Discussion:
fuel cells
(too old to reply)
mist
2003-07-13 13:30:01 UTC
Permalink
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937600.asp?vts=071220031935
RadiantMatrix
2003-07-14 04:35:05 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Jul 2003 13:30:01 GMT, mist wrote,
in article <***@posting.google.com> :
| http://www.msnbc.com/news/937600.asp?vts=071220031935

A quick summary, for those who don't care to click:

Boeing is going to be testing fuel cells in a small aircraft. Fuel cells
are more environmentally-friendly than conventional fuel systems.

Boeing does not expect the fuel cells will power its commercial aircraft,
but is hoping to use them to power auxillary systems within said aircraft.
This should reduce overall fuel consumption, which is good for the
environment and for Boeing's bottom line (and stock price).

Cheers,
Radiant
--
Spivak Pronouns for a gender-neutral world:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Expand your vocabulary -- contraneoantidisestablishmentarianalistically:
"behaving in the manner of a person belonging to a movement opposed to
the new version of the movement opposed to a separation of church and state"
In The Darkness
2003-07-14 16:30:15 UTC
Permalink
JMHO, but "Fuel Cells" are the devils
distraction.

No wonder "W" supports them. ;)

The real solution is a safe effective
transport of contained, pressurized Hydrogen.

Similar to the "Blue Rhino" system in use
for natural gas, today.

We could be in full swing production in less than
a decade. Instead, the Oil Mens puppet has
"Pied Pipered" the "children", and they are
following him into the mountain.....

And soon, laughter will disappear.

(Except of course, Theirs....)
Post by RadiantMatrix
On 13 Jul 2003 13:30:01 GMT, mist wrote,
| http://www.msnbc.com/news/937600.asp?vts=071220031935
Boeing is going to be testing fuel cells in a small aircraft. Fuel cells
are more environmentally-friendly than conventional fuel systems.
Boeing does not expect the fuel cells will power its commercial aircraft,
but is hoping to use them to power auxillary systems within said aircraft.
This should reduce overall fuel consumption, which is good for the
environment and for Boeing's bottom line (and stock price).
Cheers,
Radiant
In The Darkness
2003-07-15 13:50:01 UTC
Permalink
| The real solution is a safe effective
| transport of contained, pressurized Hydrogen.
Actually, this is typically what fuel cells are. Pressurized liquid
hydrogen, propane, or some similar substance. That is why they are
considered more environmentall friendly -- they aren't petroleum products.
The natural gas example is just an example of a safe -=transport=- method
for an explosive gas.... not a suggestion of an alternative fuel.
Sorry, but I disagree with both of you.
Propane is, of course, a petroleum product, although it typically burns
cleaner than gasoline. So let's just talk about hydrogen.
Burning hydrogen may be clean at the point of combustion, and it may
avoid creating pollutants from the by-products of combustion. But what
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
However, with things like hydro-electric, solar power,
geothermal and even nuclear power plants to extract it,
the prospect isn't that bad. Plus, if they released the O
into the air, they would be giving the tree's a boost....
So we will change the problem of burning petroleum in vehicles to the
problem of finding *even more* energy to create free H2 molecules for
fuel.
See above. It is -transportable- fuel that is an issue....
using a clean abundant resource to create the H, moves
the problem to one that needn't be transportable...
and can be solved in a clean fashion.
And I don't hear anyone saying where that is going to come from.
The whole "hydrogen cell solution" to vehicular pollution is bogus, a
phantom created at one level to promote centralizing the energy
infrastructure even further so it can be controlled even more intensely
by Big Capital.... and perpetuated at another level as a political
shell game, as an end run around efforts to make vehicles more
fuel-efficient. It's a nasty hoax.
I agree it is a hoax, but not for the reasons cited.
I have no objection to people wanting clean cars. I do have objections
to politicians pretending they are solving the problem by sweeping it
under a science-fiction rug. And I object even more strenuously to
people pretending that they are helping make the environment clean by
moving the source of pollution from their driveways to some central
hydrogen-packaging plan, without even any discussion of taking
responsibility for the *massive* problems involved in the energy
consumption and pollution that will take place there.
See above methods, there are clean methods to create energy,
but they can't be stored... hence their version of a hydrogen
cell that is a -=battery=-... to store it.

