39 replies to this topic

[skyymaster]

While we fiddle with all of these options we really should think about mass transit system. The answer really lies in the elements (earth, water, fire (sun), wind). We need to harness all of these until another planet becomes livable then the whole cycle starts over,

[nimblebear]

Man. You guys are sharp. many good thoughts about the H2 issues, and infrastructure and alternatives. H2 is truly just a carrier just like electricity. The ONLY benefit is that it can be stored a little easier and the conversion of it can be more efficient than gas to hp. This has been studied by Argonne National Labs and DOE for years, and the only way the infrastructure will enough H2 is to build hundreds more 1000 mw nuke plants. HUNDREDS !. When was the last time you saw a plant built ? let alone permitted. Nuke is critical becuase otherwise producing all the electricity needed to generate H2 defeat the purpose of H@ being "clean." It would be non-sensical to use coal. Also, for any powerplant you need billions of gallons of cooling water. MAJOR probola. We don't have enough cooling wate available currently or into the future unless you want to wipe out half the population of NA. So hence you need to desalinate ocean water, and guess what ? Nukes are best way to do that, bc here again you need a gazzillion watts of energy to do it. Nukes need cooling water themselves and electrolysis is one way to desalinate and also produce H2. The "tri-fecta" if you can ever pull it off. Nuke, H2, electrolysis. Just a small detail. Honda's doing this purely for stuntsmanship and PR. Then you have all these nutz who want to use our corn or biofuel to generate the H2. I tell ya', we have some pretty whacky weird "scientists' out there. I think we have a much better chance of just improving mileage and changing peoples habits, driving smaller cars, and building a mass transportation network, such as rail for one, that actually works and serves many areas. Suburbia and all the highways in this country and America's "love affair" with da CAR is the killer in all of this. Americans' so love this so -called "independence" they have to be abe to drive anywhere without others in the same vehicle (rail, carpool, etc.). Problem is this "independence" is so yester-year !. That "independence" is what makes this country so totally DEPENDENT on foreign oil and interests. If we didn't have that addiction, we wouldn't need the military we have, and we could cut their budget in half, use it to fund our real problems that need to be solved first which social security and federal debt seem to be a couple that come to mind.

[stocks]

Which is more efficient? Hydrogen or batteries? That's the analysis we need to see. Explaining that energy can be turned into hydrogen is not an analysis or an argument, it's just a fact. What is the most efficient way to make that energy portable? Storage batteries or hydrogen? Which is it?

Start out with htgr's in airports.

French electricity is, what, 90% nuclear.

Just a matter of waiting for enough pain to make people get real.

[Mike McCarthy]

Which is more efficient? Hydrogen or batteries? That's the analysis we need to see. Explaining that energy can be turned into hydrogen is not an analysis or an argument, it's just a fact. What is the most efficient way to make that energy portable? Storage batteries or hydrogen? Which is it?

Start out with htgr's in airports.

French electricity is, what, 90% nuclear.

Just a matter of waiting for enough pain to make people get real.

You'll get no argument from me that nukes need to be a big part of the mix (35% of the energy delivered to my home is nuclear). That has nothing to do with hydrogen, though.

[stocks]

How FCX Clarity works:

http://automobiles.h...-fcx-works.aspx

[PorkLoin]

Good, interesting thread. I agree that there will be lots more energy from nuclear facilities, though it's indeed a long process to permit and build a plant. Uranium oxide has gone from $7 in 2000 to the price peak of over $130 per lb. last year to $59, currently, and many uranium stocks have gotten beaten down a lot more than that on a percentage basis. I think the blood is running in the streets, there. Best, Doug

[stocks]

I agree that there will be lots more energy from nuclear facilities, though it's indeed a long process to permit and build a plant.

It took us eighteen months to build the first nuclear power generator; it now takes us twelve years; that's progress

-Edward Teller

[Mike McCarthy]

How FCX Clarity works:

http://automobiles.h...-fcx-works.aspx

Where does the Clarity get the energy to set all those wonderful technologies illustrated in your link in motion?

At the end of the day, you still gotta SOURCE the energy. This point seems to be lost. The hydrogen in that tank, which powers the motor and charges the batteries, had to be PRODUCED from some other source of energy: coal, nukes, hydroelectric, etc. Hydrogen itself is not a source of energy.

