<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The false hope of a hydrogen economy is on its death bed]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by H24U2 http://www.grist.org/article/California-Hydrogen-Highway-R.I.P.-/ Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:27:53 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/California-Hydrogen-Highway-R.I.P.-/1 Romm,
You are a fraud! You're on a mission to destroy renewable sustainable hydrogen. Not because it is not doable, (it is very doable), not because it is not sustainable (cause it is the only completely sustainable and viable alternative), not because it is economically viable, (it is ultimately the only model that get's less expensive the more you use), not because it is not operationally viable (it is more operationally viable than any other alternative). No, none of those reasons at all. No environmental reason, no economical reason, no scientific reason. No, it is personal for you, isn't it Mr. Romm.


And who do you think you are telling everyone "I have explained at length many times why the first car of child born in 2003-or the last car, for that matter-will not be a hydrogen fuel cell car, most notably in my best selling book, The Hype About Hydrogen." You couldn't explain your way out of a paper bag. You aren't qualified even to write that book, since you have never conducted any validated comprehensive research in the field.


When you were working for the DOE, you saw your budget cut and hydrogen's budget increased. That's it! It is as simple as that. That hurt your career path. You are angry for personal reasons, and in your petty revenge have gone on an inquisition-like crusade to destroy hydrogen technologies and projects to get back at those that prospered from that funding.


You saw batteries languishing, and hydrogen/fuel cells moving forward, and that angered you. After several billions of dollars wasted on batteries (you say $2 billion spent on hydrogen, chicken feed compared to battery R & D), batteries were not meeting the customer demands, and never will.

You just love to keep on bringing up George Bush_t and that state of the union speech were he mentions hydrogen. You do that to gin up the environmental community into believing that hydrogen is bad for the environment, because most of them are lacking the scientific aptitude to understand the technology and what the advocates are proposing, and if Bush_t says it must be bad. What about dirty batteries? If batteries are charged by fossil fuel generated power, then are not the batteries dirty? More than you know, since most of your BEVs will be charged by coal! They are enablers of fossil fuel. That is what George Bush_t was promoting, fossil fuels and nuclear power.


It is no wonder that oil companies and fossil fuel developers are shying away from hydrogen, because it is clear that the only viable hydrogen that will succeed must be clean sustainable renewable hydrogen, and that will end their monopoly on energy, which they have been working the last 30 years to prevent. Because they know that H2 is the only alternative that can put an end to this energy merry-go-round. You see it is easy to require that the corner gas station use renewable energy to produce hydrogen. You can regulate it and legislate that. It would be easy to monitor and implement. You can't do that with battery chargers. You can't legislate that everyone must purchase clean renewable energy for their homes, unless you outlaw petroleum energy usage (love to imagine it, but unrealistic, as most of even the most adamant BEV supporters will likely concede). This will lead to more fossil fuel usage to meet that off-peak demand for fossil fuels, also requiring significant residential infrastructure upgrading, costing many billions of dollars. Oh, and good buy to the off-peak pricing. Now it will be 24 hr peak.
Many of the people you quote above aren't even marginal leaders and advocates in the field. They are the godless bureaucrats and fossil fuel shills, doing the oil company's, fossil fuel, and battery industries bidding, just like you. That's all there is to that. Nothing that they are saying is anything new. They always have talked down the promise of renewable hydrogen. There is plenty of room for plug-in and regular hybrids! They run even cleaner, further and more sustainably with hydrogen than with fossil fuels. And easily convertible.

If your quote of Achtelik is correct, ("If all the cars were there that would be needed for the infrastructure, then the stations would be there," Achtelik said.), then he is in fantasy land. Unless the oil companies decide to finance their own demise (and, you know they won't do that), the only way is for government to fund it and/or, as long as the gas station is the gatekeeper for alternative fuels, require gas station outlets to allow other contractors come in and install alternative fueling systems. What does he think is going to happen, that fueling stations will just magically appear if the auto companies just manufacture the vehicles? That people will buy them without fueling stations in place to fuel them, or that they will just install their own?


Now Roy Kim seems to understand the issue of fueling infrastructure:
"But Kim sees reason for optimism, with General Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Daimler AG moving closer to putting hydrogen cars in the hands of customers. Once the Honda Clarity or GM Equinox catches on, the stations will come, he argued."


The best you can come up with in response is:
"Not."
You sound more like a pre-pubescent teen. That is clearly about your speed.


And who are these so-called 99.99% of energy and transportation analyst you talk about. Most of the energy analysts I have read and talked to say the renewable hydrogen paradigm is the only sustainable infrastructure for the foreseeable future.


