Energy

Oil, coal, hydrogen, fuel cells, hybrid cars, renewables, geothermal, economical growth



Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

daestrom wrote:

Well, reading the web page cited earlier, "Our estimated error (2?, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05?C in recent years to 0.1?C at the beginning of the 20th century."

So we have this "global temperature", which lots of people seem to be quite vague about where it came from. It is supposed to characterize the temperature of the entire planet -- half a billion square kilometers, 70% of it oceans, with the temperature at each point varying continuously throughout the year -- and the 95% confidence limit is a tiny 1/20 of a Celsius degree? If that were a used car, would you buy it? Would you at least want a test drive and a thorough look under the hood before you put your money down?
And if we go back a hundred years, to a time when substantial parts of the Earth's surface had never seen a man with an accurate thermometer, that uncertainty widens only to 1/10 of a degree Celsius?

From what I understand, places like the U. of East Anglia (England) have collected old ships logs and used them as the basis for

characterizing the historical temperatures of broad swaths of oceans -- by making lots & lots of assumptions. We all have to admire their ingenuity and persistence, but is it likely that can yield "global temperatures" (however defined) to within a small fraction of a degree?
Botttom line is that we (the human race) know less than some of us sometimes think we do -- about the basic data, and about the planetary physics.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which
opens
the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.

It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I!
Sure. Claiming the earth is flat would have evoked a similar response.
Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist beliefs...
Too bad you're too ignorant to know what you're doing.
Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.
I'm convinced you're one ignoranant fool.
There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.
That's flat out wrong.
There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.
You're lying.
So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!
Yes, that does seem to be your creed.
But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie

So, your response to a reasoned response is "No! You're Lying! I don't believe it!" and my point is made. I am not lying, I am far from ignorant, but my foolishness is somewhat open for debate! 8-) Yours, unfortunately, is quite apparent.
I actually have an open mind on this, which is why I feel that both sides have their heads in the sand (or perhaps, in an anatomically unlikely place... 8-) ) But the debate continues, and what so many take for granted, is not actually supported by the evidence.
For an eye-opener, locate a copy of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" a nifty little book by James Hogan. He is a science/science fiction writer, and he makes a nice summary of the issues and arguments on both sides on evolution, as well as a few other 'Sacred Cows' in the science world. It is entertaining, insightful, and a good read. It may teach you that reality is a lot stranger than most folks have been lead to believe, and a whole lot more interesting!
Charlie

Charlie Edmondson tells creationist lies

Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which opens the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.
It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I! Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist beliefs...

Begin anytime you want to, and besure to include your alternate explanation with links to the science work which supports it. If you say "Adam & Eve", prove they exusted, when, where, and by what science you have confirmed this. If you say "Noah's Ark" prove how he planted all the rare species in pools in Death Valley to remote mountain peaks, and the science which cnfirms this is possible.

Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.

Get unconvinced -- it's just not true.
"Punctuated Equilibrium" has fossil evidences, storerooms and cabinets full of them. "Catastrophism" has empty drawers, and empty heads to back it up. They are no more the same thing than fish and bicycles are similar related things.

There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!

The definition of species hasn't changed in decades. It still means the same thing. It means different DNA, sufficiently different that you can't confuse the two under comparison.
Different DNA means differents in expression of DNA, which might have visual identicalness. They had to recatergorize myriads of species once they began doing DNA tests. Ants that look the same to you and me don't intermate and don't do the same repartoir of behavior suites -- so long as people looked at the external characteristics they failed to notice behavior suites that were distinctly different. Ant would never make that mistake because their sense of smell would tell them this ant doesn't belong in this nest, let alone mating with it.
Differences in mating song, where females respond to a particular song and not another, are sufficient in themselves to define specification, because the definition requires that members of spewcies mate into their own species as a normal freewill function.
Lions and tigers are obviously different species with distinctive characteristics, and very distinct mating habits, but produce viable and fertile cross-breeds in zoos. The fact that they CAN MATE does not make them the same species -- they refuse to mate in the wild by their freewill, even in the few areas where they overlap territories.
You creationist lies haven't equipped you to discuss evolution because you think you know the answers so there's no need to explore the great body of evidences.
You have self-inflicted stupidity.

But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.

Your simpleton mathematics failed the laugh test,

There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.

In telligent Design is MOONISM, plain and simple. It was produced by "Discovery Institute" founded as a project of "Hudson Institute". It is riddled through with Sun Myung Moon followers trying to subvert America with MOONIE THEOLOGY.
Creation Science is the dumb cousin of "Intellegunt Desine", produced by the fundamentalist Taliban to overthrow democracy with a fundamentalist tyranny.
There's no "science" work in either one, no drawers full of evidences, no museums full of evidences, no journals full of evidences. You are a TALIBAN INFILTRATOR.

So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!

I have CDROMs of science publications justifying claims based on scientific evidence. You have right-wing dogma conceoved in organized crime think tank propaganda factories.
I have photovoltaic cells on my desk as I type this. My body has hydrogen in it -- approximately 22 pounds of hydrogen in my particular weight class. This is scientifically verifiable by publically reproducable means accepted by science.
You are the religious NUTCASE pushing phoney MOONISM while badmouthing science and verifiable data on H2-PV.

But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie

Your master, the "Emperor of the Universe", crowned Messiah Lord of the Second Advent, certifiably insane, is well invested in dirty polluting industries and a buddy of the Rockefeller Heirs controlling Exxon, Mobil, Conoco, Chevron, etc.
Moon has thousands of you subversives to obey his commands, and lif whenever it obtains advantage.
SCIENCE exists and develops bodies of replicatable evidence which verifies theories you cannot understand. Technology is likewise outside of you comprehension.
You are an illiterate in science and technology, not even capable of finding the published data let alone capable of discussing its merits.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

daestrom wrote: Well, reading the web page cited earlier, "Our estimated error (2?, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05?C in recent years to 0.1?C at the beginning of the 20th century."
So we have this "global temperature", which lots of people seem to be quite vague about where it came from. It is supposed to characterize the temperature of the entire planet -- half a billion square kilometers, 70% of it oceans, with the temperature at each point varying continuously throughout the year -- and the 95% confidence limit is a tiny 1/20 of a Celsius degree? If that were a used car, would you buy it? Would you at least want a test drive and a thorough look under the hood before you put your money down?

If the same folks who launched and landed the Mars rover put their efforts into building a car, yes I would buy it. You prefer FUD over facts.

And if we go back a hundred years, to a time when substantial parts of the Earth's surface had never seen a man with an accurate thermometer, that uncertainty widens only to 1/10 of a degree Celsius?

You do not understand data sampling. The precision of your estimate grows with the number of estimates. You also seem to think thermometers were invented yesterday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_temperature_and_pressure_measurement_technology

From what I understand, places like the U. of East Anglia (England) have collected old ships logs and used them as the basis for characterizing the historical temperatures of broad swaths of oceans -- by making lots & lots of assumptions.

Can you provide a reference for this? Which analysis did this and how was the information used?
It is true that there are areas with very sparse data. But you can eliminate alot of uncertainty by comparing trends in proximate locations. And again, unless everywhere we measure is going up, but everywhere we don't is by some amazing freak coincidence going down, this lack of information is some particular spot of ocean does not destroy the reliability of the established trend.
This is a seriously twisted line of attack. We measured in thousands of stations, they all show similar trends consistent within their regions, but you jump up and down saying "what about here! You didn't measure here!".

We all have to admire their ingenuity and persistence, but is it likely that can yield "global temperatures" (however defined) to within a small fraction of a degree?

Yes, with the appropriate uncertainties and error ranges defined.

Botttom line is that we (the human race) know less than some of us sometimes think we do -- about the basic data, and about the planetary physics.

You are only projecting your own ignorance on to the entire scientific community.
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

Coby Beck continued:

LG We would have to correct each reading LG for calibration, and then adjust them all to a common datum. LG (Temperature varies with elevation, of course, and it is about 9,200 LG meters from the lowest point to the highest point on the Earth's LG surface).
CB Again, irrelevant except where you can show a particular station has CB changed its altitude due to subsidence or geostatic rebound or CB whatever else might effect it.