Given that, the Clarity is just another slick machine begging for fuel. It's no different than an electric car or, for that matter, my 20mpg van. It's a machine looking for fuel. It looks pretty slick, but it still needs coal or nukes or something.

Would the Clarity be any different if, rather than that hydrogen tank in back, it had a bank of NiCd, nickel metal hydride, lithium ion, Li-ion polymer, zinc-air or molten salt batteries instead? No, it would be the same.

That hydrogen tank is NOTHING but a battery: it's a technology capable or storing energy generated somewhere else.

Maybe I'm missing your point here, and maybe you aren't trying to make the false point made by so many advocates of hydrogen (who mistakenly think hydrogen itself is a fuel source). Maybe that's not what you are saying. Maybe all you are saying is "Hey, look at this cool car!" in which case I'll say, "Wow, that's a pretty cool car!"

But, if you are saying that car's hydrogen fuel cell somehow particularly saves energy, then no, it doesn't. It very well may waste energy. The processes to create hydrogen -- as someone earlier in this thread posted -- are not particularly efficient.

[nimblebear]

The best thing you can say about Honda's attempt is this: 1) They are getting the fuel cell to do what everyone dreamed of since its invention in the 1800's (yep. 18 freakin hundred). Couple centuries ago. 2) That said, the fuel cell could finally find its way from that good ol bad ol Apollo space mission, where astronauts relied heavily on alkaline technology to power the space crafts, to our homes. Took a few years after Tang, and we all know how bad that tasted, but this could have far more of an impact. 3) Fuel cells could end up powering your lap tops or other items, because they can run on multiple fuels. Methanol is one, that allows you to store some energy. and then use it in the cell. its just a source to get to the H2. You could go far longer with something much less than the weight of a battery. That is the "potential" beauty of a fuel cell, among others. 4) Hydrogen is quite simply the most abundant element in the universe. Capturing, using it, storing it, or producing it from other energy source is the challenge. In a fuel cell it is simply a "carrier" of energy. But H2 is energy itself. what the heck do you all think the sun is made of ? farts ? So in reply to mr. mcarthy, you sir are the one mistaken about hydrogen. it IS energy, and it CAN be a source. How its used in a fuel cell though is that it is a carrier. 5) What we are witnessing from Honda is a thing of beauty in terms of design discipline, and engineering. You folks simply cannot even begin to imagine the challenges these folks have faced in getting this product to market. The first fuel cells in the apollo missions built by United Technolgies, nowhere near match the challenges these guys in the auto industry have faced. For one, a fuel cell in the Apollo put out mere watts of electricity. For that they paid in excess of a $1 million dollars in 1960's dollars. Now we are talking, 75 or more kw's out of the Honda fuel cell, so that means 75,000 watts ! They are developing this with infinitely less dollars in comparison to what UTC had at its disposal from Unlce sam, and they are getting it down to a price that is almost even affordable. And it has to work in subzero conditions, the bumpy ride of a vehicle, and be simple enough to allow some at a dealership to eventually service. Its one thing for Toyota to have "perfected" hybrid transmission technology, and the things that go along with it, but entirely another to see Honda (or even other manufacturers) bring this fuel cell technology so close to being usable by consumers. 6) fuel cells will no doubt find their way into many different uses beyond its current propsoed use in a vehicle. The best thing about it is that we can finally say good bye to the archaic technology called the ICE. Interbal combustion engine. Its a PIG. It burns fossil. It can be little more than 30% efficient on its own, without huge adaptations from other supporting technolgy (i.e turbo chargers.) The fuel cell itself isn't quite there yet in terms of efficiency either, but the potential is far greater. We are going from combustion (FINALLY) to a chemical and electronic reactions. that is the future. COMBUSTION is NOT. It is our PAST. Kaputo ! Fini ! GONE ! Bye bye ! We may someday very easily see a fuel cell set up to supply power and be the "furnace" and a/c source and supplying power in DC instead of the crappy a/c we are all getting now thanks to Tom Edison who corrupted our society by bringing AC to the grid, instead of thinking a little bit longer about using A/C. But he "won" over Westinghouse. He was a better marketer pure and simple. Its liek how Sony lost the beta war to VHS. It could also be the source for our vehicle. Fuel cells can be set up to "produce" H2 instead of using it to make E2. Confused ? Good. Go read up on it in some books. The more folks learn about this stuff the better chance it has of happening, and more of us can be advocates of the right technology, instead of mis-informed and gullible users of technology that is thrust upon us by the best "marketer." email if you have any questions about fuel cells. I will give u the facts- not hype as it were, and garbage you can pick up on the internet.

