"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Steve wrote:

1. Hydrogen production is not necessarily a 'very "dirty" process'.
However, at it worst, it is no worse than the production of diesel or
petrol.

Incorrect, unlike diesel and petrol production, the aim of hydrogen
production is to throw away th emajor calorific value of the feedstock.
i.e. the carbon-hydrogen bond energy. The CO2 evolved is then vented to
atmosphere. It's a deliberately wasteful process.

uh-oh you're digging yourself a hole there. the one labelled "chemistry".
a) thats an extremely strange concept of "high energy bond" (binned since
the 70s as misleading)
b) lets see your born-haber cycle calculations.

2. Once produced, there is no secondary pollution as there would be from
internal combustion engines.

Ah yes, if you ignore the primary pollution then the secondary pollution
can look very good indeed. Only a ****wit would ignore the primary
pollution.

or someone who's main concern was about human health, rather than the
greenhouse effect.
Which of course, you would ignore if you claim AGM isn't happening (which
you have done, which nicely finishes a chain of logic)

So, pollution is reduced to one source, instead of thousands, where,
potentially, better anti-pollution systems can be used. And London's
streets and low-level atmosphere are no longer subjected to harmful
emissions.

What a long winded way of saying "NIMBY".

So, by any measure, TfL have reduced harmful emissions.

Utter ********. TfL have increased emissions and moved those emissions
into someone elses backyard.

which pollutants are we on about here? pretty much all of them either are
not produced or are disperse nicely if produced in someone elses back yard.

Of course, the main idea is that if hydrogen can be developed into a fuel,
places like iceland could make it with geothermal energy etc.