Malcom on fuel:
> Hydrogen is an energy carrier not a source and it's a net energy loser,
> it takes more energy to make it and compress it for transport than you
> get from using it in a fuel cell. At the moment most of the world's
> hydrogen is made by cracking natural gas, it's an oil industry product.
> The transition to hydrogen also requires a gigantic infrastructure
> change and no one yet knows if it's a viable alternative to oil or an
> economic and technological non-starter. There are a lot of hydrogen
> pessimists around.
Malcom, do you know of any move towards really, I mean really,
challenging/questioning critically the supposed 'need' for moving fast
wherever whenever whatever (the consequences)? This heat death (nominally
called "transport") perhaps needs to be slowed down dramatically if not
halted in its masquerade of 'energy' (the material form of heidegger's 'idle
chatter' as the they's model of 'saying'?). The for-what? needs to be
urgently asked, not just (or at all) the search for 'alternatives' and/or
new sources of energy. Stop as a principle! Or what?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Hydrogen is an energy carrier not a source and it's a net energy loser,
> it takes more energy to make it and compress it for transport than you
> get from using it in a fuel cell. At the moment most of the world's
> hydrogen is made by cracking natural gas, it's an oil industry product.
> The transition to hydrogen also requires a gigantic infrastructure
> change and no one yet knows if it's a viable alternative to oil or an
> economic and technological non-starter. There are a lot of hydrogen
> pessimists around.
Malcom, do you know of any move towards really, I mean really,
challenging/questioning critically the supposed 'need' for moving fast
wherever whenever whatever (the consequences)? This heat death (nominally
called "transport") perhaps needs to be slowed down dramatically if not
halted in its masquerade of 'energy' (the material form of heidegger's 'idle
chatter' as the they's model of 'saying'?). The for-what? needs to be
urgently asked, not just (or at all) the search for 'alternatives' and/or
new sources of energy. Stop as a principle! Or what?
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---