John: "Barron: I wouldn't mess with Hawkeye if you don't have your
facts together. Sid will attest to that I am sure."
On the contrary, I will NOT attest to that--you have it backwards. For example, here is part of my post 1204 on this thread from last October:
Hawkeye: For a guy who mentions in nearly every post about me supposedly being wrong,
your own posts are so filled with errors that you are becoming an embarrassment to the
Ballard cult.
To give one example (which is an infinite percentage more than the number of examples
you have ever given of me being wrong), here your statement: "- Re the Honda EV, I don't
believe that any engine that relies on a non-renewable fuel, gasoline, will displace the drive
toward renewable and completely non-polluting hydrogen. In the long run the world will run
out of oil. It may well give the battery cars trouble but they aren't a long run solution either,
regardless of how much money anyone throws at them. That's why I believe that ERC's
touted battery technology is likely worth very little, everyone seems to have a better battery
but no one can make them go far enough before they have to be recharged for hours on
end."
Ignoring your usual incoherence, let us see how many factual errors one can find in four
little sentences:
1. The Honda car in the news is not an EV (electric vehicle) but a powered by a
conventional internal combustion engine.
2. Where do you think hydrogen comes from, the tooth fairy? The very article you are
supposedly discussing is all about trying to get hydrogen for fuel cells out of gasoline, and
yet you babble on about how internal combustion engines are doomed in the long run
because they use gasoline rather than "renewable and completely non-polluting hydrogen".
In fact, all economic sources of hydrogen are from hydrocarbons, whether gasoline,
methanol, or natural gas. Unless you want hydrogen so expensive that a fuel cell powered
car would need to get the equivalent of 5,000 miles a gallon to be competitive, the hydrogen
is going to come from hydrocarbons, not solar power, and creating it will also create CO
and CO2.
3. Unless you mean by "long run" many thousands of years, the world will not run out of
oil. As the easy pools of oil get consumed, the price rises; that induces users to conserve
and find substitutes, and drillers to develop new techniques to find smaller and harder to get
at pools. You might want to consider taking an elementary economics course.
4. ERC's battery technology is not "highly touted." As you pointed out, ERC's management
is not promotional. When Wall St. people prepare lists of companies working on new
battery technologies, ERC isn't even mentioned, because it is thought of as a fuel cell
company. ERC's licensee for non-vehicle applications, Corning, has no interest in touting
the technology since, IMO, it plans to sneak up on Duracell and Everyready, before it even
shows up on the latter's radar screen. The money Corning is spending to develop ERC's
technology tells us it is serious.
5. For the vehicle applications it is working on, ERC's battery need never be recharged, let
alone "for hours on end". This is the concept of the hybrid gas/electric engine, such as the
one Toyota is introducing currently in Japan. The electric motor takes the vehicle from 0 to
maybe 20 mph, and the gas engine handles it from there, moving the car up to a faster
speed and recharging the battery at the same time. That eliminates nearly all of the pollution.
This new Toyota supposedly gets over 60 mpg. Just wait and see how good they will be in
seven years, when (if?) DB introduces the first generation of fuel cell cars. Toyota doesn't
use ERC's battery, but it may in the future.
Overall score: 5 errors in 4 sentences. Very impressive.
Now it is your turn: Let us see if you can find 5 errors in my hundreds of posts here. Good
luck.
|
