Talk:The Hype About Hydrogen

message: Someone (not me!) should write up Romm's earlier book, "Cool Companies".  His other books, I would think, are too old to merit their own page.  Ssilvers 22:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Cool Companies''

message: Were in gigajoules, which was clearly wrong.  This data, which can be found here  (though the original source is not easy to track down), has the same figures in millions of cubic meters.  50 Mm^3 of hydrogen actually contains around 6 petajoules of energy, so the previous figures were off by many orders of magnitude.  I don't have the book, so I couldn't say whether this it's wrong in the book as well or just a transcription error. Kyle Cronan 12:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units for hydrogen production 

message: This article should be severely summarized. At present it's a chapter-based review of the book plus a biography of the writer. The bio should be reduced to a minimum (for context) and the book should be reviewed as a whole. Comments on its controversial claims could also use some WP:NPOV. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the bio.  The author is wikilinked, and his bio is at Joseph J. Romm, so we don't need it in two places.  Also, I combined some sections.  Instead of complaining that the article needs more linking, why don't editors go ahead and wikify it more?  --Ssilvers 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pablo that this needs to be summarized in a big way. For starters it could be two or three sections, max. --PotomacFever 20:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup (part 2) 

message: According to Wikipedia's page on the author, he was employed by the Rockefeller Foundation.  I think it would be appropriate to mention that in this article as it does at least have the appearance of creating a pro-oil stance.  While it is not definitive, it could be the reason that he is such a strong proponent of Gasoline and disel hybrid vehicles.  Vehicles that will continue to utilize Fossil Fuels.  --The foregoing was added at 14:25, 28 August 2006 byUser:168.141.203.13
:If you read any of the author's articles (or this book) or see the new film Who Killed the Electric Car?, you will see that he is no friend of the oil industry.  What this book says is that we need to pursue conservation and technologies that can reduce our dependence on oil *now* instead of waiting around for several decades until hydrogen fuel cells become economically feasible.  Please sign your contributions to the talk page by using 4 tildes(~) --Ssilvers 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, aren't you (original commentor above) aware that fuel cells would be mostly dependent on fossil fuels? This makes a pro-fuel cell position a pro-oil industry position, a priori. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is similar to a discussion above on the reviews of the book. If the political affiliation of reviewers, real or perceived, is relevant, then we should note the political affiliation, real or perceived, of the book author. Then I don't see why the debate is "either or"; that is, why does backing hydrogen rule out hybrids, or vice versa, when the respective propulsion systems call for different energy resources? The use of coal and natural gas by the former, to say nothing of other possible feedstocks, won't deprive gasoline vehicles of their (refined) oil.--PotomacFever 10:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you quantify to what extent hybrids "immediately" reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  John Heywood of MIT writes in September 2006 Scientific American that it would take 10 to 15 years before one third of vehicles on the road would be hybrids, and that it would be 35 years until major impact (page 62 of "Fueling Our Transportation Future").--PotomacFever 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the government ought to be doing is requiring auto companies to increase fuel efficiency standards significantly.  The tecnology is available, just not the political will.  Moreover, see Romm's article in Scientific American, April 2006, "Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction," in which he argues that Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which can achieve much higher fuel efficiency than currently marketed hybrids, will soon become standard in the automobile industry.  See also this article from the same issue (Sept. 2006) of Scientific American that you cited. -- Ssilvers 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't follow what you're saying. If hybrids provide better mpg by themselves, what is the added benefit of increasing CAFE? It would give a few Washington bureaucrats something to do, I suppose. Then you haven't explained how hybrids "immediately" reduce GHG. We keep our cars for 14 years on average. If everyone purchased a hybrid when their old car went kaput, the fleet would not turnover (be all hybrid until) until 2020. But people aren't buying just hybrids, their buying deisels and conventional ICEs, so 25 years is more likely as a best case. Further, you cite Heywood's article but it refutes your viewpoint. I've noticed many of your cites do not say what you think they say. I think you may be a sock puppet.--PotomacFever 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't been able to follow the discussion, with all those citations flying around, but the sheer amount of ellaboration and review in this talk page suggest the article may have received some original research. Be careful not to analyze and criticize the sources yourself in the article. Also, please let nobody call anybody a sock puppet without evidence, as an unwarranted accusation of sockpuppetry is a personal attack.  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pablo D. Flores is right, the article is original research. The assertions in the book are simply restated here without citations or supporting arguments. None of these arguments were peer reviewed in journals. The book itself is from a point-of-view publisher rather than an academic press. Then the creator of this article, who knows the book author very well, he says, has allowed no one else to make substantive edits. --PotomacFever 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is just a review of the book.  It is not relevant whether you disagree with the book.  Paul Studier 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, it's not relevant whether I disagree with the book. The article, however, can be compared against Wikipedia policies. When we talk about original research, we are referring to wikipedia content policies, in particular   verifiability and  no original research. I believe our earlier comments say this. --PotomacFever 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Author's Biases 

message: :Image:Wasserstoff.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a fair use summary.  Thanks.  -- Ssilvers 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wasserstoff.jpg

message: :Image:HypeCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.  BetacommandBot 05:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a fair use summary.  Thanks. -- Ssilvers 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HypeCover.jpg

message: A critic is that hydrogen could be a viable energy carrier if it could be produced cleanly without much loss of energy in the conversion process. Work is in progress on this. Please include
:This article is about a 2004 book.  Perhaps you have information that would be useful in the article at Hydrogen Economy.  If you have WP:Reliable sources, feel free to contribute to the discussion there.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hype about Hydrogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403113645/http://www.efcf.com/reports/ to http://www.efcf.com/reports/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)