The term over-engineered comes to mind. Prestidigitation,
on the part of the oil companies comes to mind, as well.
Alan Young
2003-07-15 17:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
See above. It is -transportable- fuel that is an issue....
using a clean abundant resource to create the H, moves
the problem to one that needn't be transportable...
and can be solved in a clean fashion.
Fine, but unless there's a lot of work solving *that* problem, there's
no pointdeveloping the H2-consumption end of the cycle.
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
In The Darkness
2003-07-15 18:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
See above. It is -transportable- fuel that is an issue....
using a clean abundant resource to create the H, moves
the problem to one that needn't be transportable...
and can be solved in a clean fashion.
Fine, but unless there's a lot of work solving *that* problem, there's
no pointdeveloping the H2-consumption end of the cycle.
Transportable "H", this isn't un-do-able. Like I said, Blue Rhino
in america today transport explosive, volatile gasses for consumer
utilization.....

The same thought was prevalent regarding the dangers of
a (Heaven Forbid) internal combustion engine...

Skeptics were cited with such comments as:

"Imagine intentionally exploding gasoline within
mere inches of the passengers.....

Or, even storing it in a container... that could be
hit and explode, on the vehicle...

Why, this internal combustion engine, hereafter referred
to as an "infernal contraption", would be pure suicide....
Not to mention the disruption and endangerment of
riders of horses. "
In The Darkness
2003-07-16 04:15:25 UTC
Permalink
[Hummingbear wrote]
Post by In The Darkness
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
See above. It is -transportable- fuel that is an issue....
using a clean abundant resource to create the H, moves
the problem to one that needn't be transportable...
and can be solved in a clean fashion.
Fine, but unless there's a lot of work solving *that* problem, there's
no pointdeveloping the H2-consumption end of the cycle.
Transportable "H", this isn't un-do-able. Like I said, Blue Rhino
in america today transport explosive, volatile gasses for consumer
utilization.....
Non sequitor. The problem I was referring to was not transporting the
H2 (although that too has its problems to be solved), but *generating*
the H2 in an environmentally-friendly way. I haven't heard a word about
how that is supposed to happen.
Hrmmm, one of my posts didn't make it to other systems, but
was posted, and approved.

Nuclear, Geothermal, Wind, Solar , and Hydroelectric are
all reasonably clean resources.
Alan Young
2003-07-16 05:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
Nuclear,
Waste disposal is still an unresolved cost. I don't trust the expansion
of any energy system which has known polluting effects that have never
been successfully mitigated. I don't know why any earth-loving being
would call this "clean"
Post by In The Darkness
Geothermal,
Only possible in a few places, and eco-spiritually questionable, for
reasons I won't start here.
Post by In The Darkness
Wind, Solar ,
Good, but where's the massive development of these resources?
Post by In The Darkness
and Hydroelectric are
First, you have to be willing to give up an entire valley, sometimes
several watershed, often wiping out spawning patterns for importnat
fish populations. Then it works great for 25-50 years--if you don't
mind all the environmental impacts downstream (e.g. changed water
temperature and flow patterns affecting surviving fish populations,
amphibians etc.) Then you have a silted-in lake and decreasing amounts
of power. Some environmentalists say that in both the short and the
long run, hydro is the *most* destructive source of energy.
Post by In The Darkness
all reasonably clean resources.
Think globally, please.
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
In The Darkness
2003-07-16 15:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
Nuclear,
Waste disposal is still an unresolved cost. I don't trust the expansion
of any energy system which has known polluting effects that have never
been successfully mitigated. I don't know why any earth-loving being
would call this "clean"
The pollutant per K-Joul produced are trivial, the only problem
are the leftovers... solve that, and you are there. But, compared to
almost anything else.....

The impact is minimal.

And the leftovers wouldn't be (as much of) a problem, except beyond a certain
point they start becoming weapons grade... So, we are left with a
lot more bulk than we could be, a -whole- lot....

