Version: 2008
  • On CBS MoneyWatch: 10 Most Expensive U.S. Colleges

Comments on: Priming the pump for hydrogen fuel

Start-up Ecotality taps NASA technology for a system that can feed a vehicle's fuel cell on-demand.
Images: Hydratus at work

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (54 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Primary causes of global warming ?
by enscorp March 27, 2007 6:56 AM PDT
I LOVE how CNET just jumps on the envirowhaco bandwagon and states that CO2 is a PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming, as if:

1. Global warming is a FACT - which it is NOT. The evidence does NOT support warming caused by man. the overwhelming evidence points directly at our local furnace (i.e. STAR) called the SUN.
2. That somehow man hasd caused a buildup of CO2, when this can be easily refuted with some relativel simple science measuring the comparative release of "greenhouse gasses" from volcanic eruptions. (a single LARGE eruption of an average volcano - releases more CO2 than man could muster over decades) The FACTS dont't support the "man did it" camp. Our influence contributes, but it's a TINY portion of the overall equation, amounting to less than 1/10th of 1%.

GO ahead folks, follow like the nice, docile sheeple that you are and allow this facade to lead us all towards the great Socialist police state you really want. This is all about control and power. If you can't figure it out then you deserve what's coming to you.

I'm all for preservation of resources, good stewardship of our environment, higher efficiency in energy use etc.. But let's get real. We CANNOT and will NOT ever be able to effect Earth's Global climate on a large scale unless you want to unleaseh several thousand megatons of surface nuclear detonations to create a "nuclear winter".. Beyond this, all the talk of carbon sequestration, blah, blah, blah..is just more smoke and mirrors so the average doofus can't see the power plays being made to control us. (Save the children, save Mother Earth 'Gaia'-- Hilarious)

God already foresaw this time in history.

CNET - You are hilarious. I LOVE reading this drivel as it's very entertaining. Another publication kowtowing to the New World Order freaks.

Keep up the 'good' work.

ROTFL ;-)
Reply to this comment
I love losers like you
by expatincebu March 27, 2007 7:44 AM PDT
Actually I do not, you are exactly what is wrong with the human species and why it may go extinct sooner than necessary. Every scientist in the world, except for a small handful in the employ of oil companies, states that global warming is a fact and that it is a fact it is being caused by human generation of green house gases. Volumes of research and data are published to this effect. But of course you are much smarter than all these scientist aren't you. Next you will be telling us all how the universe is only 6000 years old, people lived with dinosaurs, ad the earth is actually flat. Go ahead and wrap yourself in the warm blanket of your own ignorance and your deep trust in the fascist corporate system. Your post would be entertaining if it were not so pathetic.
View all 4 replies
That's right,
by cellojazz March 27, 2007 8:04 AM PDT
You're absolutely right, always right, obviously no one can talk you down from your moral high ground. Keep being right, because that's all that matters... how right you are. There is no way anyone on the planet knows more than you. You are supreme in your knowledge. In fact you are so right, you don't even merit the company of the rest of us mere mortals. You're rightness is so vastly superior to science and emperical evidence that obviously it is everyone else that is flawed. Keep it up, you right moraled, right thinking better than science, right minded supreme being that is so much more correct than me.
AMEN!!!!
by HalJordan March 27, 2007 8:48 AM PDT
Carbon Dioxide one of the primary causes of Global Warming? Since when?
I haven't seen a Scientific Law, just Babel, theories, first there's a Thesis then a Theory then when the Theory is proven it becomes Law, (Like Newton's Law of Gravity). All I've seen it's Crystal Ball future computer Models, that do not even take into account the past (the fact that earth has gone through cycles of Warming and Cooling before and as recent as 200 years ago).
You know Science is not up to a Vote, Science is or it isn't. It is Binary 0 or 1, it's true or not. People can say the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe like the catholic church said in the middle ages, All that it takes is an individual like Galileo, Copernicus or Columbus to prove them wrong (sometimes being laugh at or prosecuted in the process). So when I see a bunch of some called Scientist in consensus all I see is a Political issue with a Social Agenda, Not science.

