wytbishop wrote:Still being a bit of a d--- there aren't you? Yes I think you are.
You seem to believe your opinion of me keeps me up at night. That'd be your first mistake. I've had to deal with many like you in the past, pulling "data" right off their a55, and, when confronted, resorting to ad hominem attacks to try and save face. Sorry, it doesn't work.
wytbishop wrote:I cited an example of a mini station but in no way implied that it represents the solution to the any of the problems surrounding the issue. In fact my intent was to imply that "Hey...if you're rich you can stick a $1million mini hydrogen station in your back yard and never buy gas again." ~~insert smiley here~~ I suppose I should be more obvious. ~~insert shoulder shrug guy~~
Of course you didn't. You just cited
ONLY that example, and let everybody imply what they wanted. Skillful writing though. Just not skillful enough.
wytbishop wrote:I fail to see how "ganging up in pairs on a poor oxygen molecule" is anything but an attempt at levity.
You fail to see... That would be your second mistake.
wytbishop wrote:I think that there are 2 glaring issues surrounding alternate fuels. First, we all know and love internal combustion. It has seen us through our youth and many of us well into adulthood. We understand it and find it comforting. It works. It is natural therefore to meet any new contender with skepticism and distrust. To the point of searching for and even manufacturing flaws so that we may retreat to the comforting loving arms of our familiar internal combustion engines. Such is human nature.
That could actually be a good, compelling argument. Unfortunately, the most rejected use of hydrogen as a fuel is precisely on internal combustion engines, and rightly so, even when the use of other fuels, line CNG, ethanol, or butanol has never been disputed and CNG and ethanol have been used successfully on ICEs for decades.
You can twist it all you want, but the indisputable fact is that hydrogen is not a viable alternative fuel. It doesn't have the energy, it damages metals, it's expensive to process, and it's difficult to store, among other things, and no amount of ranting or "levity" will change that.
wytbishop wrote:The other is to assume that Honda or any other manufacturer believes that this is the car that will solve the problem and usher us into a new age of alternate fuel vehicles. It's not and I can assure you that they know it's not. If they thought that it was they would be mass producing them and pushing hydrogen fueled cars and hydrogen technology to any smog addled country on earth that would listen...and they'd get action too.
Oh, I know damn well Honda (or any other car manufacturer) doesn't believe the hype about hydrogen. But what they believe is irrelevant. It's what
customers believe that's dangerous.
As far as I'm concerned, they can try and invent a car powered by good wishes, if they feel like it.
wytbishop wrote: There's a prototype car in Japan that you pour water into the fuel tank it electrolyses it and supplies the hydrogen fuel cell and boom, you can go for like an hour on a litre of water or something. Sounds like the answer right??? So where is it? I don't know. But people are trying stuff and something's going to catch.
More BS. On board electrolysis is even less viable than hydrogen as a fuel. There are 2 options here: either you're implying that you can have a fully autonomous car that can produce its own hydrogen with the only addition of water, which is
IMPOSSIBLE, because it directly collides with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (and no amount of "outside the box thinking" can go past them), or you're talking about an externally charged electric car, that uses the electricity to produce hydrogen to then power the engine, which would be one of the stupidest ways one could possibly come up to waste energy. Simple, the car would run better by just using the electricity directly. And you, of all people, should be well aware of this. I mean, that is if you also had physics class at the university.
That, of course, assuming you didn't say it "jokingly"...
wytbishop wrote:If you want to see change you have to try stuff. It won't always work the way you thought or hoped it would, but what we're doing now isn't working either. So you try stuff and see how it goes. And that effort probably sparks new ways of thinking and who knows, maybe in 10 years you wind up with something that actually works and doesn't cook the Earth like a pot roast.
No sir. That's exactly the kind of BS the "water for fuel" crowd promotes.
If you want to see real change, you experiment things
BASED ON ACTUAL SCIENCE, not wishful thinking. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
wytbishop wrote:Now I'm going to go cry on the edge of my bed.
I think hitting a book would be a better use of your time. But that's just me...