Now I see what has offended you, Coby! I interpreted your statement about "irrelevant" to apply to both the need for calibration and the need to adjust the measured temperatures to a common datum. If you intended the "irrelevant" to apply only to the need for adjustment to datum, then I misconstrued your remark. And I apologise for misunderstanding you.
You are wrong, of course. Calibration and adjustment to datum are both important when chasing a tiny average temperature change -- but I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your views.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

daestrom wrote: Well, reading the web page cited earlier, "Our estimated error (2?, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05?C in recent years to 0.1?C at the beginning of the 20th century."
So we have this "global temperature", which lots of people seem to be quite vague about where it came from. It is supposed to characterize the temperature of the entire planet -- half a billion square kilometers, 70% of it oceans, with the temperature at each point varying continuously throughout the year -- and the 95% confidence limit is a tiny 1/20 of a Celsius degree? If that were a used car, would you buy it? Would you at least want a test drive and a thorough look under the hood before you put your money down?

We're supposed to know the mass of an electron, something so small we can't even measure its size. Yet we do know its mass quite well.

And if we go back a hundred years, to a time when substantial parts of the Earth's surface had never seen a man with an accurate thermometer, that uncertainty widens only to 1/10 of a degree Celsius?
From what I understand, places like the U. of East Anglia (England) have collected old ships logs and used them as the basis for characterizing the historical temperatures of broad swaths of oceans -- by making lots & lots of assumptions. We all have to admire their ingenuity and persistence, but is it likely that can yield "global temperatures" (however defined) to within a small fraction of a degree?
Botttom line is that we (the human race) know less than some of us sometimes think we do -- about the basic data, and about the planetary physics.
And some of us (look in the mirror) don't let their lack of knowing stop them

from posting nonsense here.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which
opens
the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.

It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I!
Sure. Claiming the earth is flat would have evoked a similar response.
Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist beliefs...
Too bad you're too ignorant to know what you're doing.
Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.
I'm convinced you're one ignoranant fool.
There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.
That's flat out wrong.
There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.
You're lying.
So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!
Yes, that does seem to be your creed.
But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie
So, your response to a reasoned response is "No! You're Lying!


Sure, just as if you had claimed the earth is flat. A lie is a lie. If you don't want to be called on it, there are 2 simple solutions:
1. Don't lie. 2. Don't post.

I don't believe it!" and my point is made. I am not lying, I am far from ignorant, but my foolishness is somewhat open for debate! 8-) Yours, unfortunately, is quite apparent.
I actually have an open mind on this, which is why I feel that both sides have their heads in the sand (or perhaps, in an anatomically unlikely place... 8-) ) But the debate continues, and what so many take for granted, is not actually supported by the evidence.

There is no debate about evolution, not in science.

For an eye-opener, locate a copy of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" a nifty little book by James Hogan. He is a science/science fiction writer, and he makes a nice summary of the issues and arguments on both sides on evolution, as well as a few other 'Sacred Cows' in the science world. It is entertaining, insightful, and a good read. It may teach you that reality is a lot stranger than most folks have been lead to believe, and a whole lot more interesting!

And I would tell you to pick up a biology textbook or take a class.

Charlie

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which
opens
the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.

It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I!
Sure. Claiming the earth is flat would have evoked a similar response.

Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist
beliefs...
Too bad you're too ignorant to know what you're doing.

Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.
I'm convinced you're one ignoranant fool.

There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.
That's flat out wrong.

There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.
You're lying.

So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!
Yes, that does seem to be your creed.

But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie
So, your response to a reasoned response is "No! You're Lying!

Sure, just as if you had claimed the earth is flat. A lie is a lie. If you don't want to be called on it, there are 2 simple solutions:
1. Don't lie. 2. Don't post.
I don't believe it!" and my point is made. I am not lying, I am far from ignorant, but my foolishness is somewhat open for debate! 8-) Yours, unfortunately, is quite apparent.
I actually have an open mind on this, which is why I feel that both sides have their heads in the sand (or perhaps, in an anatomically unlikely place... 8-) ) But the debate continues, and what so many take for granted, is not actually supported by the evidence.
There is no debate about evolution, not in science.
For an eye-opener, locate a copy of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" a nifty little book by James Hogan. He is a science/science fiction writer, and he makes a nice summary of the issues and arguments on both sides on evolution, as well as a few other 'Sacred Cows' in the science world. It is entertaining, insightful, and a good read. It may teach you that reality is a lot stranger than most folks have been lead to believe, and a whole lot more interesting!
And I would tell you to pick up a biology textbook or take a class.
So, you have high school biology and Bio 101, so you now know what the

state of the art is in evolutionary theory, right! LOL! If you look into the FACTS, and not what you just happen to believe, you will find out that there is a LOT of debate about evolution, and not just of the creationist/evolutionist variety. Even withing the evolutionist camp, there are plenty of questions and arguments on what happened, when did it happen, and how did it happen, even Why? did it happen. You are probably just not aware of it, because the PC line says "It's a Fact! There is No Discussion! Evolution just IS!" Sorry, again, I am not lying, as much as the fact that I disagree with you must anger you.
But this is not the issue here. We are talking about hydrogen, and the fact that it just ain't gonna happen. Again, facts is facts!
Charlie

