglycerine, what a mess they'd make ...
but it would be cleaned up quicker than the one they're making now.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
- Next message: Tony Wesley: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- Previous message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- In reply to: Mike Ackerman: "Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
