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



raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:


Excess? Batteries would be far more excessive...

It seems you did not understand my post. Yet you make assertions. If 

you

don't understand the science what makes you an authority? 


I'm NOT an authority. Everything I write is by default an AFAIK.
Anyway, I was referring to the "excess of storage payload". Batteries
are heavy, and use toxic materials.

First, don't snip if you are sincere. I wrote:
'Only because of the high specific impulse is the excess storage payload justified.'
So I'm obviously talking about thrust.

Fuel cells uses hydrogen and
oxigen, and produces wather. No pollutant, no toxic substances,
(almost) atoxic reagents.

And why it is used for power on the shuttle. But there was plenty of waste and CO2 before launch.

Folks that 'believe' in hydrogen as a terrestrial fuel are a dime a
dozen on these threads. From here, you have a choice. Keep believing
out 
of ignorance. You will receive your share of troll food. Or bother to
understand how stupid the 'hydrogen economy' is when you bother to do
some math on the subject.

Now, what makes YOU an authority? 

I've put time into the subject. I can show you numbers, not claims.

I've read many sources which sais
something totally different. And factual implementation of hydrogen
fuel cells powered vehicles demonstrate that this is a working
technology.


Going to space is a working technology. But only a few will go.

Things I've read about hydrogen, fuel cells, and all the related
technologies (from energy production, to hydrogen production and
storage, to fuel cells constructiong related technologies), make me
think that hydrogen led energy economy is sunstainable. Of course not
tomorrow, and probably not for ne next 30-40 years, as happened before
for internal combustion engines. But that conventional engines
overwhelmed horse powered transports, is a fact.

Read all the foofoo you want and 'believe' it. Critical thinking means you have crunched numbers without bias.

If you have questions you will receive input from folks that have
been
crunching the numbers for some time where the energy issue is 
concerned.

Of course. It's my primary purpose. But thos folks must see that other
folks made similar calculations, ad obtained completely different
results.


Show me, don't claim. I want to see your numbers.

And fome other folks have gone beyond, and translated they
calculation in working machines.


Not practical machines for the masses.

If you continue to demand that the 'hydrogen economy' is good you
will
only show your ignorance because the physics say otherwise. 

Never asked this, if you look back to precedent posts.
About physics, you can obtain both a positive or negative answer: the
important is the question.

Utter bull***. Nature could care less about your questions. There is no 'positive or negative answer'. Don't pontificate about how science works if you don't know.

For example, physics should agree in saying that an electric fuel cell
powered car is far less noisy and pollutant than a typical internal
combustion car. If the question is "can hydrogen fuel cells make cities
cleaner" the answer must be "yes".

Why 'yes'? I'll ask again. Where does the hydrogen come from? Don't run from this question with your fingers in your ears going 'la, la, la, la...'


Raffaele 

Best, Dan.

P.S. Ditch whatever stupid newsreader you are using and get a decent one. Netscape is free.

.

Quantcast