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

Charlie Edmondson wrote:

But this is not the issue here. We are talking about hydrogen, and the fact that it just ain't gonna happen. Again, facts is facts!

Cuz you said so!
<plonk>
http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote: In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which
opens
the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.

It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I!
Sure. Claiming the earth is flat would have evoked a similar response.

Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist
beliefs...
Too bad you're too ignorant to know what you're doing.

Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.
I'm convinced you're one ignoranant fool.

There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.
That's flat out wrong.

There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.
You're lying.

So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!
Yes, that does seem to be your creed.

But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie
So, your response to a reasoned response is "No! You're Lying!

Sure, just as if you had claimed the earth is flat. A lie is a lie. If you don't want to be called on it, there are 2 simple solutions:
1. Don't lie. 2. Don't post.
I don't believe it!" and my point is made. I am not lying, I am far from ignorant, but my foolishness is somewhat open for debate! 8-) Yours, unfortunately, is quite apparent.
I actually have an open mind on this, which is why I feel that both sides have their heads in the sand (or perhaps, in an anatomically unlikely place... 8-) ) But the debate continues, and what so many take for granted, is not actually supported by the evidence.
There is no debate about evolution, not in science.
For an eye-opener, locate a copy of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" a nifty little book by James Hogan. He is a science/science fiction writer, and he makes a nice summary of the issues and arguments on both sides on evolution, as well as a few other 'Sacred Cows' in the science world. It is entertaining, insightful, and a good read. It may teach you that reality is a lot stranger than most folks have been lead to believe, and a whole lot more interesting!
And I would tell you to pick up a biology textbook or take a class.
So, you have high school biology and Bio 101, so you now know what the state of the art is in evolutionary theory, right!

Obviously a lot more than you do.

LOL! If you look into the FACTS, and not what you just happen to believe, you will find out that there is a LOT of debate about evolution,


The details, maybe, but not that evolution is a fact.

and not just of the creationist/evolutionist variety. Even withing the evolutionist camp, there are plenty of questions and arguments on what happened, when did it happen, and how did it happen, even Why? did it happen.


Yes, but not that evolution is a fact.

You are probably just not aware of it, because the PC line says "It's a Fact! There is No Discussion! Evolution just IS!" Sorry, again, I am not lying, as much as the fact that I disagree with you must anger you.
But this is not the issue here. We are talking about hydrogen, and the fact that it just ain't gonna happen. Again, facts is facts!
Charlie

Why the hydrogen economy is self-ridiculing

I've been accused of ridiculing the hydrogen economy, but the simple fact is that the hydrogen economy is inherently self-ridiculing.
Here is why the emperor has no clothes...
~ No large net energy source of hydrogen is known. that is conveniently reachable.
~ Hydrogen on earth is only an energy carrier or transfer system. You first have to fill it with energy before you can empty it.
~ Hydrogen is inherently a pollution amplifier that INCREASES the pollution of its underlying net energy sources. It is utterly ludicrous to claim that hydrogen is in any manner "non polluting".
~ The energy density by volume of hydrogen is absurdly low, typically being 1/3000th that of gasoline. Known methods of increasing the density such as liquification or pressurization raise major and unresolved safety, efficiency, and cost amortization problems while still falling far short of gasoline energy density.
~ The energy density by weight of hydrogen is a useless measure of no terrestral consequency whatsoever. The CONTAINED energy density by weight is much worse than gasoline. While improving gasoline to the theoretical hydrogen density would only have negligible advantages.
~ Virtually ALL commercial hydrogen is produced by the reformation of methane. Hydrogen is thus inherently a product and service of "big oil". One that is certain to increase foreign oil dependency.
~ The explosive range of hydrogen is among the widest known and its spark trigger energy is exceptionally low. Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible flame. No colorant or odorant solutions are presently known.
~ Electrolysis is wildly and totally unsuitable for the production of bulk energy hydrogen because a kilowatt hour of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas. Thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy absolutely and positively guarantee that electrolysis will forever remain the equivalent of 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos. There ALWAYS will be more intelligent things to do with electricity than instantly and irrecoverably destroying most of its energy quality and value. Especially from grid or pv sources.
~ There is only one known method of creating a hydrogen product of acceptable convenience and safety. And that is by carbon hydride bonding to form such liquids as iso-octane or heptane. At present, "carbon neutral" fuels appear to have overwhelming advantages over "carbon free" ones.
~ There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. The gasoline also offers four times the energy density by weight. And has no frostbite or blindness safety issues.
~ Many metals will self-destruct if placed in contact with hydrogen through a process called embrittlement.
~ Any fuel solution of lower energy density will have a compounding infrastructure effect where more product has to be shipped and stored, thus intrinsically making its costs noncompetitive. For instance, pipelines are ridiculously more efficient at dealing with conventional hydrocarbon products than hydrogen.