Damn bomb freaks, ruin everything.
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
Geothermal,
Only possible in a few places, and eco-spiritually questionable, for
reasons I won't start here.
Right, obviously you favor returning to hunting and gathering.
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
Wind, Solar ,
Good, but where's the massive development of these resources?
Each can only be done in regions that favor the resource,
Holland is big on wind, fwiw. The Mojave desert, is great
for Solar. Greenland loves Geothermal.... Some are even
harnessing waves.
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
and Hydroelectric are
First, you have to be willing to give up an entire valley, sometimes
several watershed, often wiping out spawning patterns for importnat
fish populations.
Modern Hydro is even "spawning fish safe". We went to a lot
of trouble to create something that was. However, standard
cheap deployments from a century ago, had quite the
impact, and we learned.

Now, China's thoughts about the Yangtze.... that
would have an impact that cannot be measured. So,
in some cases it is true, in others, we have worked
around it.

The bugger is getting the companies to put out the
money for the environmentally friendly version,
about twice the price.
Post by Alan Young
Then it works great for 25-50 years--if you don't
mind all the environmental impacts downstream (e.g. changed water
temperature and flow patterns affecting surviving fish populations,
amphibians etc.) Then you have a silted-in lake and decreasing amounts
of power. Some environmentalists say that in both the short and the
long run, hydro is the *most* destructive source of energy.
I am not sure I agree. De-silting could be done whit barges
every 50 years, and if you selected your path wisely, there
may not be much of anything living in the downstream region,
beyond trivial life.

What you fear is the standard greed factor, where such
considerations are overlooked for some form of profit advantage.
And Havoc ensues.... Standard Operating Procedure.

:(
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
all reasonably clean resources.
Think globally, please.
When you turned on geothermal, you crossed the reasonable line.
An argument can be made against -anything-, it is a matter of putting
it into perspective.

Personally, I have no intention of returning to hunting gathering.

And do nothing, and you'll gas yourself to death.

Your call.
Alan Young
2003-07-16 16:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
When you turned on geothermal, you crossed the reasonable line.
I didn't want your "geothermal is clear" position to go unquestioned.
The merits and issues of geothermal deserve their own thread, but I'm
not going to start one because I'm about to leave for a week and would
miss being able to respond. (I'm going camping... sitting on a volcano
8-)
Post by In The Darkness
An argument can be made against -anything-, it is a matter of putting
it into perspective.
Point taken.
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
Baird Stafford
2003-07-16 18:45:19 UTC
Permalink
In The Darkness <***@onecall.net> wrote:

<snip>
Post by In The Darkness
When you turned on geothermal, you crossed the reasonable line.
An argument can be made against -anything-, it is a matter of putting
it into perspective.
It is also a matter of taking those arguments into account, and doing
the science to either prove or disprove them. We do not know, for
instance, whether geothermal activity has an active, positive effect on
the balance maintained by Mother Gaia, nor whether capping geothermal
sources in order to use them to generate power for human use will have
any unforseen result.

Also, I have a strong personal objection to the notion of visiting, say,
Yellowstone and Kilauea National Parks in the US and finding nothing but
power stations....

As far as I know, sources of geothermal heat closer to the mantle
(further from the surface) are still beyond the reach of human
technology. If memory serves, the MoHo project drilled down about five
miles without finding an increase in heating significant enough actually
to be used to generate power - and this was before the pressure grew too
great to permit further drilling.
Post by In The Darkness
Personally, I have no intention of returning to hunting gathering.
Personally, I have no intention of participating (personally) in another
Great Die-off.
Post by In The Darkness
And do nothing, and you'll gas yourself to death.
Do anything without doing the research, and you don't know what kind of
death you'll find yourself subjected to.

Blessed be,
Baird
In The Darkness
2003-07-17 00:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
<snip>
Post by In The Darkness
When you turned on geothermal, you crossed the reasonable line.
An argument can be made against -anything-, it is a matter of putting
it into perspective.
It is also a matter of taking those arguments into account, and doing
the science to either prove or disprove them. We do not know, for
instance, whether geothermal activity has an active, positive effect on
the balance maintained by Mother Gaia, nor whether capping geothermal
sources in order to use them to generate power for human use will have
any unforseen result.
Paralysis by Analysis. In 300 years we might do as much damage as
One Decade of Oil based culture... we would have a little more time,
eh ?
Post by Baird Stafford
Also, I have a strong personal objection to the notion of visiting, say,
Yellowstone and Kilauea National Parks in the US and finding nothing but
power stations....
Agreed, they should make minimal environmental impact, and be
designed accordingly.
Post by Baird Stafford
As far as I know, sources of geothermal heat closer to the mantle
(further from the surface) are still beyond the reach of human
technology. If memory serves, the MoHo project drilled down about five
miles without finding an increase in heating significant enough actually
to be used to generate power - and this was before the pressure grew too
great to permit further drilling.
To each region, it best resource.

