mambero Questions: booba garde la peche

17 commentaires booba garde la peche

  • mambero photo
    mambero 962 • 03/11/2014

    booba garde la peche Lest we forget, Toyota, who had invested $100m in Tesla, cashed in its chips. Incidentally, they're heavily promoting their 2015 FCV. Which is understandable. Their energy market is geared more to the common good in Japan than in certain other countries where powerful lobbyists can even lead their countries to war for oil. Yes, fuel cells are a revolution of sorts. Not only environmentally but politically superior. It will take time though, like many good things.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 667 • 03/11/2014

    I beg to differr with you, my dear Mint: I see you haven't read this: www.railwaygazette.com/news/technology/single-view/view/fuel-cells-to-power-regional-trainsets.html Fuel cells are on their way!
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 877 • 03/11/2014

    I think the problem of inefficiency of battery storage systems should be mentioned in every EV article. Not to mention the toxic cocktails by which they function, disposal, fossile sources, etc.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 994 • 29/10/2014

    A few overarching concepts - sorry no figures - give great credence to the H2 platform. EVs, when they are not being charged LOSE ENERGY. There is no loss with H2. Not only does H2 not have to be transported when it is directly transferred from the site to the tank, it is a huge help for peak-shaving for the grid and, unlike EVs, actually provides a form of storage for the entire grid. This creates absolutely unfathomable efficiencies. While advancing any kind of figures would be preposterous at this state, the concept is not rocket science and it is irrefutable.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 589 • 29/10/2014

    "But maybe it will work where production and consumption happen at the same location." That's exactly the idea at the Berlin Schoendorf Airport. Others are quickly following. See also www.londonhydrogen.org
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 592 • 29/10/2014

    NGVs are clearly cheaper with existing infrstructure and are an excellent transition fuel from benzine in terms of CO2. Comparing mileage costs is difficult because there is generally preferential tax treatment for NGVs. I see NGVs as a great choice on the way to H2. EVs are great for getting groceries or getting the kids, but H2 is clearly superior for any serious highway driving.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 580 • 29/10/2014

    How about making hydrogen from renewables, like wind & PV? Onsite where it is used? That's what is being done at the Berlin Schoendorf airport. They fuel vehicles in 3minutes with a range of 400 miles per tank. EVs ca't touch that. Not to mention that transporting, breathing and cleaning up hydrocarbons has an additional price that does not appear at the pump. EVs have gotten quickly out of the gates. Lest we forget, though, it was the turtle that beat the rabbit ;) My choice is H2.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 331 • 20/10/2014

    While I'm practically viscerally committed to renewables, I'm quick to admit that there absolutely must be a glitchfree transitional period. Why can't we go from coal to oil to gas to solar to P2G to hydrogen instead of just pulling the plug on everything right away? While petroplutocrats have often shown patent disdain for the environment and citizens at large, they have and continue to provide us with the energy that we consume so voraciously. Meanwhile, the greens are quick to prohibit, to divest, to moralize, yet where do they INVEST? While their intentions are praiseworthy, they'd best revise their strategy. Before a tough economic contender, you can either try to destroy them, or simply produce something that's so good that no one would dare buy their product. By the time everybody's saying, 'you can't touch that' they will have gone belly up. Until then, they're basically preaching in the desert. I'll be going to the desert, too. To build PV farms.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 504 • 17/10/2014

    J'applaudis ce développement qui est d'autat plus pertinent maintenant que le camp EV qui suit les Ségolène Royale et E. Beeker qui ont tourné le dos à l'hydrogène (pour ne pas dire qu'ils en ont fait un pied de nez). Pour eux, il 'reste toujours de la recherche à faire - ce n'est pas pour demain'. S'ils savaient - c'était déjà hier ! Bien malgré eux, ils verront dorénavant que l'autonomie de leurs EVs sera prolongée par leur démon, l'hydrogène. Et sur un véhicule qui réunit deux fleurons de l'identité française par excellence ! Nul autre que Renault & La Poste. Grand succès aux entrepreneurs de SymbioFCell!
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 379 • 16/10/2014

