Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Fuel Cell Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Postby JLK » Sun 31 Oct 2004, 20:21:26

We'll end up turning to nuclear power in the US to generate our electricity because we'll have to. Coal is too dirty and there are imminent supply issues with natural gas.

One of the problems you are likely to run into when reading up on Peak Oil is that many of the authors (Heinberg and Darley come to mind) are also leftist anti-nuclear greenies. They'll mumble something in their books about nuclear also being non-renewable (true, but with fast breeder technology the fuel will last practically forever), expensive (mainly because their ideological soulmates keep the utilities in perpetual litigation) and that the waste problem is intractable (its a big planet).

We need to initiate research now into the nuclear technology of the future. MarkR's ideas should be treated with respect.
www.searchingforthetruth.com

The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
User avatar
JLK
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri 21 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: East Coast USA

Postby JLK » Sun 31 Oct 2004, 20:29:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'I')n 50 years, it has proven that it cannot even stand on its own two feet without numerous subsidies like the Insurance liability subsidy, the waste management subsidy and others.


This means we have to change the regulatory scheme. Nuclear power is more than competitive on a thermodynamic basis.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no way any rational person who seriously considers the issues with nuclear storage can even dream that waste can be securely contained for 500 much less 250,000 and more years given the vagaries of geology and the natural environment. We cannot predict when a so-called stable geological formation will suddenly move, allow water in, develop fissures or some future human simply out of ignorance disturb the waste.


There are trenches in the ocean miles deep. Dump it all there.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or those who discount the health impact of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other nuclear catastrophes, please browse through the site http://www.ratical.org and other radiation health sites to see the terrible toll that nuclear (including medical radiation like X-rays and so called harmless background radiation) has taken on life and will continue to take for generations. I agree, thousands die from coal, oil etc. every year but there is a crucial difference. The principal effects are short term. They kill people today, they don't kill/harm the presently unborn. This characteristic makes nuclear particularly insidious. They also don't permanently contaminate. Please read about mutagenicity (malformed body parts) and teratogenicity(missing body parts) to understand how they are related to low-level ionizing radiation.


New designs will be safer. It is possible to design an intrinsically safe fission reactor.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne last point. The terrorists did not have to breach the containment building, they simply had to disturb the waste storage pools and casks outside reactor containment to cause major trouble.


Because anti-nuclear activists have held Yucca Mtn up for years.
www.searchingforthetruth.com

The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
User avatar
JLK
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri 21 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: East Coast USA

Postby AdvocatusDiaboli » Fri 05 Nov 2004, 06:32:26

The fears about nuclear waste are overblown.
If you reprocess it, the resulting waste will decay to below the radioactivity level of naturally occuring uranium within 5000-10000 years.
The vast majority of the radiation is gone after a hundred years. A substance cannot be both highly radioactive and have a long half-life.
Highly radioactive isotopes decay quickly - that's why they're so radioactive.
Furthermore, assume that Yucca mountain for some reason would "leak" and after a thousand or two thousand years small amounts of radioactive substances would start to migrate out. Aside from the fact that this appears to be impossible, this would be a VERY slow process and the ABSOLUTE WORST that could happen is that drinking water a couple of miles around becomes unusable and the area becomes unsuitable for agriculture. So what?
If you're interested in learning about long-term nuclear waste storage google "natural nuclear reactor" to read about the gabon subterranean nuclear reactor.
The fission products have staid contained in the rock in the vincinity of where they were produced for BILLIONS of years.
User avatar
AdvocatusDiaboli
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat 21 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Fuel cell discussion

Postby foolcell » Fri 14 Jan 2005, 17:21:02

Fuel cell discussion

First, let me say that I am very pleased to have come across this website, it's nice to see open and frank discussion about the current energy quandary. I would like to share my thoughts and feelings about the hype of fuel cells. About 5 years ago, I started working in the fuel cell industry as a mechanical engineer, with an attitude that this fuel cell thing was going to save the world and make me richer than bill gates. I worked extremely hard on my task of improving plate design and manufacturing the finished product. Things where going good, I got few patents and the product was selling to our customers. This was the trend for a few years, new designs, and improvements. Then are customers started to ask if we could make a few million a year then 500 million plus a year (this is just the ramp up). Each fuel cell has about 180 plates per stack with about ~150 million cars on the road a complete crossover to fuel cells would require ~27,000,000,000 bipolar plates annually. I thought man this is great this is right where we want to be making million no TRILLIONS of bi polar plates. A few days passed and I began thinking how this stupid was. What’s the point of this information? Well that the corporate types are selling to anybody that will buy it that fuel cell are the answer. Without any regard to the facts about it, one day I asked my bosses boss the GM of the company about this he said that’s “great news are shareholders will love itâ€
User avatar
foolcell
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Postby Jack » Sat 15 Jan 2005, 00:55:46

Do the plates require platinum? And, if so, how much platinum would be required to fulfill the demand?

It seems problematic, doesn't it?
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Postby Devil » Sat 15 Jan 2005, 02:58:11

Not to mention obtaining clean fuel to pump into the cell without emitting CO2 (or worse).
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Postby big_rc » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 17:47:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'D')o the plates require platinum? And, if so, how much platinum would be required to fulfill the demand?

It seems problematic, doesn't it?


Hey Jack,

I think he is talking about the bipolar plates that are used in the fuel cell to deliver fuel, transport electrons and seperate the anode from the cathode. Those don't require Pt. They are typically made out of graphite, metal or electrically conductive plastics and are very expensive. As a matter of fact, they (bi polar plates) are some of the most expensive parts of a fuel cell. The catalyst that helps split the H2 is typically some type of Pt but I don't think that is as expensive as the plates.

I did some grad work in fuel cells and I too thought that they were going to "save" humankind. Now I know a bit better. In your case, I still think fuel cells are important and useful in many areas that require stand alone electricity and are willing to pay the costs for it. I just don't think autos are that application.
Simon's Law: Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.

I don't think of all the misery, but of all the beauty that still remains.--Anne Frank
User avatar
big_rc
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Amerika (most of the time)
Top

Postby Jack » Sun 16 Jan 2005, 18:20:55

Thanks, big_rc!

I appreciate the info. 8)
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Fuel cell run on blood

Postby Agren » Fri 13 May 2005, 09:53:00

Matrix-style feeding-farms, anyone?

Actually, it's kinda cool I think :)
AJ
User avatar
Agren
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sweden

Matrix? no

Postby boilingleadbath » Fri 13 May 2005, 11:24:33

".2 watts"
Hey, that's enough to power a laser-pointer!
Or a watch (implant), a calculator (implant), or hearing aid (impland).

On the other hand... my computer's using 1,000 times or so that much.
Big woop de doo. Not to mention, the EROEI is negitive.

Edit: nevermind... that's .2 MILIwatts...
boilingleadbath
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 22 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: NW Pensylvania (U.S.A)

Postby JLK » Fri 13 May 2005, 12:48:11

Well, when you think about it, human beings are nothing more than fuel cells running on blood.
www.searchingforthetruth.com

The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
User avatar
JLK
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri 21 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: East Coast USA

Re: Matrix? no

Postby TrueKaiser » Sat 14 May 2005, 00:01:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('boilingleadbath', '"').2 watts"
Hey, that's enough to power a laser-pointer!
Or a watch (implant), a calculator (implant), or hearing aid (impland).

On the other hand... my computer's using 1,000 times or so that much.
Big woop de doo. Not to mention, the EROEI is negitive.

Edit: nevermind... that's .2 MILIwatts...


you know just to be fair you might want to look up how little electricty the first prototypes of the curent generators we use, made and their eroei.
unlike what popular media like movies and tv shows tell you, prototypes never work as well or as efficeint as the mature version.
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.
'Napoleon Bonaparte'
User avatar
TrueKaiser
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Matrix? no

Postby Devilboy » Sun 15 May 2005, 05:46:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', 'y')ou know just to be fair you might want to look up how little electricty the first prototypes of the curent generators we use, made and their eroei.
unlike what popular media like movies and tv shows tell you, prototypes never work as well or as efficeint as the mature version.


I think thats pretty pointless considering the fuel in this case is BLOOD. Hardly an unlimited resource. This technology has lots of uses in medicine but has nothing to do with peak oil.
User avatar
Devilboy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat 16 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fuel cell run on blood

Postby jaakkeli » Sun 15 May 2005, 07:10:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Agren', 'M')atrix-style feeding-farms, anyone?


You know, this is the one reason why I can't stand the Matrix movie (I've only seen the first, can't force myself to watch the others). Human energy? NO! WRONG! The EROEI doesn't work! Human beings aren't energy sources, we're energy carriers! The Matrix is just like the "hydrogen economy". It doesn't work like that! That's just fantasy made up by scientifically illiterate people.

Sigh. I'm a geek.

I wish they would've gone with the original plan where the humans were used for the brains, for the computing power. Then the movie would've rocked!
User avatar
jaakkeli
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu 10 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Finland
Top

Re: Matrix? no

Postby TrueKaiser » Sun 15 May 2005, 23:28:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devilboy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', 'y')ou know just to be fair you might want to look up how little electricty the first prototypes of the curent generators we use, made and their eroei.
unlike what popular media like movies and tv shows tell you, prototypes never work as well or as efficeint as the mature version.


I think thats pretty pointless considering the fuel in this case is BLOOD. Hardly an unlimited resource. This technology has lots of uses in medicine but has nothing to do with peak oil.


your mistakenly asuming this will be used to generate electricty like a current power plant, when it will revolutionize the medical device market.
imagine pace makers that do not need to be recharged/replaced due to dead batterys.

edit: i do admit my first post on this thread was poorly worded, should of mentioned batterys.
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.
'Napoleon Bonaparte'
User avatar
TrueKaiser
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

"Ceres power" fuel cell breakthrough - real?

Postby Berkeley » Mon 16 May 2005, 22:36:08

This sounds like a big deal, if it's half for real (no platinum???). Why isn't it being noticed on the peak oil news? What's the catch?
User avatar
Berkeley
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 20 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Durango CO, USA

Postby FireJack » Mon 16 May 2005, 23:46:08

I don't really see this as making any kind of big impact.
User avatar
FireJack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed 16 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Fuel cells

Postby baldwincng » Tue 17 May 2005, 07:27:28

It is possible to take natural gas and use it in a fuel cell to make heat and electricity. Having said that, given that it is also possible to set fire to natural gas in a domestic CHP unit to get heat and electricity, why bother?

It is also possible to take natural gas and build a chemical plant the size of a small country and convert the natural gas into a relatively clean form of diesel, then mix it with ordinary dirty diesel and use it in vehicle engines.

Given that you can run vehicles on natural gas, why bother?

It is also possible to travel west from Los Angeles to New York

There is no end of utterly pointless things that can be done.
User avatar
baldwincng
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat 16 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Fuel cells

Postby BiGG » Thu 19 May 2005, 11:26:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('baldwincng', 'I')t is possible to take natural gas and use it in a fuel cell to make heat and electricity. Having said that, given that it is also possible to set fire to natural gas in a domestic CHP unit to get heat and electricity, why bother?

It is also possible to take natural gas and build a chemical plant the size of a small country and convert the natural gas into a relatively clean form of diesel, then mix it with ordinary dirty diesel and use it in vehicle engines.

Given that you can run vehicles on natural gas, why bother?

It is also possible to travel west from Los Angeles to New York

There is no end of utterly pointless things that can be done.


I think you are kinda missing the whole point here! Starting with a few quotes from the linked article ……………….

"The cell would provide homes with a clean and cheap form of energy that produces significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions than conventional fossil fuels."

“It can be powered by natural gas as well as hydrogen and does not need platinum as a catalyst”

"The system will create CO2 savings of 30 to 50 per cent, even allowing for some CO2 being produced by the fuel cell running on natural gas."

That alone is HUGE not to mention ……

Hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the earth's surface, where it is found primarily in water (H²O) and organic compounds. It is generally produced from hydrocarbons or water; and when burned as a fuel, or converted to electricity, it joins with oxygen to again form water.

Hydrogen is produced from sources such as natural gas, coal, gasoline, methanol, or biomass through the application of heat; from bacteria or algae through photosynthesis; or by using electricity or sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

A fuel cell that does not need platinum and can run on hydrogen with a CO2 savings of 30 to 50 per cent pointless? What?
"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil" ............ Former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani,
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

30 - 50% of what

Postby baldwincng » Thu 19 May 2005, 14:44:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he system will create CO2 savings of 30 to 50 per cent, even allowing for some CO2 being produced by the fuel cell running on natural gas."


BiGG,

Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

It may save 30-50% of C02 compared to old fashioned boilers, it will save very much less comnpared to efficient condensing boilers, ddoubtful if it will save anything compared to domestic CHP? Not possible to tell, no technical data on their website.

The world is full of hydrogen but God stores it ion a form that is very difficult to get at.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') fuel cell that does not need platinum and can run on hydrogen with a CO2 savings of 30 to 50 per cent pointless? What?


Who cares about platimum? The issue with hydrogen is not in the fuel cell, it is in making the hydrogen.....fuel cells are utterly pointless. Not pointless, utterly pointless.

Hydrogen economy = more dependent on Middle East oil = bad for global warming = dumb idea, though great for politicians PR. In 20 years it will still be 10 years away, thank goodness. In 50 years the world wil have realkised the value of energy and the idea of making huydrogen to store it will be seen for what it is, do-lally.
User avatar
baldwincng
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat 16 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest