JTiger Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What exactly is methanol?

As for hydrogen, when I hear that all I think is Hindenburg. probably irrational, but the buying public is often irrational.

What do you think gasoline is? It's another flammable material.

It is quite irrational to always link hydrogen with the Hindenburg. Just think if it was filled with gasoline.

Hey, JTiger, look about 5 posts above and you will see that I responded before you even posted. Eerie, huh?

Additional response:
Of course it is irrational to always link hydrogen with the Hindenburg, but I bet if you tried doing a word association test with hundreds of ordinary people on the street, you would get a lot of "hydrogen....Hindenburg". Not as much as "salt....pepper", but a lot more than "gasoline....explosion". Just saying a PR job will have to be done for Hydrogen powered vehicles.

For the record, from now on I will always associate hydrogen with H2O. Nothing irrational about that.

blah Wrote:Well there is still Deutrium and Tritium, so there are more than enough isotopes to go around...

Yeah, but I don't think we're going to be using either of those to power cars any time soon! ;-)

SouthGAEagle Wrote:

blah Wrote:Well there is still Deutrium and Tritium, so there are more than enough isotopes to go around...

Yeah, but I don't think we're going to be using either of those to power cars any time soon! ;-)

damn i wanted to go to warp in my lifetime. ;-)

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What exactly is methanol?

As for hydrogen, when I hear that all I think is Hindenburg. probably irrational, but the buying public is often irrational.

Maybe you should think of the white fluffy clouds that come out of the space shuttle, instead? Perhaps Natural Gas powered vehicles are a more appropriate analogy, but I don't think perception will enough to be a deterrent (certainly not as opposed to practicality/technology/availability).

Supposedly, there is a massive amount of methane trapped in polar ice and/or the oceans. One of the concerns (for me, of unknown credibility/probability) with global warming is that all of this methane may be released and burn into the atmosphere, basically accelerating the process with disastrous results. And, supposedly, you can see methane burn as it is released from ice off of the coast of Labrador (NewFoundland?).

There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

When we eventually turn to hydrogen for our cars it won't be a gas or a liquid; both are already not dense enough, liquid hydrogen isn't economical, and both are dangerous. We will use porous organo-metallic materials which "hold" hydrogen and can be refilled.


don't get too excited yet, this is still at least a decade or two away

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

The concerns of lost water are exaggerated to say the least. Industrial use has not been a problem for water access in general, except for dry areas like the desert SW.

I think the skepticism of the source is warranted in this case.

The real problem for water supplies in the E and midwest, would be contamination. This could be readily solved if the EPA had real guidelines for innovation. Instead they have tomes of how water treatment looked in the past...very little on true requirements.

Quote:My agrument is not that hydrogen is/will be less safe( I have no idea), just that it will have to overcome an image - and the poster child for that image is the Hindenburg. If hydrogen use becomes a debate, look for the Hindenburg to be on posters and placards.

Agreed, some people will use anything remotely negative to smear any possible positives. Look at nuclear power, or for a more recent example, wind power and bird migration. I'd like to know how many birds are killed by wind generators versus how many are killed by the pollutants that come from coal and oil (but that's another thread).

Quote:When we eventually turn to hydrogen for our cars it won't be a gas or a liquid; both are already not dense enough, liquid hydrogen isn't economical, and both are dangerous. We will use porous organo-metallic materials which "hold" hydrogen and can be refilled.

Do you know of a good web resource for reading up on this? I'm going to plug what I think is a good resource for science information: http://scienceblogs.com/.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Do you know of a good web resource for reading up on this? I'm going to plug what I think is a good resource for science information: http://scienceblogs.com/.

This one is pretty good

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

There may be another one (or it may be this one) I'll have to track it down.

I also read this regularly

http://www.aip.org/pnu/

obviously its scope is limited.

Can't say as I'm impressed w/ your blog site. Sorry, but it's amateurish and typically inflammatory.

Some of the bloggers on scienceblogs can be inflammatory, but there is a lot of good science there and they write for people who are not scientists. I think the inflammatory discussion comes from the fact that many of the bloggers do not limit themselves to just science, but also deal with politics, religion, law etc.. That's why I posted this here, I figured it would be right up the alley of some posters here. ;-)

Science Daily looks like a good site, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Some of the bloggers on scienceblogs can be inflammatory, but there is a lot of good science there and they write for people who are not scientists. I think the inflammatory discussion comes from the fact that many of the bloggers do not limit themselves to just science, but also deal with politics, religion, law etc.. That's why I posted this here, I figured it would be right up the alley of some posters here. ;-)

Science Daily looks like a good site, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I found the other one

http://www.livescience.com/

It has had some very well written articles in the past few weeks. I won't vouch for all of its content, but I have read some good ones here.

I used to read livescience (part of space.com), but I didn't care for their interface and that has really kept me from going back regularly.

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Slightly

Even the Great Lakes levels are dropping(from what I have heard). Here is a group who is working on the Great Lakes issue.

http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/legal.asp

DrTorch Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

The concerns of lost water are exaggerated to say the least. Industrial use has not been a problem for water access in general, except for dry areas like the desert SW.

I think the skepticism of the source is warranted in this case.

The real problem for water supplies in the E and midwest, would be contamination. This could be readily solved if the EPA had real guidelines for innovation. Instead they have tomes of how water treatment looked in the past...very little on true requirements.

It is sad when I read posts like yours. I see your posts as: Me, me, me and now, now, now rather than thinking about a few generations down the road.

I thought you right wingers didn't like the EPA and you should be able to do whatever you want to do on your property?

DrTorch Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ZippyRulz Wrote:There's still a whole lot of water in Lakes Michigan and Superior (probably about the same amount as there was before any US/Canadian industrialization/population growth began )...maybe a good area to locate water-intensive industries as opposed to Texas or Nevada. I still find it amusing that a Texas newspaper wants to throw a wet blanket on alternative fuels and promote pumping more oil instead...go figure. Maybe they're worried less oil use will put a big dent in their economy and they'll have a hard time affording enough water since they've just about run out.

Ah, I see your problem now. Wish i had read it in the Des Moines paper, so you would stop worrying about the source and start thinking of the content. To me, the important thing is to understand the plusses and minuses of ethanol before getting on (or off) the bandwagon. The article started me wondering, that's all, and it would have no matter what paper it was printed in.

The concerns of lost water are exaggerated to say the least. Industrial use has not been a problem for water access in general, except for dry areas like the desert SW.

I think the skepticism of the source is warranted in this case.

The real problem for water supplies in the E and midwest, would be contamination. This could be readily solved if the EPA had real guidelines for innovation. Instead they have tomes of how water treatment looked in the past...very little on true requirements.

Torch, I am surprised to find you among the conspiracy theorists. We are in Texas, so we must all be under the control of big oil? Yeah, i read the article in the Fort Worth paper, but I cannot remember if if it was written by a staffer or was a syndicated article spread by wire services. It could well have been written by a New Yorker or a D.C. columnist. Would the contents of the article be of any less or any more importance if it had been written by someone is North Dakota? Ohio? Why does the fact that I saw it in a Texas paper make it sinister?

I have seen no indication that either the FW or Dallas papers act as mere mouthpieces for those bad men in the shadows, you know, the ones who "really" run the world.

Shh. I think they are listening.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:When we eventually turn to hydrogen for our cars it won't be a gas or a liquid; both are already not dense enough, liquid hydrogen isn't economical, and both are dangerous. We will use porous organo-metallic materials which "hold" hydrogen and can be refilled.

Do you know of a good web resource for reading up on this?

2004:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandf...e_plan.pdf
2002:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandf...oadmap.pdf

And if you have access to scientific journals check out the work of Omar Yaghi
http://www.umich.edu/~michchem/faculty/yaghi/
The listed publications below would be full of information

RobertN Wrote: It is sad when I read posts like yours. I see your posts as: Me, me, me and now, now, now rather than thinking about a few generations down the road.

I never thought much of your ability to discern what was actually written, so your lamentations don't surprise me.

How exactly don't I look down the road, when I'm the one trying to bring photocatalysists to the US market, I advocate bicycles (and the infrastructure to make them widely used), I advocate using clotheslines b/c they save a lot of electricity and mean less need for AC, I bought a hybrid car YEARS ago...

Maybe I'm so far into ecological/environmental issues that you're stunned b/c you don't have a f'n clue as to what real answers look like.

Quote:I thought you right wingers didn't like the EPA and you should be able to do whatever you want to do on your property?

If you actually did what you said in your first two words, you wouldn't have finished this sentence the way you did.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Torch, I am surprised to find you among the conspiracy theorists. We are in Texas, so we must all be under the control of big oil? Yeah, i read the article in the Fort Worth paper, but I cannot remember if if it was written by a staffer or was a syndicated article spread by wire services. It could well have been written by a New Yorker or a D.C. columnist. Would the contents of the article be of any less or any more importance if it had been written by someone is North Dakota? Ohio? Why does the fact that I saw it in a Texas paper make it sinister?

Even newspapers have been known to write to their audience.
Not so much a Star Chamber conspiracy as a journalist trying to get attention.

Anyway, in trying to promote photocatalysts, I spent some time looking into issues for our aquifers a few years ago. Even went to USGS lectures. I also was paying attention b/c DC area had a drought a few years back, and there was much fear about a water crisis.

About a year later we had floods...the water tables were restored, and now the issue has gone quiet. Yes, when there is no rain for several months, we will have a water shortage. But, that's not unique to us or our time.

The main potential issue w/ aquifers is contamination. Of particular concern are household pharmaceuticals and agriculture run off (particularly hormones). These can be long-lasting and have potentially big effects at low concentrations.
How serious is this? I don't know for sure. Like many issues there are doomsayers and the indifferent. I suspect the doomsayers may have some legitimacy to their points, and if we take them somewhat seriously and develop remediation techniques, we can prevent bad things from happening.

I haven't done any research like DrT., but I remember reading newspaper articles about the drop of aquifer levels in Texas. Of course, those were in Texas papers, so only heaven knows what their motivation was in writing those. Probably financed by the anti-water lobby.


Once long ago, I was taking one of the many cave tours available in Texas and surrounding areas, and the guide said that the water we saw dripping in the cave had fallen as rainfall 15 months earlier, that it took that long to seep down to that depth. Don't know if that is true or not.

I live on acreage in what used to be the country (alas, the town is growing out to me). I have a well. The water level in my well is much lower than it used to be.

Yes, Texas is an oil and gas state (and ranching and computers and timber and fisheries and....) and the area where I live has become one of the hot spots for natural gas drilling. A great deal of water is used in the fraccing and drilling of these wells, so water has become a commodity here and you can see long lines of large tanker trucks picking up and delivering water to well sites. Some of the water returned in the fraccing process cannot be used in freshwater reservoirs, so it is trucked to injection wells and pumped thousands of feet below the surface.

I understand that T. Boone Pickens has bought up millions of dollars worth (current value) of water rights.