Scientists say their device can pull water from the air to create green hydrogen

AsiaOne ^ | SEPTEMBER 06, 2022 | Holly Chik

[TexasGator]

“Why would the driver have to be taken care of? Isn’t it the same cost as the labor in your electrolysis method?”

That is what I said. ZERO cost. Not only can you not read minds over the internet you fail reading comprehension.

[TexasGator]

“I can make the claim because you supported the idea. So, produce the studies and cost-effectiveness to back up the idea”

Cite that post. I posted facts.

[adorno]

Your numbers, please.

It's difficult enough and expensive enough and lengthy enough, to produce hydrogen from readily available water as it is. Why would producing hydrogen from almost dry air be less expensive? Think about it. That is can be done there is no doubt, but that it can be done easily and cheaply is a pipe-dream.

[adorno]

That is what I said. ZERO cost. Not only can you not read minds over the internet you fail reading comprehension.

You sound as smart as Kamala and Biden.

Read and re-interpret what I said:

“Why would the driver have to be taken care of? Isn’t it the same cost as the labor in your electrolysis method?”

IOW, if you can use 'free' in you calculations, then, so can I when it comes to the price of a driver. It just doesn't make sense with your suggestions. NOTHING is free; not driver and not the production of hydrogen in the desert from almost dry air.

[TexasGator]

“IOW, if you can use ‘free’ in you calculations, then, so can I when it comes to the price of a driver.”

Again you fail. I never said the driver was free. I included a daily rate.

[TexasGator]

"Read and re-interpret what I said:"

Read and re-interpret what I said: (emphasis added)

BTW, I didn’t include deposits on the bottles or meals for the driver. I assumed the villagers would take car of the driver.

[adorno]

Again you fail. I never said the driver was free. I included a daily rate.

And I refuted your claim of $200 a day.

If the cost of producing hydrogen in the desert is 'free' (as you claim), then, why would the driver of hydrogen produced elsewhere have to cost any higher than 'free'.

If the idea is to produce 'free' energy, it can be produced 'just as free' elsewhere, and more easily. There is no such thing as free, but if free is the goal, why make it difficult by doing it in the desert with bone-dry air? "Free" means that, everything is being 'gifted', so, why not gift it from wherever it's produced more easily?

[adorno]

BTW, I didn’t include deposits on the bottles or meals for the driver. I assumed the villagers would take car of the driver.
You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

If the cost is 'free' to produce the hydrogen, and the labor (and other costs) are free, then, a driver coming from elsewhere can also be free; no cost for bottles or meals, etc. That is, using your method of 'free' everything. Get it???

[TexasGator]

“a driver coming from elsewhere can also be free;”

LOL! The driver doesn’t work for free!

[TexasGator]

“I can make the claim because you supported the idea. So, produce the studies and cost-effectiveness to back up the idea”

Cite that post..

[adorno]

LOL! The driver doesn’t work for free!

LOL!

Neither do the people who would be performing the electrolysis. Like I said, nothing is free, but you insist that the driver's cost would not be free. I insist that the electrolysis would NOT be free either. If free is the goal, then free should be the goal for 'other' methods, like production where water is readily available and abundant.

But, why are you so insistent that the desert fuel production is the way to go? Why does it matter to you? In any case, that is a project which will never get off the ground.

[TexasGator]

“Neither do the people who would be performing the electrolysis.”.

The one’s in the village do. They get the free hydrogen in exchange.

[TexasGator]

"But, why are you so insistent that the desert fuel production is the way to go?"

Again, Cite that post..

[TexasGator]

“Why does it matter to you? “

That doesn’t matter. I just like to keep threads honest and factual.

[adorno]

Cite that post..

EVERY POST you've made.

Your arguments point to your support of the desert electrolysis. Otherwise, why continue the argument if you don't support the idea?

You don't have to specifically say "I like the idea and I support it" in order for people to asses and derive that you are for the idea.

I can vote for a candidate, without specifically saying I support that candidate. I can argue for that candidate, but by arguing for that candidate, I' would be supporting that candidate. Simple common sense.

[adorno]

That doesn’t matter. I just like to keep threads honest and factual.

Yet, you had arguments full of holes.

[TexasGator]

"EVERY POST you've made."

Cite ONE that supports your claim.

[TexasGator]

“I can argue for that candidate, but by arguing for that candidate, I’ would be supporting that candidate. Simple common sense.”

CITE THE POST WHERE I AM ARGUING FOR THIS CONCEPT.

[TexasGator]

“Yet, you had arguments full of holes.”

Cite a post.

[adorno]

CITE THE POST WHERE I AM ARGUING FOR THIS CONCEPT.

Each and every one of your posts. Arguing for an idea or defending an idea, means that you are for the idea. Whether you recognized it or not.