Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bull***"

<raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114888036.811817.247770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Excess? Batteries would be far more excessive, I think...
> Even those considerations are IMHO ininfluent. The point is that
> hydrogen is good for energy production, more than conventional
> batteries. More precisely, the Fuel Cell technology is good for
> business, for the environment, and for consumers.
>

snarf, snarf!


> Mercedes has an A Class fuel cell powered
> Chrysler has a jeep fuel cell (can't remember the name...)
> and so on. Even the italian FIAT has an hydrogen
> powered car protorype.

Everyone has a prototype -- no one has a production vehicle.

>
> And we can take a look to other type of transport vehicle, and see that
> Boeing is studying a fuel cell powered airplane, for example.
>

Everyone has a prototype -- no one has a production vehicle.

> I know, we were talking about hydrogen. Hydrogen is only the best fuel
> for fuel cells.
>

snarf, snarf!

>
> The question is: that equation, holds? The rest of the world (well,
> many many persons...) think that hydrogen and fuel cells are not only
> sustainable, but even necessary.
>

No, only the ones who don't know any better.

> What are the alternatives? Batteries? too heavy... Gas engines?
> Not so clean as someone says, and anyway noisy. Maybe we
> can use horses, but IMHO it's not an intelligent solution...
>
> Instead, we should concentrate efforts to develop new way to
> produce hydrogen, and a safe and efficient way to store it.

If only there weren't so many insurmountable fundamental problems with the
whole concept, hydrogen would be a perfect fuel (if only there weren't so
many insurmountable and fundamental problems...)


> Many scientists are researching about this, but there are those
> damned Sisters around... I really hope for a 150$ priced crude oil...


>
> It doesent matters. One great pro for hydrogen is that it can be
> produced from nearly EVERY resource. From carbon fuels,
> from natural gas, from biomasses, from generic electricity,
> etc etc. Now whe have engines for gasoline, engines for oil,
> engines for gas, engines for methane, turbines for kerosene,
> etc etc. Using fuel cells, we could convert every known energy
> source to one single power "transmitter".

Sounds simple. Just a few 'details' to work out, right?

>
> And, I think that hydrolisys is not the best way to take hydrogen
> from water, and also that the liquid form is not the best way to
> store hydrogen.

Just keep working on those 'details'.

> There is only need for more research, more funds,
> and far far less disinformation.
>
> Raffaele
>

You got the disinformation part right. Don't expect people in the know to
willingly fork over their money for your hydrogen folly.

Don W.


.

Quantcast