Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Yes. And I'm not certain hydrogen can be stored safely at 10,000 psi

re: Yes. And I'm not certain hydrogen can be stored safely at 10,000 psi
Net Crank Munching Yeti — (archived)

1) I seriously doubt you are an engineer, of any type. You seem immune to directly addressing critical and practical concerns with your proposed solution. In fact, I seriously doubt you have dealt with any aspect of practical application of technology to real-world problems. If for no other reason than if you approached critical analysis of any of your designs in the way you have dealt with it here, then you would simply be laughed out of a meeting. You exhibit none of the critical professional characteristics of one who does problem solving for a living. And this is coming from somone who actually does do R&D for a living. Also, if you were an engineer, it seems like you would actually know how to use HTML to post links, or realize that you actually copied the same URL twice!

2) I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'deconstruct', as me questioning your points, posing questions of my own and pointing out reasonable problems with what you are saying (the 'green-ness' of hydrogen fuel) is not deconstruction. Furthermore, throwing links at me which again and again fail to support, illustrate or even relate to you claims is not defending your notions. The laughable disdain you demonstrate when you throw about the term 'philosophy' after I discussed my credentials in logic is entirely ironic. The basic skill taught in philosophy is the construction of arguments and the evaluation of claims- this is a skill you clearly lack, illustrated by you conflating it with 'deconstruction'. When you can't even put together a coherent defense of your claims or answer my questions in your own words, I suggest you look very silly trying to insinuate that I somehow lack the capacity or skills to understand the issue at hand.

3)The pdf you linked to (twice) is a cartoonish slide show not fit for serious discussion. More importantly It still does not address these points AT ALL:

• Source electricity: Hydrogen is only as green as the power generation method used to create the energy to 'crack' the hydrogen from some other compound
• Infrastructure Conversion: What technologies must be developed (and a what cost), and what is their cost of deployment and what is the ecological cost of 'converting' the current infrastructre
• Conversion Byproducts: Extracting hydrogen from water is ENORMOUSLY costly in terms of energy, the most likely economical candidate for hydrogen production is some complex hydrocarbon like Coal. This produces about the same amount of atospheric carbon as does BURNING the coal. Unless you use water, the hydrogen is not 'green', and if you calculate the cost-per-kilo of hydrogen based on hydrocarbon extraction, then you are really doing a FALSE comparison that simply 'hides' the carbon emmission!
• Assuming points 1 and 3 can be addressed, and you have the gren energy source to produce so much power that you can either extract the hydrogen from water or use a hydrocarbon and 'pay' the energy overhead for sequestration, why bother with hydrogen at all!? Why not simply use all that copious, cheap green electricity to power your automobiles? Why dump electricity down an entropic hole of powering the chemistry necessary to extract the hydrogen?

Can you actually answer these points- in your own words? If you were the 'Energy Expert' you claim to be, it would be easy- right? So why don't you directly adderss these problems?

DL

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (132 posts)