Follow the Money folks, That's is what this Global Warming nonsense is all about.

P.S> By the way I should have got a Pattern 20 years ago when I had the same idea of Self contained Hydrogen Fuel generator/Engine. :)
View all 2 replies
More evidence
by enscorp March 29, 2007 10:53 AM PDT
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-03-28T214507Z_01_N28326235_RTRUKOC_0_US-CALIFORNIA-WARMING.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
by theoldsameplace June 17, 2008 1:47 PM PDT
Well enscorp sure set me straight! After 4 years of undergraduate and 4 years of post graduate education (in science) and after studying the results of decades of debate, enscorp has changed my thinking completely by reminding me that if Rush Limbaugh says it was the sun all along, who am I to judge.
Thanks, enscorp!
by chlimouj July 22, 2008 7:12 PM PDT
I might be compelled to listen to this argument if it came from people with a background in science. Real science, not sociology or political science. One thing is likely true... the Earth will recover and restore its natural cyclical balance. The only outstanding question is how many will survive the interim. 4 billion? 3 billion? I think even 3 might be generous when all is said and done, most will probably die from disease and famine in the next 200 years or so.
Hypower Fuel already has a working Hydrogen generator
by apptec March 27, 2007 7:04 AM PDT
Hypower Fuel already has a working Hydrogen generator, they are working on a webcast to showcase this technology. You can read the article at http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070322/20070322005196.html?.v=1 or go to there website at
http://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html

It should be an amazing future
Reply to this comment
600 degrees(c)?
by densbtly March 27, 2007 8:05 AM PDT
I'm sure the geniuses have figured out how to heat the magneseum / water to 1000 degrees(f)... but it would be nice to know roughy how the blast furnace/laser contraption is powered/started up?
Reply to this comment
It is simple science!
by conceptguy March 27, 2007 12:40 PM PDT
Chemical reaction of Mg and H2O create the heat to sustain the system. I imagine only a small battery needed to start vs. large bateries needed to turn over 8 cylinders. This is good science...
18 a gallon!
by rtaite March 27, 2007 9:05 AM PDT
Holy Mother of God! Ethanol is much much cheaper and ANYONE can make it. Why would we focus on magnesium aided hydrogen as an energy carrier which much cheaper and better ones exist RIGHT NOW? I mean I don't think ethanol is a cureall, but for once maybe Bush is right it is a good hedge against $4.00 a gallon gas. And it is a renewable resource as well.

Ralph
Reply to this comment
much cheaper? Anyone can make it?
by shoffmueller March 27, 2007 11:33 AM PDT
It's cheap cuz the governent subsidises it. Anyone can make it if they use fuel to grow corn, transport it, ferment it, transport the ethanol, blend it with gasoline, and transport the blend to gas stations. And for all this effort, it packs less punch in your car than a gallon of gas.

Oh, and this all affects the price of corn, which will continue to rise as demand increases. Yeah, great solution to $4.00 gas.
View reply
Maybe, but how much do you need?
by InnocentBystander March 27, 2007 11:40 AM PDT
$18 a gallon is right, but I don't think the article mentioned how much of it you need for one full tank.

If it's 5 gallons and the rest is water it's still cheaper than gas... Getting some efficiency numbers would be nice.

IB
View all 2 replies
A litre of Hydrogen is equal to a Gallon
by conceptguy March 27, 2007 12:35 PM PDT
A a litre of Hydrogen produces as much power in an fuelcell/electric motor setup as does a gallon of gas in a combustion engine!!!

Therefore a recycled cost of $2.30 for a clean non oil fuel is REALLY amazing!
too cumbersome
by lievenv March 27, 2007 9:50 AM PDT
Take a look at this beauty : http://www.theaircar.com

All you need is a solar panel to produce clean electricity for the compressor needed to fill up this beauty's tank with compressed air, cos that's what this car runs on, compressed air.
And all that comes out of the tailpipe is breathable air.