[nimblebear]

Correction below: I mistakenly interchanged Edison and Westinghouse above - sorry about that Tommy boy)

The best thing you can say about Honda's attempt is this:

1) They are getting the fuel cell to do what everyone dreamed of since its invention in the 1800's (yep. 18 freakin hundred). Couple centuries ago.

2) That said, the fuel cell could finally find its way from that good ol bad ol Apollo space mission, where astronauts relied heavily on alkaline technology to power the space crafts, to our homes. Took a few years after Tang, and we all know how bad that tasted, but this could have far more of an impact.

3) Fuel cells could end up powering your lap tops or other items, because they can run on multiple fuels. Methanol is one, that allows you to store some energy. and then use it in the cell. its just a source to get to the H2. You could go far longer with something much less than the weight of a battery. That is the "potential" beauty of a fuel cell, among others.

4) Hydrogen is quite simply the most abundant element in the universe. Capturing, using it, storing it, or producing it from other energy source is the challenge. In a fuel cell it is simply a "carrier" of energy. But H2 is energy itself. what the heck do you all think the sun is made of ? farts ?

So in reply to mr. mcarthy, you sir are the one mistaken about hydrogen. it IS energy, and it CAN be a source. How its used in a fuel cell though is that it is a carrier.

5) What we are witnessing from Honda is a thing of beauty in terms of design discipline, and engineering. You folks simply cannot even begin to imagine the challenges these folks have faced in getting this product to market. The first fuel cells in the apollo missions built by United Technolgies, nowhere near match the challenges these guys in the auto industry have faced. For one, a fuel cell in the Apollo put out mere watts of electricity. For that they paid in excess of a $1 million dollars in 1960's dollars. Now we are talking, 75 or more kw's out of the Honda fuel cell, so that means 75,000 watts ! They are developing this with infinitely less dollars in comparison to what UTC had at its disposal from Unlce sam, and they are getting it down to a price that is almost even affordable. And it has to work in subzero conditions, the bumpy ride of a vehicle, and be simple enough to allow some at a dealership to eventually service.

Its one thing for Toyota to have "perfected" hybrid transmission technology, and the things that go along with it, but entirely another to see Honda (or even other manufacturers) bring this fuel cell technology so close to being usable by consumers.

6) fuel cells will no doubt find their way into many different uses beyond its current propsoed use in a vehicle. The best thing about it is that we can finally say good bye to the archaic technology called the ICE. Interbal combustion engine. Its a PIG. It burns fossil. It can be little more than 30% efficient on its own, without huge adaptations from other supporting technolgy (i.e turbo chargers.)

The fuel cell itself isn't quite there yet in terms of efficiency either, but the potential is far greater. We are going from combustion (FINALLY) to a chemical and electronic reactions. that is the future. COMBUSTION is NOT. It is our PAST. Kaputo ! Fini ! GONE ! Bye bye !

We may someday very easily see a fuel cell set up to supply power and be the "furnace" and a/c source and supplying power in DC instead of the crappy a/c we are all getting now thanks to Westinghouse who corrupted our society by bringing AC to the grid, instead of thinking a little bit longer about using A/C. But he "won" over Edison.It's like how Sony lost the beta war to VHS. DC is actually far better and less dangerous especially if you were to use it solely in a house where it can be generated at the site, and doesn't have to trvale long distances. DC can be used over long distances, contrary to the early whims of westinghouse. Texas actually connects its grid to the rest of america via a mega DC line. (snip- if the terrorists ever want to wipe out Texas, just sever one major DC line coing in from the rest of america. friggin texans always gotta be different - don't they ?)

It could also be the h 2 source for our vehicle. Fuel cells can be set up to "produce" H2 instead of using it to make E2. Confused ? Good. Go read up on it in some books.

The more folks learn about this stuff the better chance it has of happening, and more of us can be advocates of the right technology, instead of mis-informed and gullible users of technology that is thrust upon us by the best "marketer."

email if you have any questions about fuel cells. I will give u the facts- not hype as it were, and garbage you can pick up on the internet.

Edited by nimblebear, 16 June 2008 - 09:55 PM.