    Thank you, kgelner. It's remarkable how many comments here actually wreak of a lack of any awareness of the great strides that have been made. Yet, everyone is shouting disinformation from their soapboxes.Let them look at what's happening at the likes of the US Sandia National Laboratories (not exactly voodoo research...) The stakeholders of NOW (the German national organisation of hydrogen and fuel celle technology - www now-gmbh.de/en ) and The French association for hydrogen and fuel cells : Afhypac The european Hydrogen Association www h2euro.org/category/eha/about-eha The French National Council for Scientific Research The Universities of Stanford, Stuttgart (Germany) The London hydrogen initiative www hydrogenlondon.org/accessibility/ … not to mention monumental advances in such countries as Norway (where an H2 highway is almost in place…in a country that has no lack of oil by the way…) South Korea and Japan. Such closed-mindedness is reminiscent of the, ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’ modus operandi that characterized the glorious Bush (petroleum) years. We might call this obsession with the ‘righteousness’ of this Manichean vision of Electric Vehicles “EVangelism”. However, the cat is out o the bag, and in fact, there are many paths. Use the one that works for you! TMLutas is right when he says that we are headed towards a multi-source energy future. There are primary fuels still in use (oil, coal), transitional fuels (LNG, CNG, methanol, etc.) special applications (Evs) and there is (and will be!) H2. It really isn’t a matter of either/or. But that’s a very hard concept for dualist thinkers to ingest.... I can only laud Ad van der Meer's remark below where he says he's driving an EV NOW. And when he needs a new car, he'll see where H2 development is and perhaps change, perhaps not. I currently drive an LNG vehicle. Curiously, in France, there are 10,000 of them while in Italy there are some 200,000. The French will tell you they're impractical. The Italians obviously do not agree. I am very much looking forward to using H2 vehicles. Let
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 708 • 14/10/2014

    You read my mind. A great amount of H2 opposition is US-based, however, some very avant-garde work is being done at the Sandia National Laboratory where a few enlightened thinkers have understood the importance of this true revolution in energy. The Teslas & the EVs have come quickly out of the gates, and the political fruits for lobbyists are quite sweet. However, in more advanced industrial states, collective efforts are in for the long haul. And once FCVs become 'sexy' (which is probably the least of their obstacles to overcome), their modularity, compatibility with both electric and gas grids, capacity to STORE energy will surely gain their place in the mobility palette, or a special part in the 'all of the above'. see www h2mobility.org/ Lest we forget, and as idealistic as it may sound, it is nevertheless true that many of Mankind's greatest achievements were not the fruit of short-term profit, but rather long-term compassion. I'm sure Americans will find a way to reconcile 'State-side supply' of technology developed by concerned states with start-up financing so that, as tradition would have it, the few may become fabulously wealthy from the many. If that's what it takes, go for it. Because in Europe, South Korea, Japan (to start with), that's what we're doing.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 214 • 14/10/2014

    "too cheap to meter" - that's precisely the point. All such concerns dissipate upon the realisation that, apart from cumbersome and inefficient accumulators (often containing a sophisticated cocktail of acid, metals, rare materials) Mankind has never succeeded in STORING electricity. This is now possible, with hydrogen, and it’s a game changer. By this simple fact, Germany quite plausibly sees its Power-to-Gas production going from 20% without storage to 40% with storage. See www now-gmbh.de/en for much more. We are not on your grandfather’s playing field. And this time, the Rockefellers will be MINORITY stakeholders. Hydrogen was used in the US Space Program which was much too costly to be assumed by private enterprise alone. Like the Space Program, the H2 infrastructure will be costly, but it will benefit EVERYONE much more than the current petrol system. In Europe, South Korea and Japan, they are pushing ahead. Granted, this certainly won’t sit well with US capitalism, but hey, do you want to make money or live in a place where you don’t die of cancer? Why not both? State, corporate and private initiatives are working hand in hand. Seriously. So it’s no longer a question of whether, but WHEN.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 590 • 14/10/2014