Additional info and live links at http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu05.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.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

Why Lancaster is self-ridiculing -- http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Ba

Don Lancaster wrote:

I've been accused of ridiculing the hydrogen economy, but the simple fact is that the hydrogen economy is inherently self-ridiculing.
Here is why the emperor has no clothes...
~ No large net energy source of hydrogen is known. that is conveniently reachable.

The Sun is 90% hydrogen and it reaches all the way to Mars to keep the Rover Robot explorers going and going and going. The Oceans covering 70% of Earths surface are made of Hydrogen and Oxygen -- one-ninth Hydrogen by weight
The way to connect the sun to electrolysis of water has been figured out by the bright guys at the US Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Labs. They published a map showing how little of the lands are needed to be covered with photovoltaics to provide all the Hydrogen needed to replace Coa for electric generation and replace oil for motor fuel.
View this MAP here: http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html

~ Hydrogen on earth is only an energy carrier or transfer system. You first have to fill it with energy before you can empty it.

The same is true for every fuel known, except Natural Gas. Oil is useless in its natural form. It has to go through extensive transformations to be made useful. It has to be drilled, pumped, containerized, shipped, and then refined with monsterous industrial complex plants made of bewildering mazes of pipes before one single useful drop of gasoline is produced. Oil pipelines and refineries cost millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars before you get the very first drop of useful gasoline.
Gasoline is an energy carrier for oil. And modern gasoline requires being filled with HYDROGEN before the octane is high enough to be useful. Oil refinries make Hydrogen every single day to fill gasoline with Hydrogen. 35% of the national Hydrogen Economy infrastructure already exists at oil refineries. They have decades of experience making it and using it safely. Oil refineries pioneered the safety codes that ill be used nationwide in safe use of Hydrogen.

~ Hydrogen is inherently a pollution amplifier that INCREASES the pollution of its underlying net energy sources. It is utterly ludicrous to claim that hydrogen is in any manner "non polluting".

This is a bogus statement made by a chronic liar.
Photovoltaics (PV) produce energy from the sun. All the big pollution is at the sun, 93,000,000 miles away, and there's nothing anybody can do about that pollution -- use it or refuse it, the level of pollution at the sun does not go up or down.
PV makes power to make more PV. There are dirty way to make PV and clean ways. Liars like to hide the clean ways and point only to the dirty ways. All of the PV needed in the world can be made through the clean ways, and environmental laws someday will ban the dirty ways. People like Lancaster actually thwart to movement to the clean PV by lying about the differences.

~ The energy density by volume of hydrogen is absurdly low, typically being 1/3000th that of gasoline. Known methods of increasing the density such as liquification or pressurization raise major and unresolved safety, efficiency, and cost amortization problems while still falling far short of gasoline energy density.

Nobody cares about the energy density. They want to know three things: (1) Can I afford to fill my tank, (2) How far will I go on a full tank, (3) How often do I have to fill the tank.
Most people would enjoy going back to the old days of Full-serve filling stations, like Oregon requires every filling station in the state. That won't happen. People have to learn to fuel with Hydrogen the same way they once had to learn how to fuel with gasoline for themselves.
Gasoline has safety problems. Gasoline vapors catch fire at lower temperatures and the vapors are explosive at lower limits in the air than Hydrogen. People blow themselves up at gasoline filling stations using cell phones while filling their gasoline tank. People have blown themselves up from static electricity sparks filling gas cans that were nt grounded but were in pickup truck beds.
All fuels are powerful -- that's why we buy them. All fuels have dangers. Hydrogen is a bit different, but no more dangerous than any other fuel.