"If it don't fit, don't force it!"
Post by Baird Stafford
Post by In The Darkness
Personally, I have no intention of returning to hunting gathering.
Personally, I have no intention of participating (personally) in another
Great Die-off.
Too Late, "W" has affected EPA policy.
Post by Baird Stafford
Post by In The Darkness
And do nothing, and you'll gas yourself to death.
Do anything without doing the research, and you don't know what kind of
death you'll find yourself subjected to.
Whooo Hooo, death by random throw of the Dice!

First one to reincarnate , Wins !
Post by Baird Stafford
Blessed be,
Baird
Alan Young
2003-07-15 23:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Or you could get people out of their cars. Reducing demand works as well as
increasing supply.
BINGO!
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
Baird Stafford
2003-07-17 06:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Shez <***@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
Thirty years ago it would have been another oil field they had found,
but today its wind farms actually set out in the North Sea right along
the East coast of England, The windiest place in the country,
And here I thought that Pariliament customarily meets in *London*....

Blessed be,
Baird
Baird Stafford
2003-07-15 17:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Alan Young <***@sonic.net> wrote:

<snip>
Burning hydrogen may be clean at the point of combustion, and it may
avoid creating pollutants from the by-products of combustion. But what
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
There is also the little detail that absolutely NO studies have been
made of the possible effects of an increase of free hydrogen in the
atmosphere - and, inevitably, some hydrogen would escape....

Blessed be,
Baird
In The Darkness
2003-07-15 17:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
<snip>
Burning hydrogen may be clean at the point of combustion, and it may
avoid creating pollutants from the by-products of combustion. But what
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
There is also the little detail that absolutely NO studies have been
made of the possible effects of an increase of free hydrogen in the
atmosphere - and, inevitably, some hydrogen would escape....
Versus Carbon Monoxide we are dumping into the atmosphere now ?

Think on it.

But, FWIW, 2/3 of this planet is H20, somehow I get the feeling
that perhaps mother nature has already had to contend with this
in the extreme past.....

And the oceans were the answer.....


We would just be jumping on the bandwagon, joining in the cycle,
rather than fighting, and polluting, it.

IMHO.
Post by Baird Stafford
Blessed be,
Baird
Gale
2003-07-16 12:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
<snip>
Post by In The Darkness
Versus Carbon Monoxide we are dumping into the atmosphere now ?
Think on it.
I have. See below.
Post by In The Darkness
But, FWIW, 2/3 of this planet is H20, somehow I get the feeling
that perhaps mother nature has already had to contend with this
in the extreme past.....
And the oceans were the answer.....
We would just be jumping on the bandwagon, joining in the cycle,
rather than fighting, and polluting, it.
IMHO.
But have any scientific experiments been done to *prove* this? After
all, a good portion of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide - the original
assumption was that that particular gas would just be absorbed in the
seemingly endless supply of air that blankets the globe without changing
anything.
Experience has proven otherwise.
Without solid, scientific evidence that "nothing will change" when we
start dumping unknown amounts of yet another gas into the atmosphere, I
remain leery.
Gee, thought experiment (speculative possibilities):

Increased H2O in lower atmosphere --> increased morning ground fog (more
highway smashups?); increased dew (not bad) & vastly increased chances
of morning icing in temperate winter conditions (*very* dangerously
inconvenient); more clouds = increased greenhouse effect, possibly more
severe than CO2 warming as H2O gathers in transluscent / opaque clouds;
chance for various pollutants to be trapped in fog, making air less
breathable in urban areas. Also, for better or worse, changes
precipitation patterns.

Water vapor is perfectly clean stuff; so is CO2. In neither case does
that mean its presences is without consequence.

