Thankyou Bob,

This comment of yours sums your view nicely:

" .. I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy and
thoroughness .. "

It's the sort of evaluation I was hoping for.

Best wishes,

Peter Bright
Glenorchy
Tasmania






--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich
<bobrich@...> wrote:
>
> >Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7
> volts input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed.
>
> I am not just nitpicking here. But this comment is like a surgeon
> using scissors when a scalpel is needed. I wouldn't go to such a
> surgeon.
> A volt not a measure of anything that can be consumed. That's
amps,
> which is a measure of current, or watts, which is power (A*V).
Think
> of a river. Amps are the volume of water passing any mark at any
> time. Volts are the slope of the river. Watts is the total push
this
> amount of water will be able to exert on an obstacle, given the
slope.
> I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy
and
> thoroughness. It expresses all my reservations about gaseous
hydrogen
> as an energy storing mechanism (it is not a source, but a sort of
a
> battery). My only disagreement with the writer is his approval of
> fuel alcohol. No amount of fuel alcohol can do more than dent the
> problem, and its generation will inevitably cause food shortages
by
> taking up land. Some can be generated from agricultural wastes,
but
> only by using farming practices that mine the soil and use
artificial
> fertiliser. But artificial fertilisers are heavily sourced from
> fossil fuels. Those 'agricultural wastes' should be returned to
the
> soil to feed it.
> The only solution is to end humanity's addiction to moving
things
> and people around.
> :(
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>