~ The energy density by weight of hydrogen is a useless measure of no terrestral consequency whatsoever. The CONTAINED energy density by weight is much worse than gasoline. While improving gasoline to the theoretical hydrogen density would only have negligible advantages.

Nobody cares about the energy weight. They want to know three things: (1) Can I afford to fill my tank, (2) How far will I go on a full tank, (3) How often do I have to fill the tank.

~ Virtually ALL commercial hydrogen is produced by the reformation of methane. Hydrogen is thus inherently a product and service of "big oil". One that is certain to increase foreign oil dependency.

Methane is not OIL, it is the main fuel in Natural Gas. Even oil refineries sometimes use natural gas to reform methane for adding hydrogen to gasoline to give it more octane.
The argument is Bogus anyway, because the H2-PV solution bypasses methane, oil and natural gas and turns 2.5 gallons of plain water into one gallon-equivilent of hydrogen fuel using nothing but clean olar power. Solar power as wind may be used, or solar power as photovoltaics may be used, or concentrated solar power as heat may be used.
The US has sufficient oil for lubricants and other chemicals made out of oil, and biomass oil can replace those stocks eventually. OIL is too valuable to burn.

~ The explosive range of hydrogen is among the widest known and its spark trigger energy is exceptionally low. Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible flame. No colorant or odorant solutions are presently known.

Lies. The lower flamability limit on Hydrogen virtually insure that Hydrogen will burn before an explosive quantity can be formed. Pure hydrogen will extinguish a flame, because pure hydrogen does not burn in the absense of oxygen.
Hydrogen rises very fast, and that prevents explosive quantities from congregating in outdoors conditions. The few explosions from Hydrogen have occurred indoors, at some fertilizer plants inside process containers, and inside run-amuck nuclear reactors. Outdoors explosions have not often happened in the 80 years people have been making large amounts of hydrogen for fertilizer use through the Haber-Bosch process.
Fertilizers are the biggest users of Hydrogen and millions of tons of hydrogen have been produced every year since World War I. Every country makes hydrogen as the first step towards economic development -- you can tell how far industrially advanced any country is by the amounts of hydrogen they make.

~ Electrolysis is wildly and totally unsuitable for the production of bulk energy hydrogen because a kilowatt hour of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a kilowatt hour of unstored hydrogen gas.

Kilowatthours are not transportation fuel except in low-range electric cars. A tank of kilowatt hours gets you 60 miles. A modern tank of Hydrogen can get you hundreds of miles. Which do you prefer -- being stranded out of power 60 miles from home with lots of kilowatt hours at home, or would you rather have the power to drive home on hydrogen?

Thermodynamic fundamentals involving exergy absolutely and positively guarantee that electrolysis will forever remain the equivalent of 1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican pesos.

LANCASTER HAS A FIXATION ON PESOS.
That doesn't make him true.
Thermodynamics makes hydrogen plentiful and cheap if you know more than he knows. Lots of people know more than he knows. The US govt is moving to Hydrogen, and California is building the Hydrogen Highway, because they know more than Lancaster knows about Hydrogen.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://h2-pv.us/H2/

Charlie Edmondson writes:

For an eye-opener, locate a copy of "Kicking the Sacred Cow" a nifty little book by James Hogan. He is a science/science fiction writer, and

James Hogan has been devoured by the brain eater. * -- * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something like corkscrews.

