Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- From: "raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx" <raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 May 2005 02:17:43 -0700
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I've misunderstood...
> > 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.
But the pollution is limited to specific places (gydrogen production
plants), and not spread wherever the fuel is "used". (for cars, all
over the world). To filter a single production plant to reduce
pollutants in the atmosphere is more simple than apply filter to all
machines all over the world. And, anyway, pollution would be located
away from cities.
> I've put time into the subject. I can show you numbers, not claims.
Never made "organized" calculations, sorry. Just made some when reading
about the subject. Anyway, it was just a provocation. I don't know who
you are, and you don't know who am I. And, all I consider all I read
and write here as personal considerations, where not else specified as
"qualified informations".
> Going to space is a working technology. But only a few will go.
You can actually buy a working fuel cell, with different choices about
what fuel to use (hydrogen, methanol, methane...).
Actually, you can buy a flight on SpaceShipOne, the first private
spaceship.
> Read all the foofoo you want and 'believe' it. Critical thinking
means
> you have crunched numbers without bias.
Well, you also "believe" your numbers, isn't it? Einstein believed his
numbers, but Hawking and others are demonstrating that they were wrong.
> > 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.
Don't have much time, now, I'm at work...sorry...
> > And fome other folks have gone beyond, and translated they
> > calculation in working machines.
>
> Not practical machines for the masses.
Not yet, maybe. And I never said that hydrogen fuel cells are a
tomorrow's technology.
> Utter bullshit. 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.
Never done this. As said, if you ask "what is the lowest pollutant
machine?", what is the answer? Or, "what is the more noisy between an
electric fuel cell powered car and an internal combustion car?"?
> > 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...'
Not from cities. It comes from production facilities where power can be
obtained in the most efficient way possible. A turbine in a power plant
is more efficient than wany personal car. It will work at the more
efficient regime, constantly, when normal cars rarely run at the most
efficient rate. And, as said before, pollution will be generated from
the production plant, a relatively well known and manageable source of
pollution, instead than from milions of cars all over the world...
> P.S. Ditch whatever stupid newsreader you are using and get a decent
> one. Netscape is free.
Not nice to define groups-beta.google.com as a "stupid
newsreader"...what's the problem?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- From: Dan Bloomquist
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- References:
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- From: Dan Bloomquist
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- From: raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- From: Dan Bloomquist
- Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- Prev by Date: Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- Next by Date: Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- Previous by thread: Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- Next by thread: Re: House Resources Committee Chairman: hydrogen is "bullshit"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|