Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!
From: Mike Ackerman (mackermNOSPAM_at_mailpuppy.com)
Date: 09/25/04
- Next message: K. Jones: "Re: Missing 757"
- Previous message: Scott A Crosby: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- In reply to: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:22:52 -0700
Steve Spence wrote:
> Well, it's an element, not exactly a synfuel. Granted, a very expensive
> element ...
>
>
> "Mike Ackerman" <mackermNOSPAM@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
> news:2rji68F1b8ju1U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>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
Why wouldn't you call hydrogen a "synthetic fuel"? Carbon is also an
element, but you don't need to make it in a factory.
"Energy carrier" accurately describes a pipe or a tank.
Mike Ackerman
- Next message: K. Jones: "Re: Missing 757"
- Previous message: Scott A Crosby: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- In reply to: Steve Spence: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Next in thread: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Stop saying "energy carrier"!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