Face it Romm. You're on a crusade against hydrogen for personal career reasons, not for the betterment of our environment or economy.

You are a fraud! And you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

h24u

 














]]> Romm,
You are a fraud! You're on a mission to destroy renewable sustainable hydrogen. Not because it is not doable, (it is very doable), not because it is not sustainable (cause it is the only completely sustainable and viable alternative), not because it is economically viable, (it is ultimately the only model that get's less expensive the more you use), not because it is not operationally viable (it is more operationally viable than any other alternative). No, none of those reasons at all. No environmental reason, no economical reason, no scientific reason. No, it is personal for you, isn't it Mr. Romm.


And who do you think you are telling everyone "I have explained at length many times why the first car of child born in 2003-or the last car, for that matter-will not be a hydrogen fuel cell car, most notably in my best selling book, The Hype About Hydrogen." You couldn't explain your way out of a paper bag. You aren't qualified even to write that book, since you have never conducted any validated comprehensive research in the field.


When you were working for the DOE, you saw your budget cut and hydrogen's budget increased. That's it! It is as simple as that. That hurt your career path. You are angry for personal reasons, and in your petty revenge have gone on an inquisition-like crusade to destroy hydrogen technologies and projects to get back at those that prospered from that funding.


You saw batteries languishing, and hydrogen/fuel cells moving forward, and that angered you. After several billions of dollars wasted on batteries (you say $2 billion spent on hydrogen, chicken feed compared to battery R & D), batteries were not meeting the customer demands, and never will.

You just love to keep on bringing up George Bush_t and that state of the union speech were he mentions hydrogen. You do that to gin up the environmental community into believing that hydrogen is bad for the environment, because most of them are lacking the scientific aptitude to understand the technology and what the advocates are proposing, and if Bush_t says it must be bad. What about dirty batteries? If batteries are charged by fossil fuel generated power, then are not the batteries dirty? More than you know, since most of your BEVs will be charged by coal! They are enablers of fossil fuel. That is what George Bush_t was promoting, fossil fuels and nuclear power.


It is no wonder that oil companies and fossil fuel developers are shying away from hydrogen, because it is clear that the only viable hydrogen that will succeed must be clean sustainable renewable hydrogen, and that will end their monopoly on energy, which they have been working the last 30 years to prevent. Because they know that H2 is the only alternative that can put an end to this energy merry-go-round. You see it is easy to require that the corner gas station use renewable energy to produce hydrogen. You can regulate it and legislate that. It would be easy to monitor and implement. You can't do that with battery chargers. You can't legislate that everyone must purchase clean renewable energy for their homes, unless you outlaw petroleum energy usage (love to imagine it, but unrealistic, as most of even the most adamant BEV supporters will likely concede). This will lead to more fossil fuel usage to meet that off-peak demand for fossil fuels, also requiring significant residential infrastructure upgrading, costing many billions of dollars. Oh, and good buy to the off-peak pricing. Now it will be 24 hr peak.
Many of the people you quote above aren't even marginal leaders and advocates in the field. They are the godless bureaucrats and fossil fuel shills, doing the oil company's, fossil fuel, and battery industries bidding, just like you. That's all there is to that. Nothing that they are saying is anything new. They always have talked down the promise of renewable hydrogen. There is plenty of room for plug-in and regular hybrids! They run even cleaner, further and more sustainably with hydrogen than with fossil fuels. And easily convertible.

If your quote of Achtelik is correct, ("If all the cars were there that would be needed for the infrastructure, then the stations would be there," Achtelik said.), then he is in fantasy land. Unless the oil companies decide to finance their own demise (and, you know they won't do that), the only way is for government to fund it and/or, as long as the gas station is the gatekeeper for alternative fuels, require gas station outlets to allow other contractors come in and install alternative fueling systems. What does he think is going to happen, that fueling stations will just magically appear if the auto companies just manufacture the vehicles? That people will buy them without fueling stations in place to fuel them, or that they will just install their own?


Now Roy Kim seems to understand the issue of fueling infrastructure:
"But Kim sees reason for optimism, with General Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Daimler AG moving closer to putting hydrogen cars in the hands of customers. Once the Honda Clarity or GM Equinox catches on, the stations will come, he argued."


The best you can come up with in response is:
"Not."
You sound more like a pre-pubescent teen. That is clearly about your speed.


And who are these so-called 99.99% of energy and transportation analyst you talk about. Most of the energy analysts I have read and talked to say the renewable hydrogen paradigm is the only sustainable infrastructure for the foreseeable future.


Face it Romm. You're on a crusade against hydrogen for personal career reasons, not for the betterment of our environment or economy.

You are a fraud! And you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

h24u

 














]]>