[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

tw, you've picked the bits out that you wanted to argue and that's fine. Nowhere did I stipulate that mass production was the only way to reduce costs.

First, I solve problems by zeroing in on the irrefutable fact. Fact remains that hydrogen must be manufactured from other fuels, is so inefficient as to cause massive energy losses in transport and storage, and therefore costs a hundred times more.

You may call that selective reasoning. But I have targeted the irrefutable fallacy in your reasoning by thinking like an engineer - not like an MBA or fiction writer who failed to first do research (sometimes called an english major).

Second, you claimed costs could be reduced by mass production. Fine. Your numbers (which I had to provide) don't work. Now you claim something else can solve the problem? Fine. What? What, using basic science theory, will solve that cost problem? Problems are not solved just because you believe they can be solved or because somebody throws money at it like a grenade. That would be junk science reasoning.

If you are so sure that hydrogen costs can be reduced, then you have (at minimum) a proposal or the outline of a concept. If not, you only have what George Jr routinely uses to know Saddam had WMDs - a feeling.

Third, I am trying to separate fuel cell technology from hydrogen as a fuel. They remain different topics. For example, a fuel cell may be possible as a battery. Hydrogen has potential as a battery. That is completely different from what George Jr, et al were promoting - hydrogen as a fuel.

As The Eschaton accurately notes:

Hydrogen is not and energy source!!
Hydrogen is simply an energy storage and transmission method and a very inefficient one.

As the Sydney bus program demonstrates, hydrogen is not a viable fuel. So why are some promoting hydrogen as a fuel? Look at who is doing it - George Jr. Rick Wagoner of GM. These men have near zero grasp of reality, MBA degrees, and a long history of running unsuccessful operations.

The bottom line again: we will remain a petroleum dependent economy for many generations. No way around basic science. Petroleum simply has too much energy per pound. What else can supersede these numbers? Again, you cannot arbitrarily ignore science facts. Ignoring creates junk science reasoning which also causes the stifling of innovation.

Why do the military academies graduate everyone as an engineer? They need people who can deal with reality - not junk scientists. If hydrogen has potential as a fuel, then you can cite technical reasons why. Hydrogen cannot be a fuel only because you 'feel' it can. Provided were damning numbers based in real science. You did not even dare to touch them. Then how do you know hydrogen will work as a fuel. Business school optimism?

Ed Esber also thought optimism could solve anything. Therefore in four years, he bankrupted the nation's largest PC software manufacturer. He 'felt' rather than learn irrefutable facts.