Re: Hydrogen Cars, Trucks, and Buses Are the Answer Indeed

On Dec 17, 3:37 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:33 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Dec 16, 3:49 am, Don Lancaster <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

tyrone schneider wrote:
. Here is an excerpt of his official
statement;...

http://groups.google.com/group/waterforfueld

Totally ludicrous.

The arguments AGAINST the hydrogen economy appear athttp://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xmlemail: d...@xxxxxxxxxx

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com

Don, that pointer that you give is SO biased and full of factual
errors and BALD FACED LIES, I wonder why you're so intent on
associating yourself with it? Sheez.

I spent an afternoon reading that balderdash and was so incensed I
responded to it point by point - with bibliographic references - and
you can look it up to read the truth about hydrogen.

Check out

http://www.usoal.com

to find out how the US and the world for that matter, can actually
make abundant hydrogen cheaply from sunlight and water and transition
from our present world of shortages to a future world of abundance.

Presently, the world consumes energy at a 15 TW rate and burns the
following primary fuels to produce most of this;

<SNIP exhaustive defense of hydrogen based energy>

Umm... I think you won that argument. Unfortunately I'm not too sure
Don will bother reading your posts considering his own "spambot"
approach to posting here. Which is too bad because he is probably the
type that could offer you a useful critique of your vision if he
bothered to really consider your ideas.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You assume Don is a good guy. He is not. I used to think he was, but
I was wrong.


Think about it. When has Don ever offered a useful critique of
anything? Its interesting how people are held in certain regard by
many. I used to think of Don the way you do. No more. That's why I
never bothered reading Don's pointer for years because I figured it
was a soundly based and reasoned article that pointed out sound
reasons hydro-carbon fuels were superior in certain ways than hydrogen
based fuels. I knew the shortcomings of hydrogen, but also the
benefits. So, I didn't read the site. Because I thought of Don then
as you obviously think of him now, someone who though critical of my
position, provides a useful critique and is basically a good guy.

Well, last week I read that pointer because he pointed to it in
rebuttal to a statement that itself was very sound. So, I was curious
what could possibly be in it to undercut the statement.

I was surprised and dismayed at what I read. I spent a good 14
minutes typing a detailed response to all the balderdash I found
there. That Don points to that bull*** as if its some holy grail I
find apalling. So, my opinion of Don is rather reduced at present.
Its like the clock you've always trusted ticking away in the hallway,
striking 13!! You know there's something wrong, and you know even if
it seems right,at a later time, its likely wrong.

Now, I've asked Don on several occasions, both publicly and privately
these past few weeks why he associates himself with such bull***. He
hasn't troubled himself to respond. I think because he KNOWS its
bull*** and he has some sort of agenday pushing it and would rather
not admit that. But who knows why people do things? Bottom line, Don
is pushing bull*** in this venue as if its truth, and he knows its
bull***. He's too good an engineer to not to know it.

Take for example embrittlement issues. His website says that
embrittlement is a definite show stopper for hydrogen transmission
systems, concluding no practical systems could be built because of
it. This despite that fact that when hydrogen was made industrially
for the first time in 1911 - for ammonia production then -
embrittlement was classed as less a problem for that pipeline built in
Germany where the soil was very wet - than corrosion. Sure, it was a
factor in replacing the pipelines every 9 years or so,and was noted by
the careful German engineers who built the pipeline - but that doesn't
change the fact that corrosion was a bigger problem than embrittlement
ever was even then. In 1958 NASA built a perfectly adequate hydrogen
supply network for their hydrogen fueled rockets - and largely solved
the problem of embrittlement and penetration in practical systems.
Though as is typical of NASA, at a rather high cost. They too pointed
out how hydrogen differed from other gases as a rationale for the
costs. Anyone familiar with what was done then knows that
embrittlement and permeation were resolved totally at that time. NASA
as in many things paved the way.

From the 1930s through the 1980s all major chemical companies built
trans-continental hydrogen pipelines to support various industrial
processes.

In the 1980s steel manufacturers created new alloy steels that were
specifically formulated to resist embrittlement as stainless steels
resist corrosion. Both Lockheed and Boeing explored the possibilty of
using thin sheets of this stuff to make liquid hydrogen fuel tanks for
airliners and estimated costs of supplying those airliners with
hydrogen.

In 2006 ASME completed B31.12 standard for high pressure hydrogen
pipelines and tanks. One can go out and buy from ANY competent
manufacturer of pipelines or tanks a hydrogen supply network,
including all valves and control mechanisms, safety controls and so
forth - and they will be guaranteed to last 60 years without failure -
at little or no premium over other gas supply networks..

Yet here is Don's website talking about embrittlement and permeation
as if it were a show stopper for a practical hydrogen based economy.

I thought Don was a good guy. Until he dissociates himself from the
specious website he continually points to, or urges changes in the
more egregious errors and bald faced lies touted there, I must sadly
conclude Don is NOT a good guy and care little for the truth.

TAKE THE WEBSITE DOWN!
.

Quantcast