Again, that's a thought experiment -- possibilities to check out, rather
than determined consequences. So, who's checking out those potential harms?
--
Blessed Be,
Gale

We stand outside the wall of Eden
And hear the trees talking together within,
And their talk is sweet in our ears. -- W.B. Yeats

original poetry, fiction at http://www.capjewels.com

modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated: http://arwm.net
Alan Young
2003-07-16 16:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
Without solid, scientific evidence that "nothing will change" when we
start dumping unknown amounts of yet another gas into the atmosphere, I
remain leery.
Your skepticism is right on the money. I heard a report that someone
had done a computer model of what could happen when large amounts of H2
leak into the atmospehere (a similar proportion to gasoline spillage
today), and found that it could generate drastic amounts of greenhouse
gasses.
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
In The Darkness
2003-07-16 18:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by Baird Stafford
Without solid, scientific evidence that "nothing will change" when we
start dumping unknown amounts of yet another gas into the atmosphere, I
remain leery.
Your skepticism is right on the money. I heard a report that someone
had done a computer model of what could happen when large amounts of H2
leak into the atmospehere (a similar proportion to gasoline spillage
today), and found that it could generate drastic amounts of greenhouse
gasses.
I have heard the same... with a small exception, it doesn't GENERATE
greenhouse gasses.... they are claiming it -might- act as one.

Here is the study you reference.... I, admittedly, am a skeptic.
Strangely, the gov report was used to support the production
of the fuel cells.... which is why I have my questions....

And even the study concludes, "We don't know". But, it
served this administrations purpose. (Delay)

I tend to doubt much the administration publishes,
as it always seems to run opposite what the EPA,
and body of science is concluding....

and, always seems to support what this administration
wants it to....

A red flag in my book.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/energy/03061602.htm
Baird Stafford
2003-07-16 18:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
There is also the little detail that absolutely NO studies have been
made of the possible effects of an increase of free hydrogen in the
atmosphere - and, inevitably, some hydrogen would escape....
Free hydrogen doesn't last long in an oxygen atmosphere...
Becomes water very quickly.
IF enough single atoms of oxygen for the hydrogen to bond to are running
around free in the atmosphere.... Remember that oxygen that is already
either a) bound with another oxygen atom or b) bound to two other
hydrogen atoms is NOT available, and that we're talking about adding
unknown amounts of free hydrogen! While no one has proven that there
isn't enough free oxygen, neither has anyone proven that there *is*.

Blessed be,
Baird
psci_kw
2003-07-16 20:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
Post by Baird Stafford
There is also the little detail that absolutely NO studies have been
made of the possible effects of an increase of free hydrogen in the
atmosphere - and, inevitably, some hydrogen would escape....
Free hydrogen doesn't last long in an oxygen atmosphere...
Becomes water very quickly.
IF enough single atoms of oxygen for the hydrogen to bond to are running
around free in the atmosphere.... Remember that oxygen that is already
either a) bound with another oxygen atom or b) bound to two other
hydrogen atoms is NOT available, and that we're talking about adding
unknown amounts of free hydrogen! While no one has proven that there
isn't enough free oxygen, neither has anyone proven that there *is*.
Blessed be,
Baird
Regarding the thread and it's posts:
The only obvious solution is to use less energy. We can accomplish this in
a few varied ways:
lessen overall energy consumption
create far more efficient consumption
lessen the number of people on the planet (which therefore lessens
consumption

Personally, i'm opting for number three. We can start with everyone that
doesn't agree with us, then everyone that is just a bit different, then we
can chlorinate the gene pool, and then limit the persons who can
breed...Hmmmmm sounds like Hitler may have had something there.
There is NO easy solution, folks. It will always come down to a reduction
in population. That's how Mama works. We live in a finite system, and She
keeps a fairly close eye on it (by her standards), leaving Her chil'uns to
fend for ourselves.
BB,
Wahnyeh
"I should have gone to work today
but the voices in my head
insisted I stay home and clean the guns"
Baird Stafford
2003-07-17 06:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Shez <***@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
Actually Baird, we could disconnect the gene pool altogether, and miss a
couple of generations of children... that would help a lot,
Actually, I've already done that....

Blessed be,
Baird
In The Darkness
2003-07-17 20:10:05 UTC
Permalink
We have enjoyed sparring, you and I....

