Re: DEATH OF THE INTERNET

On Feb 15, 11:35 am, dave.walt...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:10 am, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dave.walt...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
But suppose you could get 15 gallons of H from
te 42 gallon barrel? Maybe that's cheap enough if society was will to
pay this amount.

That is just plain dumb.

Any negative efficiancy is dumb, Bill. Which means that ANY production
of transporation H is going to be 'dumb'. Which is why I suggested
that the truth of the matter is that only battery storage will provide
the way out in terms of getting away from emissions type ICE and this
is inefficient too. ONLY CNG and gasoline provide positive efficient
transport energy. How do you see it?

well, first of all, I didn't say that. that was dan bloomquist.
Second of all, that isn't really true. CNG, Gasoline, Batteries,
Coal liquification, and tar sands all produce positive EROEI. Now, of
these, only batteries and CNG are renewable (CNG because it's possible
to make methane from waste products in moderate quantities Batteries
depending on where you got the energy).
The best source for transortation fuel is of course less
driving, but that involves a major revamp of the develoment style in
the low-density world (america canada and australia)

.