Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on November 09, 2002, 03:53:20 PM
-
Are not a solution.
The word "fuel" is the problem.
-
My, how very cryptic.
-
Of course.
Fuel cells store energy, they do not produce it. It's like saying let's solve the energy problem by powering everything with AAA batteries.
-
They aren't intended to be a solution, they are a better mousetrap.
ra
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Are not a solution.
The word "fuel" is the problem.
horses store energy , they do not produce it, before your horse can pull your wagon , you must plant the hay , grow the hay,harvest the hay, store the hay,feed the hay to your horse ...then your horse can pull your wagon...nothing moves without using fuel, even sailing ships , you have to build the ship , make the sails, feed the crew, etc
-
Exactly.
People see fuel cells as this miracle form of energy, when in fact its just a more expensive evolution product of good old natural oil.
-
Correct, but we can still hold out hope for electric cars- which will end all automotive polution forever.... Yes, yes then finally well be able to stop the evil gas/energy corporations... :rolleyes:
On the other hand I think the hybrid gas/electric cars seem like a pretty decent way to improve fuel economy and emmisions, at least for little commuter types, but again they are a bit too expensive now.
-
What fuel cells are is a replacement for oil based fuels in cars, and a potential replacement for batteries.
When it actually comes to producing the electricity in the first place, nuclear and hydroelectric are the best options available. Neither are perfect, hydroelectric needs fast moving water, and nuclear creates long-lived nuclear waste. But both beat anything else currently available.
As for nuclear power, I'm all for building secure storage facilities in the middle of nowhere and leaving it to be dealt with in the future. If in 500-1000 years, humanity hasn't progressed to the point where we can do something final with it(Proccess it further, or launch it into space, and into the sun), then we deserve whatever horrible fate it causes us.
-
Nope. Fuel cells will most likely run on gasoline anyway....
-
Well...in terms of science, a "cell" can be defined as a vessel that holds matter. If that's the case, funked is right. A fuel cell is simply a vessel for holding fuel. Literally, a fuel tank could be defined as a fuel cell , it just depends on how you look at it.
Basically, cars now a days already have fuel "cells". If you want to get fancy, put metal walls in your fuel tank and create individual cells. Spending money for a car to use 18 or 20 little cells with fuel in it (essentially making a car with 20 tiny gas tanks that must be replaced) would be pointless.
The hybrids are the best solution to this problem, but the people who hate the Big Oil Companies seem to want more...
I don't want a full electric car that takes 3 hours to recharge...do you? What about a car with fuel cells that cost $5 each (in a car with 20 or more)?
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
-
No, we are talking about chemical cells which turn fuel into electricity. These are known in the industry as fuel cells.
And yes they can run on gasoline.
If used to power vehicles, they would reduce emissions, but would not reduce our dependency on petroleum.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
As for nuclear power, I'm all for building secure storage facilities in the middle of nowhere and leaving it to be dealt with in the future. If in 500-1000 years, humanity hasn't progressed to the point where we can do something final with it(Proccess it further, or launch it into space, and into the sun), then we deserve whatever horrible fate it causes us.
WERD homie.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
No, we are talking about chemical cells which turn fuel into electricity. These are known in the industry as fuel cells.
And yes they can run on gasoline.
If used to power vehicles, they would reduce emissions, but would not reduce our dependency on petroleum.
They could also run on hydrogen, which could be separated from water with nuclear power. Too bad that could doesn't mean would.
-
fuel cells are not batteries per say.
They can be a unit that CREATES electricity by chemical reactions. Like those nifty hydrogen fuel cells they are trying to develop.
-
Why not hydrogen?
-
Originally posted by Innominate
As for nuclear power, I'm all for building secure storage facilities in the middle of nowhere and leaving it to be dealt with in the future. If in 500-1000 years, humanity hasn't progressed to the point where we can do something final with it(Proccess it further, or launch it into space, and into the sun), then we deserve whatever horrible fate it causes us.
But you see, WE won't be the ones who have to pay, it will be a completely different generation.
Sounds like a rationalization for polution to me.
WE can't make nuclear waste safe, so WE'RE going plant it the ground.
If YOU can't figure out how to neutralize it so it doesn't kill you, well it's not OUR fault, YOU'RE the stupid ones.
Pretty screwed up logic there. It doens't negate our moral responsibility for putting poison in the ground that we don't have an antidote for.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why not hydrogen?
Anybody found any naturally occuring hydrogen on this planet?
Sagefin has a good idea though. :)
-
All the world is waiting for, is the efficient solar cell.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Anybody found any naturally occuring hydrogen on this planet?
Sagefin has a good idea though. :)
Uh..I always thought the "H" in H2O stood for Hydrogen
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Correct, but we can still hold out hope for electric cars- which will end all automotive polution forever.... Yes, yes then finally well be able to stop the evil gas/energy corporations... :rolleyes:
So let me guess...automotive pollution is really good for us?
-
All the world is waiting for, is the efficient solar cell.
The world may have a long wait. I know an electrical engineer who works for a company that manufactures solar cells. He says that solar cells will never offer the kind of cheap, abundant energy the 70's hippies dreamt of. There is only a certain amount of energy reaching each square foot of earth. Even if you could harness 100% of that energy per square foot, you would need to pave huge areas of land with solar panels to generate significant energy. And you will never get 100% efficiency, 50% would be amazing. He says they're up to something like 20% now. Solar cells are good for trickle charging batteries and augmenting power supplies. It is not a growth industry.
ra
-
what the world is waiting for is a truly efficeint battery. We've got the capaicty issue pretty much solved, the only thing keeping cap'n kirks hand phaser outta production is the lack of a battery with a low enough internal impedance.
solve the battery capaicty/impedance problem, and any one of a large number of cheap charging sources could be utilised.. hydro/electric, tidal, nuclear, solar.. matters not what the source of the cheap energy is, the issue remains how to store and deliver the energy.
-
Americans seem willing wage Oil Wars, and drill in their grandmother's front yard, before making the slightest effort to conserve energy. Everyone is driving 12 mpg monsters and worrying that we are "dependent on foreign oil", but expect some future technology to save us.
Guess it's not too surprising with General Motors and Exxon in the White House.
-
Yes its awful to have GM and Exxon in the white house! During the Clinton years it was Ford and Shell and things were so much different.... :rolleyes:
But again we all must know it's only the republicans who get money from the evil unamerican corporations (made up of green space aliens and monsters and not real people and controlled by dick cheney) while the democrats make do with wholesome union money and a few quarters from little Jenny's bake sale.
BS BS BS
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So let me guess...automotive pollution is really good for us?
Oh Absolutely... Damn Steve thats pretty weak coming from you, how exactly do you think all that extra electricity would be created if suddenly we had to power hundreds of millions of new electric cars. The source of polution would just shift from the roadways to the new electricty plants. And since lefties will never allow nuclear power again, or for that matter probably new hydroelectric - you see dams and reservoirs might make some spotted something or other extinct and urban leftist elietes would feel bad - that new energy source will create polution. Like somebody said you cant just solve the energy/pollution issue by powerig everything with AAA batteries. :D
Im no physicyst but I dont think seperating the H from the H20 is all that trivial a matter.
-
There are other ways of powering vehicles, ladies and gentlemen... You just have to stop thinking of fuel and start thinking about the engine it's self.
Internal combustion engines are the bad things. There are other ways to power a car and actually make it more efficient. Ever thought that it was being held from us?
A whole lot of our economy is based on fuel, tax on fuel, whole countries economy are actually supported buy the selling of petroleum.
Remove it and you have some major problems with some major players in the global economy...
-
"There are other ways to power a car and actually make it more efficient. Ever thought that it was being held from us? "
What exactly? And if so why isn't the military using it on their tanks and vehicles, or are US oil companies more powerful than the miliaries of the world and supressing these wunder technologies even from them?
-
Originally posted by ra
Even if you could harness 100% of that energy per square foot, you would need to pave huge areas of land with solar panels to generate significant energy.
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.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh Absolutely... Damn Steve thats pretty weak coming from you, how exactly do you think all that extra electricity would be created if suddenly we had to power hundreds of millions of new electric cars. The source of polution would just shift from the roadways to the new electricty plants. And since lefties will never allow nuclear power again, or for that matter probably new hydroelectric - you see dams and reservoirs might make some spotted something or other extinct and urban leftist elietes would feel bad - that new energy source will create polution. Like somebody said you cant just solve the energy/pollution issue by powerig everything with AAA batteries. :D
Im no physicyst but I dont think seperating the H from the H20 is all that trivial a matter.
Bah, how hard can it be? H20 = H2 + O (remove the latter part) and voila, H2.
As for the rest of your post. Give me some time, I've been banned for the last 3 months remember. I'll be back in the game soon enough.
Let me just point out the obvious flaw with your line of reasoning. You are assuming that the number of cars must be constant or increasing. There are other options.
-
I will shoot at you if try to take my car away.... Ill have to buy a gun first but I will shoot at you. Therein lies the weakness of your argument, in America alone there are probably more cars than people - so figure some 300,000,000 milion or so cars and over 50% of their owners have guns. Not everyone will agree to give up their cars. And dont forget europe is at least as big or bigger car market than the USA, but fortunately for your plan theyt have less guns. :D All jokes aside I will never support any sort of socialist "no more cars" campaign or any alternative non individual choice transport device. Ive had my fill of taking the bus as a kid. My Mustang is too heavy, creaks, handles bad, and all around prolly sucks but it's mine and if I wanted to eat a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts this instant I know I could get them at their drive through window in my own car in 5 minutes...
God Bless the USA!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just fund all Persian Gulf military operations with gasoline taxes, instead of income taxes, then see what kind of cars people want.
-
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)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.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
-
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.
-
"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."
-
yup a true worry
hacking satilites
http://online.securityfocus.com/news/942
-
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.
-
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
-
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.