    Your rant is clearly uninformed. 1st, yes it takes water for powering a FCV. How much water is used to refine petroleum? Ask the folks in Texas...Oh, I get it, you don't see it so it doesn't count. Brilliant. As for the explosive nature of H2, tests performed by Toyota (with video) clearly show that quickly-evaporating H2 dispels flames much quicker than petroleum tanks. Look at Quantum.com to see how much H2 tanks have evolved since the Hindenberg. Once you factor in all the social costs (activity that is notoriously absent from board rooms and usually paid by working stiffs and the poor in the form of astronomical health costs of the likes of "cancer valley" on the Gulf Coast), one realises that H2 is in fact a bargain that will continue to pay exponential dividends as time passes. With no batteries to dispose of, no lithium wars, etc. But don't take my word for it - just see that Toyota is putting its money here its mouth is: www mercurynews com/business/ci_26614101/toyota-bets-big-fuel-cell-vehicles And then there is a consortium of fifty foundation with nearly a trillion dollars in assets under management that is strongly recommending a continued focus in H2. www mercurynews com/business/ci_26580855/fifty-foundations-pledge-divest-from-fossil-fuels It's unfortunate that investors and concerned citizens have adopted an attitude of, "if you're not with us you're against us." How childish. Some people drive a sports car, others want a pick up. EVs can be great for soccer moms, but certainly not for sales reps with a large territory. As for being sexy, well Ferraris are sexy, Corvettes are sexy. Exxon Valdez is...less sexy, like BP Deepwater Horizon. Chevron Equador... Shall I stop there...? You might try studying the question. Your arguments might sound more coherent than a high school chemistry class.. A good place to start might be: www californiahydrogen.org/aggregator/sources/1?page=2 -or- www hydrogenlondon.org/ That is, if 'reading the propaganda of the enemy' isn't too trying for you.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 371 • 14/10/2014

    Your rant is clearly uninformed. 1st, yes it takes water for powering a FCV. How much water is used to refine petroleum? Oh, I get it, you don't see it so it doesn't count. Brilliant. As for the explosive nature of H2, tests performed by Toyota (with video) clearly show that quickly-evaporating H2 dispels flames much quicker than petroleum tanks. Look at Quantum.com to see how much H2 tanks have evolved since the Hindenberg. Once you factor in all the social costs (activity that is notoriously absent from board rooms and usually paid by working stiffs and the poor in the form of astronomical health costs of the likes of "cancer valley" on the Gulf Coast) one realises that H2 is in fact a bargain that will continue to pay exponential dividends as time passes. With no batteries to dispose of, no lithium wars, etc. But don't take my word for it - just see that Toyota is putting its money here its mouth is: www mercurynews com/business/ci_26614101/toyota-bets-big-fuel-cell-vehicles And then there is a consortium of fifty foundation with nearly a trillion dollars in assets under management that is strongly recommending a continued focus in H2. www mercurynews com/business/ci_26580855/fifty-foundations-pledge-divest-from-fossil-fuels It's unfortunate that investors and concerned citizens have adopted an attitude of, "if you're not with us you're against us." How childish. Some people drive a sports car, others want a pick up. EVs can be great for soccer moms, but certainly not for sales reps with a large territory. As for being sexy, well Ferraris are sexy, Corvettes are sexy. Exxon Valdez is...less sexy, like BP Deepwater Horizon. Chevron Equador... Shall I stop there...? You might try studying the question. Your arguments might sound more coherent than a high school chemistry class.. A good place to start might be: www californiahydrogen.org/aggregator/sources/1?page=2 -or- www hydrogenlondon.org/ www.mcphy.com That is, if 'reading the propaganda of the enemy' isn't too trying for you. No one is more deaf than he who does not want to hear.
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 982 • 15/10/2013

    Why even eat a big Mac in the first place...?
    poster

  • mambero photo
    mambero 318 • 09/03/2012

    Why not, "all of the above" ?  After all, you could just do nothing and complain... Coherent thinkers would have passed the NatGas bill in a minute, but thanks to the party of 3trillion dollar wars that invented, "if you're not with us you're against us,"  it's easy to understand that the same are now facint a, " the natural gas transport issue is so convoluted on Capitol Hill that it has even pitted Republicans versus Republicans". Is it really so "convoluted" or are they not simply the victims of their own visceral bad faith and retrograde greed? They really don't get it.   Luckily, the market does, and it's doing just fine.
    poster