Author Topic: Fuel Cells (Read 736 times)

popeye · « **Reply #30 on:** November 11, 2002, 09:27:23 AM »

GRUNHERZ,

The Clinton administration was just as ineffective at promoting energy conservation as the present one. In fact, Democrats from my state are in bed with the auto manufacturers fighting fuel efficiency improvements. Clinton and the Democrats weren't quite as blatant about their loyalties to Exxon and General Motors as the current administration.

It doesn't change the fact that conservation is a more effective way to reduce the ill effects of petroleum fuels than electric cars, fuel cells, or any other viable technologies in the forseeable future.

LePaul · « **Reply #31 on:** November 11, 2002, 10:14:36 AM »

Its a vicious cycle...automakers make super-dee-douper efficient cars at great cost....and no one buys them. People buy gas guzzling SUVs, Sports Cars, etc....and the tree huggers in their SUVs deem the rest of us schmucks buy earth friendly cars...or insist the automakers build more fuel efficient cars. Again, restart loop...automakers hesitate, pointing out previous attempts and also show what huge sales the gas guzzlers have.

Point is, if people want to make a difference, it has to be everyone. I'm chugging along in a Saturn because the mileage is good. Next car...dunno. I find it amusing that people want to insist what others do/drive/purchase....automakers put a lot of effort into development, tooling and marketing to sell autos, and the super-efficient cars aren't anything people want....yet.

popeye · « **Reply #32 on:** November 11, 2002, 10:36:12 AM »

Just fund all Persian Gulf military operations with gasoline taxes, instead of income taxes, then see what kind of cars people want.

Manedew · « **Reply #33 on:** November 11, 2002, 10:46:29 AM »

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/April2002/meg1a/meg1a.htm

Your looking for a MEG not a stupid fuel cell (I suggest you look at these links if you like fuel cells)

Rock on zero point~!

(the reason Boeing & Toshiba are supporting anti-gravity reasearch)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #34 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:03:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
There's that I idea of sticking a crapload of them in orbit and microwaving the engery back to an earth groundstation.

Of course you could do the same with a ferrous metal bar in orbit traveling through the earth's magnetic field.

Nice thing about these technologies, no waste is produced.

No waste is produced? Obviously you don't work in the semiconductor buisness.

I'd venture to say less waste is produced by hydro-electric power than would be needed to produce enough chips to generate a significant amount of energy.... not to mention the waste generated by the forging of the materials, nor the waste generated by making the object

I'd venture to say that hydrogen based fuel cells will be arriving within the next 20 years. Rumor has it that they have the capability of turning a 6 hour battery into a 3 month battery. Of course, that's the companies selling the products that are making the claims. A very good question is how much fossil fuel would be needed to generate the necessary hydrogen.

AKDejaVu

Thrawn · « **Reply #35 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:12:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
No waste is produced? Obviously you don't work in the semiconductor buisness.

I'd venture to say less waste is produced by hydro-electric power than would be needed to produce enough chips to generate a significant amount of energy.... not to mention the waste generated by the forging of the materials, nor the waste generated by making the object

Unfortunately almost all the rivers that can produce hydro-electric power are already being tapped.

All forms of electric generating systems will have waste products involved with the production of the system. However not all will have waste in the production of the electricity itself.

PS: Man my spelling is reminicent of bellybutton sometimes.

Manedew · « **Reply #36 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:21:39 AM »

WAAA WAAA read my links i dare ya

I thought BS .. but just look i dare ya

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/April2002/meg1a/meg1a.htm

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #37 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:36:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Unfortunately almost all the rivers that can produce hydro-electric power are already being tapped.

No... not even close. But I'm not really a proponent of adding more dams... maybe just increasing the efficiency of the current ones.

Quote

All forms of electric generating systems will have waste products involved with the production of the system. However not all will have waste in the production of the electricity itself.

Not true... all will have waste since all are considered consumables. These items do not have infinite lifespans... quite the contrary. Also, things like the "microwave the energy back" idea have tremendous implications in virtually every aspect of impact... as in what happens to impurities that travel through this beam... what happens to the environment around the beam? Etcetera. There simply is no such thing as a "no risk" energy supply. The very concept of harnessing energy itself means risk, waste and danger.

Quote

PS: Man my spelling is reminicent of bellybutton sometimes.

You'll not see me commenting on someone's spelling for a very specific reason that has to do with casting the first stone.

AKDejaVu

Thrawn · « **Reply #38 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:51:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
No... not even close. But I'm not really a proponent of adding more dams... maybe just increasing the efficiency of the current ones.

Let me rephrase. Unfortunately almost all the rivers that can produce hydro-electric power, without unacceptable impact on the environment, are already being tapped.

To the rest of your response, I agree. And I'll offer the microwaves some space idea as an option, not necessary a safer one though.

OIO · « **Reply #39 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:03:46 PM »

"There's that I idea of sticking a crapload of them in orbit and microwaving the engery back to an earth groundstation. "

Yeah.. I can picture it...

"Reuters:

Script Kiddies gain control of orbiting microwave satellite at 3pm EST yesterday, dislodging the fixed ground-target coordinates by .5 degrees, making the microwave beam sweep over the former Los Angeles."

Manedew · « **Reply #40 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:26:33 PM »

yup a true worry

hacking satilites
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/942

john9001 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:32:57 PM »

most auto mfgs have car models that get 40-45 mpg but nobody wants to drive them , because they do not have ROOM , they do not have POWER, they do not IMPRESS THY NEIGHBORS, if you drive one men will laugh at you and women will shun you, so nobody drives a high mpg car , but every one cries about BIG OIL and how much oil we use.

if you want to save oil , start at home.

auto pollution..
a properly maintained late model car puts out almost zero pollution , i know , part of my job was to test the exhuast emmisions.

ra · « **Reply #42 on:** November 11, 2002, 01:02:43 PM »

I drive a high-mileage dweeb mobile and a low-milage SUV, and I never complain about BIG OIL. I love BIG OIL, they sell me 87 octane gas cheaper than the French can sell me Perrier.

ra

funkedup · « **Reply #43 on:** November 11, 2002, 03:16:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Uh..I always thought the "H" in H2O stood for Hydrogen

That's not hydrogen, that's water. I'm talking about H2. It does not naturally occur on this planet.
Removing the O from H2O requires a lot of energy. So proposing H2 as an energy source makes very little sense if you live on planet earth.