Post by Cpt. Sir Dominic Flandry on Jan 4, 2009 6:08:34 GMT -5
www.ecorazzi.com/2008/12/23/professor-blasts-bonds-unrealistic-explosive-hydrogen-ending/
Professor Blasts Bond’s Unrealistic Explosive Hydrogen Ending
If you’ve seen the latest James Bond flick, Quantum of Solace, then you know that the climactic final battle takes place amidst a backdrop of exploding hydrogen fuel cells. In fact, foreshadowing that impending doom, one of the bad guys comments on the fuel source as “unstable”. This label, while great for a dramatic movie moment, does little to help introduce the new, renewable technology to the public. Who wants to drive a hydrogen-powered car if it’s just going to explode while you’re fighting to save the world?
A professor at Salford University, Keith Ross, who is studying hydrogen and its viability as an alternative to oil says Bond’s depiction of the technology is “disturbing”. From the article,
“I was perturbed to watch the James Bond film’s climax,” says Professor Ross. “It was unrealistic and may perpetuate the fear that hydrogen should be avoided. Although potentially explosive in a confined space, the fuel can be handled quite safely. If released into the open air, hydrogen would only burn with a blue flame – a fact obviously of no interest to a film-maker! Like the famous photographs of the Hindenburg disaster, the scene’s images could well stick in the public’s consciousness.”
Personally, I thought Bond’s plot was a little too convoluted for anyone to really care much about (or be impressionable by) its eco-themes. Nevertheless, if producers are looking to create a more “realistic” bond, the world he lives in should get the same treatment. Next time, how about some exploding wind turbines instead?
Professor Blasts Bond’s Unrealistic Explosive Hydrogen Ending
If you’ve seen the latest James Bond flick, Quantum of Solace, then you know that the climactic final battle takes place amidst a backdrop of exploding hydrogen fuel cells. In fact, foreshadowing that impending doom, one of the bad guys comments on the fuel source as “unstable”. This label, while great for a dramatic movie moment, does little to help introduce the new, renewable technology to the public. Who wants to drive a hydrogen-powered car if it’s just going to explode while you’re fighting to save the world?
A professor at Salford University, Keith Ross, who is studying hydrogen and its viability as an alternative to oil says Bond’s depiction of the technology is “disturbing”. From the article,
“I was perturbed to watch the James Bond film’s climax,” says Professor Ross. “It was unrealistic and may perpetuate the fear that hydrogen should be avoided. Although potentially explosive in a confined space, the fuel can be handled quite safely. If released into the open air, hydrogen would only burn with a blue flame – a fact obviously of no interest to a film-maker! Like the famous photographs of the Hindenburg disaster, the scene’s images could well stick in the public’s consciousness.”
Personally, I thought Bond’s plot was a little too convoluted for anyone to really care much about (or be impressionable by) its eco-themes. Nevertheless, if producers are looking to create a more “realistic” bond, the world he lives in should get the same treatment. Next time, how about some exploding wind turbines instead?
