Re: Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?

#11

Centre Parting wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel-
it's expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to
store in a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to
keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of
internal combustion engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to make
it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by burning
it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-s
tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an issue
? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your mind
up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits. Go
back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually read what
I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which
spouts forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth.
This water vapor believer probably also believes that the
solution to global warming is for everyone to properly
inflate their tires - then "problem solved". Oh to be
gullible AND uninformed ... life must be blissful.

#12

In article <7d3bvkF29ucrmU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.
And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water
vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30
below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel-
it's expensive to make, dangerous to transport, difficult to
store in a car in adequate quantities. It's an attempt to
keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form of
internal combustion engine).

The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to make
it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by burning
it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?

Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researchers-s
tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers about
the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not exist on
earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm

Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that is
bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, etc.

That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.

Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?

Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an issue
? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your mind
up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.

Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits. Go
back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually read what
I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

You're obviously an intentional idiot. Go back and read. My concerns
were clearly stated. Since then you and the "Retiree" have been trying
to put words in my mouth and then acting like I said them. I have no
further time for trolls.

#13

In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous to
transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by
burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researcher
s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that
is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane,
etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your
mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global warming
is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then "problem
solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must be blissful.

Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.

#14

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous to
transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by
burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researcher
s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that
is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane,
etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your
mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global warming
is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then "problem
solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must be blissful.

Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.

LOL

#15

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre Parting"
nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous to
transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get by
burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah it's
highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike gasoline,
hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out, it rises and
dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/researcher
s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of that
is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane,
etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted water
vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric content,
speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where I
said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make your
mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global warming
is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then "problem
solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must be blissful.

Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.

I seem to recall someone raising the issue of hyrdogen-powered cars, saying
(and I quote) - "Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all."

Case closed.

#16

In article <7d485uF2a55jmU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get
by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah
it's highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike
gasoline, hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out,
it rises and dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/research
er s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of
that is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
methane, etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted
water vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric
content, speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the
issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where
I said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make
your mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the
debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.

I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global
warming is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then
"problem solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must
be blissful.

Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.

I seem to recall someone raising the issue of hyrdogen-powered cars,
saying (and I quote) - "Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse
gas, after all."

Case closed.

In your case, brain closed.

#17

Tim McNamara wrote:

Quote:

In article <7d485uF2a55jmU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get
by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah
it's highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike
gasoline, hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out,
it rises and dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/research
er s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of
that is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
methane, etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted
water vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric
content, speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the
issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where
I said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make
your mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the
debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.
I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global
warming is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then
"problem solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must
be blissful.
Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.
I seem to recall someone raising the issue of hyrdogen-powered cars,
saying (and I quote) - "Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse
gas, after all."

Case closed.

In your case, brain closed.

Now now children, nothing perpetuates an argument more than both people
being insulting.

Water vapour is perfectly harmless when in clouds in the atmosphere, in
fact more likely to cause cooling than heating, however we don't want
large amounts of it produced at ground level. I am not aware of any
studies on the potential problem this might incurr, but I can guess that
fog and ice are not good things.

I also dissagree that it is easy to store, you can store small amounts
of it but not useful amounts for any length of time. Due to thermal
expansion it has to be vented off. In all current H2 powered cars the
fuel is depleted after about 5-10 days due to venting.

#18

Tony wrote:

Quote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d485uF2a55jmU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
"Centre Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4huqh$3ej$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, Retiree
larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Centre Parting wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d2i00F29v04hU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <7d1ahjF29avjvU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>, "Centre
Parting" <nokia.account (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article <h4f1da$a83$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
Retiree <larryrfletcher (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

James Sweet wrote:
Don't want them. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after
all. And imagine the local effects of 1 million cars
spewing water vapor during rush hour. Ugh in the summer,
wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter. Hydrogen is a
non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate
quantities. It's an attempt to keep thinking inside the
box (e.g., maintaining some form of internal combustion
engine).
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel.
There is no significant natural source of it, you have to
make it, and to do that requires more energy than you get
by burning it.

Storing it isn't terribly difficult or dangerous. Yeah
it's highly flammable, but so is gasoline, and unlike
gasoline, hydrogen is lighter than air so if it gets out,
it rises and dissipates quickly.
"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" .... you are kidding that
water vapor is a problem, right?
Maybe these will help:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/29/research
er s-s tu dy-th e-other-greenhouse-gas-water-vapor/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

See this link for educational materials for pre-schoolers
about the cloud cycle. Bottom line is that life would not
exist on earth without water vapor.

http://www.first-school.ws/activities/science/drippy.htm
Perhaps you should consider trying to think in a more
sophisticated way than a preschooler.