Here's a nice report on the thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

I'm getting one!
Reply to this comment
Check out Hypower fuels
by apptec March 27, 2007 1:09 PM PDT
Take a look at
http://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html
Reply to this comment
Serendipity
by NoVista March 27, 2007 3:10 PM PDT
Has anyone noticed the real estate loan data for 1948-2005 closely parallels the IPCC hockeystick curve?

And consensus is not science. Einstein said something like "It only takes ONE person to prove me wrong."
Reply to this comment
Something We Can All Agree On
by Doug Snodgrass March 28, 2007 6:33 AM PDT
The issue of global warming stirs up some strong feelings on all sides, but it would be prudent to look beyond that and realize that practically everybody has a legitimate stake in making alternative fuel technologies viable. Whether a person believes in the existence of global warming or not, all agree that we need to take care of the environment and that reducing or eliminating our dependence on foreign oil directly impacts our national security.

The Ecotality Blog discusses and argues these issues in great detail, with basically all views represented.

http://ecotalityblog.com
Reply to this comment
Let a million alt fuels flow!
by Janis Mara March 28, 2007 10:30 AM PDT
Just wanted to respond to a comment by a reader who suggested that ethanol is "much better and cheaper." Sounds like we are in agreement that it's a good idea to use alternative fuels and lessen our dependency on foreign oil, but in disagreement as to how to go about it. I'm in favor of ethanol and alternative fuels generally, but none are perfect; for example, some - including a former economist for President Clinton - fear that ethanol might cause worldwide food prices to spike (http://www.khqa.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=30855).

But if it's approached correctly, and other alternatives are used, the variety of different approaches could help solve the problem.

So, let a million (or at least a dozen or so) alternative fuels flow - including hydrogen.

Janis Mara - www.ecotality.com
Reply to this comment
Ethanol and Food
by Cpl_Punishment March 28, 2007 11:22 AM PDT
Allow me to quote from your post...
"some - including a former economist for President Clinton - fear that ethanol might cause worldwide food prices to spike"

Unlikely for several reasons:

1) The best maize for ethanol production is rarely used by humans directly as food.

2) An average box of corn-based breakfast cereal sells for about $3.50 or more, but contains less than a penny's worth of corn.

3) The amount of agricultural acreage in the USA and Canada lying fallow due to price support legislation is staggering, in many cases direct cash payments for non-production is involved. In effect you are paying to keep the price of corn artificially high. Removing price supports would offset any spike created by fuel production demands.

4) The highest and best use of a resource, i.e. it's most profitable use is generally the best policy for everybody. That an economist would forget that fundamental principle is surprising, but if said economist once worked for Clinton then it?s merely typical.
View all 2 replies
Rule One: Avoid logical errors
by Cpl_Punishment March 28, 2007 10:56 AM PDT
Allow me to quote from the article...

"producing hydrogen via conventional means generates a lot of carbon dioxide, one of the primary causes of global warming"

Please explain how there can be more than one primary cause of anything?
Reply to this comment
Read your dictionary
by muskratboy March 28, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
Primary: BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL <security is a primary need>

there is nothing in the definition of "basic, fundamental" that implies uniqueness.

also: DIRECT, FIRSTHAND

nothing exclusive there, either.

maybe focus less on perceived logical errors and go expand your vocabulary, hmmm?
View all 2 replies
by theoldsameplace June 17, 2008 2:06 PM PDT
Over time, one primary cause may be replaced by another primary cause.
It's Always Good To Have Alternatives
by Steve Caratzas March 28, 2007 6:23 PM PDT
It's clear that fossil fuels have harmed the planet in numerous ways, and that the time has come for a change.

Hydrogen has long been at the forefront of alternative fuel discussion, and it's rewarding to see it get such a positive write-up.

Let's hope this alternative fuel source is given its due.
Reply to this comment
Did I get lost?
by bejota April 25, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
Hey, I thought I was going to be reading interesting posts on Alternative energy? All I see here is a bunch of ***-for-tat discussions on Global warming and who right about the causes. who care about that...lets get to the alternative energy stuff so we can get the *ell out of Iraq and leave the Middle East region alone to sort out thier own messes for once
Reply to this comment
(54 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement