Re: Hey Mr. Hyde!

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 04/06/04 

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 02:25:06 +0100

Nathan C. Baker wrote:
> Yes, fuel cells have been around for a very long time. But there is
no
> conspiracy to cover them up. It is simply a problem of (1) finding
a safe
> way to transport the hydrogen, and (2) converting all the vehicles
and fuel
> stations to this method.

You're quite right...I just kind of find the two "points" slightly
amusing...allow me to elaborate:

"It is simply a problem of (1) finding a safe way to transport the
hydrogen"

...and, like, in contrast, petrol (US: gasoline) is totally safe and
non-explosive and inert that transporting it doesn't pose any safety
issues whatsoever? Yeah, all those people filling up their cars at the
fuel station are always smoking cigarettes and then put them out by,
well, throwing it into the fuel tank...after all, it's a liquid,
right? It'll put the cigarette out without any problems of, ooh,
blowing up the car and taking the entire fuel station along with it
(not even touching the liquid itself because the fumes coming off it
are good enough)!!

And those terrorists attacking that French oil tanker...why bother?
It's all perfectly "safe"...what a silly target for them to try to
ignite! It's not like it would have blown the whole thing up sky-high
had they succeeded or anything...it's all perfectly "safe" to
transport this fuel...

Speaking of oil tankers, would hydrogen pose any additional transport
problems like all those oil slicks that wash ashore and wipe out bird
colonies and fish stocks and so forth? Would the birds all be dying
because a leak from a tanker crashed against a rock has got _hydrogen_
stuck in their feathers, making them unable to fly? Would the local
fishing industry be completely and utterly decimated to not be able to
fish those waters for years upon years should some hydrogen leak out
of a tanker?

Sorry...but it's the old "double standards"...criticise alternative
fuels for something like "being explosive" but totally overlook that
oil is also dangerously explosive too, yet we all accept that risk
without blinking or, it appears, even thinking...indeed, _THIS IS A
PROBLEM_...but it's not an additional problem and not a problem that
hasn't been faced before...a valid criticism here of alternatives has
to _NOT_ apply in equal measure to the current status quo
too...otherwise, it's a slightly illogical argument: "No, we can't
have such a potentially dangerous material to transport! Let's stick
with the current potentially dangerous materials instead!!"...

"and (2) converting all the vehicles and fuel stations to this
method."

Why "convert"? What about "competition", "free markets", etc.? Why
can't there simply be a _choice_ in the matter? The fuel stations
carry on as before...but new "hydrogen stations" appear to support the
"hydrogen cars" coming onto the market...

Isn't this the way it's always done with such things? I mean, no-one
talked about "Stop all 2G mobile phones! Collect them all back in!
Shut down the 2G mobile phone networks! End 2G completely...right, now
that we've switched off 2G, we can then 'convert' everything to 3G
phone technologies instead"...this isn't the way the capitalist system
works...and I find it _really, really_ interesting that things are
always presented in a "right, everything will be converted overnight!
We will shut down the old ways and _force_ the new ways on people
tomorrow!"...

I'm going to be blunt, I personally think that those who don't want to
see alternatives enter into any market in any way delibrately present
it as such a _stark and mutually exclusive_ choice, knowing that
everyone will, indeed, "stick with what we know best"...exactly like
many people would simply abandon PCs altogether, if some similarly
absurd: "Right, Intel have now doubled the CPU speed...as this has
rendered all your machines out there to be 'obselete', you must
immediately hand them in to the authorities! It is against some
strange 'law' that we only apply to alternatives that we don't want to
see have any kind of market that, contrary to what happens everywhere
else, they will be no choice and it will be _forced_ to be mutually
exclusive for no particularly logical reason!"...

Note, if you have solar panels on your roof, for example, then you can
still "grid connect"...in fact, this is probably the best idea of them
all - not just for you but also towards helping out with this problem
beyond merely yourself - as, yes, if your own power doesn't cover it,
then you can take from "the grid" as per usual...if you do cover your
own energy use, you take nothing from the grid (just the "standing
charge" in your bill for being connected)...and, here's a cool one, if
you pop off on holidays that your home isn't taking up any power
itself, those panels can still be making energy and you can send it
back into the grid...basically and simply, whatever the panels
generate is "lifted off" the grid's energy burden, one way or
another...plus, the power companies will pay for the energy you
provide them...and this is the mad situation that the power companies
don't want to encourage too much of: You use next to nothing (you were
away on holiday (US: vacation) during the period so it was effectively
just generating power to sell and nothing else :) and you end up
selling the power company more energy than is your "standing charge"
cost...yup, you guessed it, the situation is, for once, remarkably
reversed: they _owe_ you money...your bill turns up as _negative_ in
what credit they owe you...which, of course, means that (though this
isn't particularly good for the environment, it's good for your
finances :) you can use up your "credit" in the next month and
effectively get not only the energy you sold but _also_ its equivalent
from the grid for absolutely no charge whatsoever...

You're, in fact, not being too "environmentally friendly" not to "grid
connect" your renewable sources and keep it all to yourself...even
ignoring that you might be further tempted by the financial argument
thrown on top of that too...better yet, if you're in the UK, then the
government - as part of their "environment commitments" - have started
up a "grant" scheme where they "match fund" (you pay half and they top
it up with the other half of the cost ;) the cost of installing such a
"grid connected" system...the large initial cost _is_, indeed, the
biggest stumbling block here that the British government (though other
governments may have their own "schemes" and "incentives" too, I don't
doubt...well, all except Bush, that is ;) have tried to halve that
problem for you...

Now, granted, those solar panels _won't_ cover what a household
typically uses in the main (unless you've got a really, really big
roof and live like a hermit, not even owning a TV set and stuff like
that ;)...but, again, don't fall into this "mutually exclusive" trap
that gets laid...it _doesn't_ work that way...the solar panels cover
what they can cover, the rest comes seamlessly from "the grid" as per
normal (in fact, what tends to happen with these "grid connected"
systems often is that you are _feeding the grid_ directly with your
energy and you're still on the grid...this is merely "subtracted" from
your bill because the power you feed into the grid means that they
don't need to throw so much fuel into the power stations...you've
saved them this cost and they pay you for that...of course, being
captialist, what they pay you for your energy won't be as much as
they've probably saved themselves for taking your energy...but, well,
you can't really expect these businesses to do things for free under
our systems ;)...

Anyway, your points aren't "wrong" at all...they just seem
particularly "carefully chosen", so to speak...what's particularly
"safe" about transporting oil? Worse still, what's "safe" about
nuclear fuel and waste transportation (no, I do not consider nuclear
fuel as being an "alternative"...the reason being is that it uses up
rare nuclear fuels and produces waste and is not renewable nor
sustainable...far from "fuel of the future", nuclear materials are
_RARE_ - thankfully so, as they are radioactive and, in large
quantities, would start killing people - and they will _RUN OUT_ just
the same...the process is "theoretically" reversible and could then be
turned into a "(semi-)renewable" resource...only requires "fusion" -
of the sort where you don't waste more energy doing it than you could
get back out of it (the sort we ain't worked out how to do yet ;) - to
match the "fission"...until then, well, ummm, we just take immense
risk transporting the waste around passed populated areas and then dig
a very large hole, throw it in and throw tons of concrete on top of
it...basically, when they were talking about "fuel of the future",
there was an implicit acceptance that the "problems" would be ironed
out...they still haven't been and all they do is use up rare plutonium
/ uranium and then bury the "waste" left over in the ground...still a
"one way process" like all the rest...it's NOT an "alternative" in
that sense...it's merely a "better" version of the same old
thing...and that "better" is dependent on you overlooking terrorist
attack of nuclear facilities, the inherent massive risks of
transporting fuel and waste passed populated areas, Chernobyl,
etc....it's "better" while it works properly...it's a huge
globally-significant massively life-threating disaster and catastrophe
waiting to happen when it goes wrong...the "better" here is very much
dependent on nothing ever going wrong...because, regards your
"dangerous materials", this stuff causes cancers, deforms babies,
outrightly kills...from a _distance_..._invisibly_...and it's
_permanently_ this dangerous at all times (even as "waste", it's still
highly dangerous), that you must _always_ wear safety equipment or be
shielded _at all times_...hence, if "transportation safety" were such
an issue as to render something inappropriate, nuclear fuels must come
top of the list without doubt...yet, we _DO_ use this stuff and I'm
actually _highly unusual_ in making my case that I simply do NOT
believe the dangers justify the risks...and, yes, I _know_ the
contribution they make towards our "energy crisis" that you'd think
I'd support it...but I _DON'T_...it _runs out_ all the same like all
the others but carries such a tremendous risk at all times that I do
NOT believe that the benefits outweigh the costs at all...a case of
"aren't we clever that we can do it?" and marching on ahead, without
ever considering _IF_ we should do it...it ain't no "solution"
whatsoever..."fuel of the future" is a complete joke when _coal_ (that
oldest of the old fossil fuels ;) will outlast it, no worries...its
sole "benefit" is that it extends our time to find an alternative
before we hit that "point of no return"...this is _NOT_ a good enough
benefit for the risks involved, in my opinion...and the danger of such
"extension" is _exactly as we see happening_...people don't use the
extra time, they consider it an "excuse" by which to put everything
off for, yeah, one more day...then one more day again...then one more
week...then one more year...then one more decade...then, oh, too late!
If it wasn't so risky then, from pragmatics alone, I'd have to say
"yeah, leave them running...we really do need that extra time!"...but
the dangers are far, far too great...let's Hope no terrorist ever
carries out Bin Laden's threat (oh, yeah...he's _said_ he intends to
do it...just like he said he intended to use planes as bombs before
9/11...so, unfortunately, we can't presume he's just "talking big" but
wouldn't attempt to do it...he's proved that he's at least good to his
word about his threats) of attacking a nuclear power station to
_delibrately create_ another "Chernobyl"...mind you, in saying
"Chernobyl", we can see that the risks are so dangerous, anyway, that
it doesn't even necessarily require a malicious hand for things to go
wrong...but, "in this post-9/11 world", we not only have Chernobyl to
remember, we have the prospect of people _maliciously_ making such a
thing happen quite delibrately for their terrorism...

I'm NOT actually disagreeing with you...I just find it a very weighted
set of arguments...almost as if _trying to find_ a reason to say "no"
and not stopping until one is found..._without_ considering that point
one applies absolutely equally to the highly explosive fuel _we are
using already_...as a gas, it's potentially more problematic...but
none of these is a patch on the transportation dangers of nuclear
fuels (as well as _waste_...there's _two_ dangerous trips coming out
of nuclear fuel, not only getting it there but getting it away too),
which no-one seems to say much about...

And point two is a general problem...if we use _any_ form of
alternative, there's the "roll out" problem...how to get people onto
the new system and slowly fade out the second system...it doesn't
matter _what_ fuel you're looking for unless it (highly unlikely) just
happens to work with an ordinary internal combustion engine without
modification and can be transported just the same as oil (I repeat,
_highly unlikely_ ;), then you're always going to have a "conversion"
issue to deal with...and one would have to look at it from Annie's
usual point of view: "Just get over it and deal with the change!"...

Because point two is moot from the perspective that there simply is NO
CHOICE in the matter whatsoever...our current fuel _WILL_ _INEVITABLY_
run out and exhaust (and will sky-rocket into pricelessness price-wise
before that happens, as people realise the end is finally
coming)...yes, "conversion" is an issue...but it's
_UNAVOIDABLE_...perhaps, indeed, it won't be hydrogen that makes most
sense to change to...it's something else, let's say...well,
regardless, you will have just the same "conversion"
problems...current engines are unlikely to work "as is" and would
require modifications (new engines, though, would simply be built from
scratch to use the new fuels and be phased in as "standard" for all
the modern vehicles)...depending on what it is, the current
transportation may or may not be appropriate, may or may not require
little or large modifications to how it is currently...

Nevertheless, whatever the issues, they simply _MUST_ be faced...that
is the underlying argument that no amount of "head in the sand" on the
issue can ever erase...you've _GOT TO_ "convert" to
_SOMETHING_...hydrogen, perhaps...perhaps not...but it's got to be
_SOMETHING_...as the underlying, undeniable and inevitable point is
that we _CAN'T_..._CANNOT_..._IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE_...for us to
simply continue down the path we're on at the moment...the path comes
to a sudden and final stop...ceases to go anywhere...heads into a cul
de sac...

This is the "attitudinal" problem which I speak of...the problem is
being approached like there was some choice in the matter...there
isn't...it's being judged like there was an option to just not do
anything and carry on as normal...there isn't...as if this were just
some "academic exercise" for fun...it isn't...

What we're talking about is saving the world as we know it...yes, we
_require_ boldness...we _require_ leadership...we might have to make
sacrifices...we might have to make hard and sticky
decisions...decisions we very possibly might regret...but we have to
make them, anyway...there is no choice in the matter any more because
no-one did anything more constructive for all this time and just did
as we're doing, heading at full steam down a railway track that just
runs out of track shortly ahead...

[ I would usually resist being "provocative" in my song quotes but
desparate times call for desparate measures, they say: ]

"Where have all the good men gone?
And where are all the gods?

Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?

Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night toss and turn and dream of what I need:

I need a hero!
I'm holding out for a hero
'Til the end of the night

He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight

I need a hero!
I'm holding out for a hero
'Til the morning light

He's gotta be sure
And it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life

Somewhere after midnight
In my wildest fantasy...

Somewhere just beyond my reach
There's someone reaching back for me...

Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat
It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet...

(Chorus)

Up where the mountains meet the heavens above
Out where the lightning splits the sea...

I would swear that there's someone somewhere
Watching me...

Through the wind and the chill and the rain
And the storm and the flood...

I can feel his approach
Like the fire in my blood

I need a hero!
I'm holding out for a hero
'Til the end of the night

He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight

I need a hero!
I'm holding out for a hero
'Til the morning light

He's gotta be _sure_

And it's _gotta_ be _SOON_

And he's _gotta_ be _larger than life_"

[ "Holding Out for a Hero", Bonnie Tyler ]

Beth ;)

Relevant Pages

  • Fuel inefficient India heading towards energy crisis
    ... Fuel inefficient India heading towards energy crisis ... increase in expenditure was in transport. ...
    (talk.environment)
  • Re: Lord Adonis: no need to cut travel to save the planet, says Transport Secretary (Daily Telegraph
    ... because the last thing we need in the transport sector is yet ... distorting the market place. ... 2.5% of GDP is collected from fuel and vehicle taxes. ... "Total infrastructure costs in road transport – ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: Not such a small problem...
    ... the amount we pay in road fund is dwarfed by the amount we pay in fuel tax and VAT. ... That thought has crossed my mind too but for a two or three car household the tax disc costs still represent an unfair burden on car ownership, an issue you'd think the car manufacturing lobbyists would have been onto years long since. ... As you so rightly pointed out, the other costs do tend to swamp those of the tax disc, in particular the insurance costs being the most problematical of the fixed charges that act as a deterrent to choosing to use a public transport option for those journeys where the inconvenience factor would otherwise be deemed acceptable. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Indias Labor Costs to Rise ??
    ... Sea shipment is very cheap, and very efficient in terms of fuel. ... Transport costs are interesting and sometimes non-intuitive. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... If 21st century nuclear power becomes accepted at home then we accept ... You choose not to see its potential for poisoning ... The stone cold fact is that no matter what the fuel that quantity ... I don't think the goal is to accept the dangers that exist and add to ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)