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



raffaele.castagno@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote: 

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"....

And creating much more CO2 in the process is acceptable? Modern hybrids would make auto pollution practically non existent. This without the enormous expense and wasted energy of hydrogen.

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"...


Numbers count. (pun intended if you like.)

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...).


The only PEM fuelcell I've seen on the market runs $6,000/kw.

Actually, you can buy a flight on SpaceShipOne, the first private
spaceship.


No I can't. I don't have that kind of money.

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? 

Numbers have nothing to do with 'belief'.

Einstein believed his
numbers, but Hawking and others are demonstrating that they were wrong.

SR and GR have never been falsified. So I don't know what you are talking about. If Einstein's work has been falsified you need to cough up a peer reviewed paper to the effect. But don't bother because it would have been front page news and I haven't seen it.

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... 

You have the time to do all these posts...

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 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.

Never done this.

Sure you did. You wrote,'About physics, you can obtain both a positive or negative answer: the important is the question.'

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?"?


How is this relevant if it isn't economically viable?

I'll ask again. Where does the hydrogen come from? 

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...


You didn't answer the question. Where does the hydrogen come from?

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"


If it is stupid, it is stupid.

....what's the problem?

It hacks the thread.

Best, Dan.

.