Life also would not exist without oxygen, but too much of
that is bad for you too. Ditto carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
methane, etc.
That you seriously believe that the totality of exhausted
water vapour might even approach 0.1% of total atmospheric
content, speaks volumes about your grasp of the scale of the
issue.
Ah, another sock puppet weighs in. Just point out to me where
I said this?
Oh, so now you're denying that hydrogen-power water vapour's an
issue ? Bit of a change of tune, isn't it ?

Either it's a climate change issue or it's not. Please make
your mind up whether you're on ours or your own side of the
debate.
Once again you demonstrate your reading comprehension deficits.
Go back to the beginning and try again. Maybe you'll actually
read what I specified as my concerns about hydrogen powered cars
this time.
I recall water vapour being your concern.

But apparently, that's no longer the case - right ?

The only "water vapor" that is a global issue is that which spouts
forth from the great teleprompter reader's mouth. This water vapor
believer probably also believes that the solution to global
warming is for everyone to properly inflate their tires - then
"problem solved". Oh to be gullible AND uninformed ... life must
be blissful.
Well, would you say it's better to be an anonymous asshole who lies
about what others say? 'Cuz that's you, dude.
I seem to recall someone raising the issue of hyrdogen-powered cars,
saying (and I quote) - "Don't want them. Water vapor is a
greenhouse gas, after all."

Case closed.

In your case, brain closed.

Now now children,

What a twat!

nothing perpetuates an argument more than both

Quote:

people being insulting.

Water vapour is perfectly harmless when in clouds in the atmosphere,
in fact more likely to cause cooling than heating, however we don't
want large amounts of it produced at ground level.

And that would be because ..... ?

I am not aware of

Quote:

any studies on the potential problem this might incurr, but I can
guess that fog and ice are not good things.

I also dissagree that it is easy to store, you can store small amounts
of it but not useful amounts for any length of time. Due to thermal
expansion it has to be vented off. In all current H2 powered cars the
fuel is depleted after about 5-10 days due to venting.

#19

Centre Parting wrote:

Quote:

Tony wrote:

Water vapour is perfectly harmless when in clouds in the atmosphere,
in fact more likely to cause cooling than heating, however we don't
want large amounts of it produced at ground level.

And that would be because ..... ?

Because it would change the environment we live in, more quickly and
faster than we can adapt either our bodies or infrastructure (just like
global warming), hence we would not want to jump in without proper study.

The global warming problem has happened because we assumed the
environment was an infinite sink, or at least that we cannot
significantly affect it. Which of course cannot be true in either case,
all it takes is bigger industry and enough consumers. If I was going to
make a replacement suggestion for transporting energy I would think we
should have learnt this lesson to not just look past our own noses for
potential problems.

The problems with an H2 consumption infrastructure are many, and perhaps
the humidity worries could be removed with a simple condensing system,
however greater problems exist in the storage and conversion. For
example power cells require Platinum and if you were to try to replace
all cars with current fuels cells, there would not be enough to go around.

Generally the efficiencies do not look good, with batteries more
efficient and materials in greater supply (but not infinite either).

H2 is not currently viable and most trials seem to be winding down until
there is some breakthrough in storage and conversion technology.

--
Tony

#20

Tony wrote:

Quote:

Centre Parting wrote:

Tony wrote:

Water vapour is perfectly harmless when in clouds in the atmosphere,
in fact more likely to cause cooling than heating, however we don't
want large amounts of it produced at ground level.

And that would be because ..... ?

Because it would change the environment we live in, more quickly and
faster than we can adapt either our bodies or infrastructure

Wow.
So we'd have to evolve to cope with the water vapour ?
(Mental note to self : - Must find some time to fit in a bit more evolving
this weekend)

What a mind!

(just

Quote:

like global warming), hence we would not want to jump in without
proper study.
The global warming problem has happened because we assumed the
environment was an infinite sink, or at least that we cannot
significantly affect it. Which of course cannot be true in either
case, all it takes is bigger industry and enough consumers. If I was
going to make a replacement suggestion for transporting energy I
would think we should have learnt this lesson to not just look past
our own noses for potential problems.

The problems with an H2 consumption infrastructure are many, and
perhaps the humidity worries could be removed with a simple
condensing system, however greater problems exist in the storage and
conversion. For example power cells require Platinum and if you were
to try to replace all cars with current fuels cells, there would not
be enough to go around.
Generally the efficiencies do not look good, with batteries more
efficient and materials in greater supply (but not infinite either).

H2 is not currently viable and most trials seem to be winding down
until there is some breakthrough in storage and conversion technology.