Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony
>>"Hydrogen is not a method to store energy H4rmony and I never said it was, it is a gas that burns with an almost invisible flame and has no odor."
So did you just out yourself as the AC I replied to? Well anyway, they or you wrote that Hydrogen gives back less energy than it takes to "produce" it. I pointed out that this is true of all the methods of storing energy that we have. And yes, Hydrogen is a method of storing energy. You can't be that dense. Unless you think that a battery is not a means of storing energy but just lithium, a silvery-white metal with a high reactivity.
You're also aware, since you bring up "burning", that Hydrogen Fuel Cells don't use combustion, I hope. No hydrogen is "burned".
>>"You continually offer the use of hydrogen as a "solution" to our energy needs,
I haven't done that even once. Your comprehension of my post is dreadful. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a way of storing it. Use electricity to produce it, instead of charging up a heavy battery with a very limited lifespan or pumping water uphill or whatever other means of storing energy you care to name. And then use a fuel cell to get the energy back later.
I have proposed nuclear as the "solution" (your extreme interpretation of my position, btw), possibly with solar alongside. These are the ways to meet our energy needs and replace fossil fuels. I'll repeat, since you got it wrong in the very first line of your post - hydrogen is a way of storing energy.
Most of the rest of your post is various facts you seem to have Google'd up but don't have the familiarity with to understand the context. For example your confident assertions about how hydrogen couldn't be stored in a car or how it would explode in Texas. You realize that Toyota are mass-producing a hydrogen car, yes? And that this is a road-legal vehicle in the USA (including Texas, you know). You dig up random bits of information to try and prove something can't be done even whilst it's happening! Example: you confidently assert "At room temperature, liquid hydrogen tanks must be vented or they will explode". What, any tank? Regardless of thickness / material / manufacturing process? Have you any idea how stupid what you've just said is? I'll tell you exactly what has happened here. Of course you know, but I want you to know how obvious it is to everyone else as well - you have gone to a search engine and typed in phrases like "hydrogen tank" and "temperature" and "explode" and found someone who makes hydrogen tanks that have to be refrigerated and then come back saying "Ah ha! Hydrogen tanks explode if they're not vented!". You'd better go and tell engineers who have built cars that run on hydrogen that their cars can only run in sub-zero temperatures. Because apparently you know better than them.
>>"the electrical energy it takes to do so, is enormous compared to the process of combustion. It takes more energy to produce Hydrogen than you can ever get in return.
Ah, I knew you thought hydrogen vehicles worked on combustion. You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact there are two things wrong with the above. Firstly, the obvious fact that you're talking about combustion which has - let me emphasize this - NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Secondly, that your objection is that you get less energy out than you put in. It is a STORAGE medium. You get less energy out than you put in with any energy storage mechanism whether that be even the best batteries, pumping water up hill or anything else. You're condemning hydrogen for not breaking the laws of physics!
>>"Since you OBVIOUSLY can't understand, check the following link"
I think I've figured out the search terms you used - you just typed in "hydrogen safety" didn't you? Your link is one of the first results for this. You might have copied selected parts from this link for your post but you plainly haven't understood it yourself (whilst asserting that I "can't understand"). For example, you talk about how you couldn't have a car in Texas that uses hydrogen because when it got hot it would explode. Your own link shows that hydrogen has an autocombust temperature over twice that of gasoline vapour.. It gets better. You use an argument about how you wouldn't want to smoke around a hydrogen truck. Well no, that would be a safety violation but again, your own link shows that hydrogen has a vapour density of less than 3% that of gasoline vapour. In fact it's about 7% that of air. You know what that means? It means smoking around a hydrogen truck is safer than smoking around a propane tank or a gasoline tank. Because whilst both of those are denser than air and will linger, hydrogen will disperse faster than any other gas. I mean smoking around either is silly but your own argument is shot down by your own link because you have not understood what you are saying.
>>"As Hydrogen is not the best choice, then the only alternative gas is CNG or LNG. Both are being used as fuel right now and are far cleaner and safer than hydrocarbon liquid fuels like gasoline or kerosene."
They're not cleaner - the output of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Safer is a relative thing - both are combustible materials but there are strong reasons why hydrogen can actually be safer, e.g. you never need to deliberately burn it and it disperses upwards immediately. In either case, both require sensible safety measures but the point is that hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas and in some ways safer. But the simple fact that you call the gas cleaner shows how very little you understand.
I honestly prefer arguing with Trevor Potts as at least he makes factual arguments and valid points even if accompanied by violent threats. You however, reach depths of ignorance I did not know existed. How you can know so little and yet not be aware of your own ignorance is a mystery that may never be solved. Go and inhale some hydrogen - it might increase the density of your head a little.