Why Lancaster is self-ridiculing -- http://h2-pv.us/H2/H

Old Sparky responded:

The US govt is moving to Hydrogen, and California is building the Hydrogen Highway

Shine the light on me, Sparky. If photo-volatics are as wonderful as you claim, then why is it the US Govt and the CA State Govt putting taxpayer money into photovoltaics? Why aren't private citizens busily buying up photovoltaics, the way we bought up personal computers, DVDs, and cell phones? Why aren't governments slapping big taxes on photovoltaics, to make sure that they get their share? (Governments are going to need the money, as heavily-taxed oil goes away).
Could it be something to do with the limited feasibility of photovoltaics at the current level of technology?
And why are you wasting your time with outdated photovoltaics instead of going for the mother-lode -- direct carbon-neutral synthetic photosynthesis of hydrocarbon liquid fuels? Now there is something that needs research money. Even we taxpayers might approve of the Govt putting our money into that project.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

It is interesting to note that when NASA sent a satelite to Pluto.A hydrogen fuel cell was not used for power on the satelite........and that the manned flights beyond the space station are not slated to use hydrogen.
"Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote in message Once again Lancaster has demonstrated he cannot click the links and read the references. Will somebody please show Lancaster basic computer literacy?
Don Lancaster wrote:

Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote
BUNCHES OF TOTAL BULLSHIT LINKS TO HYDROGEN SAFETY
Find ONE working hazmat specialist anyplace anytime who is not scared shitless of hydrogen.
Minimimum DOT orange book daytime nonwind evacuation distance is 2600 feet from any occupied structure.

Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Palaces4People/message/1233
HTML web version http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html 251 kb
My archives or original PDF: http://h2-pv.us/H2/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Description.pdf 549 kb
Author's original http://www.hydrogensafety.info/resources/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Descripti... 549 kb
Similar - related: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535be.pdf http://www.energieportal24.de/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&l...
http://www.h2education.com/index.php/sID/4e43b92b/tID/b68e8eca/fuseac...
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=482
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php Is Hydrogen Dangerous?
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety-1.htm Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn't survive a single one of these tests.
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6-2002/22966.html At the end of the 1950s, Lockheed Aerospace carried out experiments to test detonation properties of liquid hydrogen (LH2). In a series of 61 tests, where LH2 in thermoses were put under great physical stresses (such as crushing the thermos with a heavy object), there was never a case of detonation as a result of the direct blows. Only in two of the tests - using large amounts of liquid oxygen and a heavy explosive discharge - was it possible to detonate the hydrogen. The conclusion from these tests were that hydrogen is difficult to detonate in open air, and that it is a relatively safe fuel compared to other alternatives.
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/feb02/features/fillerup/fillerup... Quantum verified the Tri-Shield's toughness by conducting a series of rigorous tests under auspices of the European Union's European Integrated Hydrogen Project. The tests were completed last November. Manufacturers of storage cylinders must pass the tests to be able to make and sell hydrogen storage cylinders in Europe.
"These tests included placing the cylinder in a crash car, firing armor-piercing bullets at it, dropping the cylinder from six feet onto a concrete surface, placing it in a diesel fire, cycling it thousands of times, and subjecting the cylinder to extreme cold and to corrosive liquids encountered in automotive environments, such as battery acids, saltwater, brake oils, and methanols," explained Neel Sirosh, a mechanical engineer and director of fuel storage systems at Quantum.
http://www.commutercars.com/h2/ Hydrogen Safety Many people are concerned with hydrogen's safety. And with good reason. Hydrogen is a fuel and is therefore combustible. Its combustion properties deserve the same caution any fuel should be given (NHA Handling). Hydrogen has been suffering an image problem since the Hindenburg tragically caught fire and burned in New Jersey in 1937. (There were 62 survivors and 35 fatalities; 27 of the deaths resulted from jumping from the airship. Some died from burns and injuries caused by the diesel fuel fire, not from the burning hydrogen (Nadis and MacKenzie 86; MacKenzie 69).) "Fortunately, . . . 'hydrogen is not a particularly dangerous fuel.' If it leaks or spills, hydrogen disperses and evaporates much faster than gasoline, which minimizes the explosion hazard" (Nadis and MacKenzie 86). "The hazards of hydrogen are different from but not greater than those of conventional fuels" (Williams 23). Hydrogen can be and has been handled carefully and safely, just like any other inherently dangerous fuel such as gasoline (Zygmont 20). Hydrogen tanks have been put through series of demanding safety tests. They have been completely engulfed in flames at over 1,650F for up to 70 minutes, perforated by solid objects (such as armor-piercing bullets), and squeezed until they break with safety valves completely blocked. Sometimes the gas leaked out, sometimes it burnt, but it never exploded (Edwards 42).
http://www.esdjournal.com/articles/blame.htm The Hindenburg: Was Hydrogen Really To Blame?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Energy, oil and gas > Energy

Travelers and hotels or travel site. Flights by vacation and cars.