Forgot your password?

Comment: hydrogen is for transfer (Score 1) 113

by Cardoor (#47892881) Attached to: Liquid Sponges Extract Hydrogen From Water
people should understand that re: 'hydrogen powered cars' and equipment, if the source of the hydrogen is electrolysis powered by electricity which is ITSELF sourced from traditional coal and natgas power plants, then the environmental impact is not at all the rosy scenario people wish it would be. the promise of a hydrogen economy (vis a vis being environmentally clean) is to take the green impact all the way to the sourcing of the hydrogen production stage.

the real problem with renewable energies (like solar, wind, geothermal) is that they are very dependent on being produced in the right geographic region, and energy is notoriously difficult to transfer long distances efficiently. You can't realistically expect to run a solar plant in a region that gets little sunlight (while you can build a coal or gas power plant anywhere). Running a solar or wind farm, the best you can hope for is to supply power to a particular region thats nearby, or charge up batteries which loses a LOT of energy in the transfer AND the physical transport of the (relatively heavy) batteries themselves.

hydrogen offers the promise of being a 'better battery' so to speak -hydrogen is compressible and relatively light to transport while maintaining it's energetic potential. if the efficiency of the electrolytic process can be improved as the article states (and in such a way as to compete with fossil fuels for transport)then solar and wind farms can power electrolytic processes to produce fuel that can be stored and shipped, for a truly carbon neutral impact.

Comment: Re:I work in fracking industry (Score 1) 190

by Cardoor (#47890227) Attached to: US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom
MO.. you can google search for plenty of scientific claims that run counter to the claims made by the pro-fracking community. there's clearly a lot of he-said-she-said, and obfuscation of the facts by many parties. what is worth exploring too though are the actions by the fracking companies vis-a-vis what they have done to keep information out of the public domain.. gag-orders linked to paying-off/relocating affected families. bribing town councils, paying for and pressuring research groups to come up with favorable and/or squelch unfavortable studies etc. etc. these are not the kinds of things people generally do when there is nothing to hide, at least not in such a systemic fashion. while public domain information may not get you to a level of metaphysical certitude re: the seriousness of the damage being done, at the very least there is a very serious fact pattern that points in one direction.

Comment: Re:Whenever I read stuff like this (Score 1) 222

by Cardoor (#47889329) Attached to: U.S. Threatened Massive Fine To Force Yahoo To Release Data
a piece of paper never has nor will it ever have power. it is only a physical manifestation of a broader reality which may or may not be in-line with the written word. i think the bigger question it raises is, were we ever really 'free'? or were certain things just 'permitted' so long as they didn't represent a threat to the extant power structure?

Comment: good ad for apple (Score 1) 400

ESPN's Trent Dilfer joked about how long it took Cardinals assistant head coach Tom Moore to "learn how to use the iPad to scroll through the pictures."

apple should issue a statement that Dilfer misspoke, and how it was actually a surface tablet. and add, that were it an actual easy to use ipad, Tom Moore would likely have not had any problems figuring it out.

Comment: Re:genuine question (Score 1) 482

by Cardoor (#47879035) Attached to: To Really Cut Emissions, We Need Electric Buses, Not Just Electric Cars
thanks dp - im appreciative of your response (and your posts in general that ive read) - but i think you're missing the point i was alluding to, which is getting back to the net impact coming from baseload generation- beyond transportation efficiency into net total eco impact.

it just seems to me that people are getting distracted by the promise of EV being so much cleaner, that they are not clued into the misdirection going on re: the impacts of fracking (which are only growing) to generate the baseload necessary to ultimately run it (and can be multiples more eco harmful that even coal, soup to nuts). I was hoping there was some similar analysis done comparing fracking+EV to oil+std-car on a soup to nuts basis,. from extraction of energy to ultimate car expenditure.

i guess what i'm saying is that it's great that people are so siked by the promise of ev, but to the extent that buying a tesla (or some other such anecdotally equivalent action) 'solves the problem' for them personally and takes away from the urgency of the larger situation, i am concerned.

Comment: genuine question (Score 1) 482

by Cardoor (#47870375) Attached to: To Really Cut Emissions, We Need Electric Buses, Not Just Electric Cars
has anything really changed re: tesla on the actual net pollution front? last i checked in, while electric cars 'burn clean', so long as the power that comes to the car from the 'wall socket' is still generated by either burning coal or natural gas which was most likely produced by fracking (which releases escape methane and is 10s of times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2).

is there any legitimate data on the net benefits (if any) of switching to electric cars taking into account the methane impacts of fracking on the greenhouse situation? without that, the whole electric cars as a solution seems like more PR and hype (granted, hype that will no doubt make a lot of people very rich) than something that gives people (san franciscan's in particular according to south park) a reason to feel smug.

or is it more about reducing dependence on cheap oil, and thus, to theoretically at least give america less of a reason for meddling in the ME?

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. -- Elbert Hubbard