So, please never confuse the argument,
for lack of perfect love in the circle...

:)


Here is a little study that doesn't concur with
the "W" backed position...... pointing out the
underlying fallacy of the position.


http://www.hydrogenus.com/SchatzReaction.pdf
Post by Baird Stafford
Post by Baird Stafford
There is also the little detail that absolutely NO studies have been
made of the possible effects of an increase of free hydrogen in the
atmosphere - and, inevitably, some hydrogen would escape....
Free hydrogen doesn't last long in an oxygen atmosphere...
Becomes water very quickly.
IF enough single atoms of oxygen for the hydrogen to bond to are running
around free in the atmosphere.... Remember that oxygen that is already
either a) bound with another oxygen atom or b) bound to two other
hydrogen atoms is NOT available, and that we're talking about adding
unknown amounts of free hydrogen! While no one has proven that there
isn't enough free oxygen, neither has anyone proven that there *is*.
Blessed be,
Baird
mist
2003-07-15 20:50:45 UTC
Permalink
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
The energy must come from somewhere and it must go somewhere.
We can't take huge teraJoules and draw/dump without flow on effect.

One of the current methods, petrol/gasoline, includes tocix waste
products.

One of the alternate methods is electricity. But who can afford it
with the current eletricity market! Let alone the impact of "plugging
in" thousands of units that draw several times the load that several
houses do.

A proposal is Fuel-cells. They're just more efficient batteries. The
catalyse fuel and draw electricity. There's a down side as it
supplies electricity which must be converted to something else - a bit
of a efficiency quandary for the locomotive/automotive standpoint
(which can draw electrical energy off alternators or braking.)

However...Fuel cells are cleaner and come in several different types
(although I think they have heavy elements in them). Some burn
methane, some propane, some hydrogen. Any advance in Fuel Cell
technology will have a flow on to the containment and supply (and
research) in these fields.

I would rather power a hydrogen car from algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting than pay the world's war machines to dig
up crude oil and dump it in the oceans for the benefit of getting a
SUV to the cornershop.
In The Darkness
2003-07-15 21:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mist
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
The energy must come from somewhere and it must go somewhere.
We can't take huge teraJoules and draw/dump without flow on effect.
Correct, see the other posts on methods of creating juice
to separate them....
Post by mist
One of the current methods, petrol/gasoline, includes tocix waste
products.
Don't use that method, obviously.
Post by mist
One of the alternate methods is electricity. But who can afford it
with the current eletricity market! Let alone the impact of "plugging
in" thousands of units that draw several times the load that several
houses do.
With a clear road to "H" in view, methods of generating
electricity will be expanded to meet the need.

Supply -> Demand. -> supply -> demand.
Post by mist
A proposal is Fuel-cells. They're just more efficient batteries. The
catalyse fuel and draw electricity. There's a down side as it
supplies electricity which must be converted to something else - a bit
of a efficiency quandary for the locomotive/automotive standpoint
(which can draw electrical energy off alternators or braking.)
In a way, creating the free "H" is similar to a battery, but natures
own... it's "potential" is stored, when it is separated, and drained,
when it is burned.
Post by mist
However...Fuel cells are cleaner and come in several different types
(although I think they have heavy elements in them). Some burn
methane, some propane, some hydrogen. Any advance in Fuel Cell
technology will have a flow on to the containment and supply (and
research) in these fields.
Yes, true statement. It isn't that Fuel Cells are bad... they
simply are incapable, for the foreseeable future, of scaling to
the enormous stored energy levels that we will need, and remain
small enough to not cause a burden.
Post by mist
I would rather power a hydrogen car from algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting than pay the world's war machines to dig
up crude oil and dump it in the oceans for the benefit of getting a
SUV to the cornershop.
SECOND IT!
psci_kw
2003-07-16 12:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
Post by mist
about the point of production? We can't harvest free H2 from the
atmosphere; it has to be extracted, typically by electrolysis of water.
And the extraction process takes *more* energy than the combustion will
produce. This is fundamental science that every child should know, but
the politicians are conveniently forgetting.
The energy must come from somewhere and it must go somewhere.
We can't take huge teraJoules and draw/dump without flow on effect.
Correct, see the other posts on methods of creating juice
to separate them....
Post by mist
One of the current methods, petrol/gasoline, includes tocix waste
products.
Don't use that method, obviously.
Post by mist
One of the alternate methods is electricity. But who can afford it
with the current eletricity market! Let alone the impact of "plugging
in" thousands of units that draw several times the load that several
houses do.
With a clear road to "H" in view, methods of generating
electricity will be expanded to meet the need.
Supply -> Demand. -> supply -> demand.
Post by mist
A proposal is Fuel-cells. They're just more efficient batteries. The
catalyse fuel and draw electricity. There's a down side as it
supplies electricity which must be converted to something else - a bit
of a efficiency quandary for the locomotive/automotive standpoint
(which can draw electrical energy off alternators or braking.)
In a way, creating the free "H" is similar to a battery, but natures
own... it's "potential" is stored, when it is separated, and drained,
when it is burned.
Post by mist
However...Fuel cells are cleaner and come in several different types
(although I think they have heavy elements in them). Some burn
methane, some propane, some hydrogen. Any advance in Fuel Cell
technology will have a flow on to the containment and supply (and
research) in these fields.
Yes, true statement. It isn't that Fuel Cells are bad... they
simply are incapable, for the foreseeable future, of scaling to
the enormous stored energy levels that we will need, and remain
small enough to not cause a burden.
Post by mist
I would rather power a hydrogen car from algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting than pay the world's war machines to dig
up crude oil and dump it in the oceans for the benefit of getting a
SUV to the cornershop.
SECOND IT!
If I might add my $.03 (adjusted for the current market :>)

A recent issue of either Mother Earth News or Countryside magazine (I forget
which)
did an article on alternative energy production. Most of the article
rehashes old news, such as costs of production of photovoltaics(PV, or solar
panels)
passive solar building construction, but one blurb stuck out in my mind.
Something I will remember for a long time to come:

Were the US to construct a "field" or "farm" of solar panels in the Merkin
southwest of a dimension 100 miles square (100 X 100, or 258.999km2), that
"farm" would generate enough energy to power every home and business at
current usage, including manufacturing(!) in the country. Heck, we could
FLOAT the frigging things on barges in the ocean for that matter, we have
enough coastline.

We have the technology, why are we not using it? G(I)W(onder) (Bush)
Bright, (sunlit) Blessings
Wahnyeh
Baird Stafford
2003-07-16 18:45:15 UTC
Permalink
psci_kw <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip>
Post by psci_kw
Were the US to construct a "field" or "farm" of solar panels in the Merkin
southwest of a dimension 100 miles square (100 X 100, or 258.999km2), that
"farm" would generate enough energy to power every home and business at
current usage, including manufacturing(!) in the country. Heck, we could
FLOAT the frigging things on barges in the ocean for that matter, we have
enough coastline.
We have the technology, why are we not using it? G(I)W(onder) (Bush)
Bright, (sunlit) Blessings
And the organisms that depend on the sunlight that would be blocked by
those arrays but can't move out from under - what of them? Do we decide
they don't really count, either?

Blessed be,
Baird
In The Darkness
2003-07-17 00:25:04 UTC
Permalink
No, you starve the humans and let them die,
because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
in the Mojave!

And, When I wash my feet, I am actually guilty of
Mass Murder......

:*

And, Finally, when I take penicillin, I am unfairly favoring
my organism.... over millions of microbes, with
just as much right to live.

:\
Post by Baird Stafford
<snip>
Post by psci_kw
Were the US to construct a "field" or "farm" of solar panels in the Merkin
southwest of a dimension 100 miles square (100 X 100, or 258.999km2), that
"farm" would generate enough energy to power every home and business at
current usage, including manufacturing(!) in the country. Heck, we could
FLOAT the frigging things on barges in the ocean for that matter, we have
enough coastline.
We have the technology, why are we not using it? G(I)W(onder) (Bush)
Bright, (sunlit) Blessings
And the organisms that depend on the sunlight that would be blocked by
those arrays but can't move out from under - what of them? Do we decide
they don't really count, either?
Blessed be,
Baird
Alan Young
2003-07-17 06:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by In The Darkness
No, you starve the humans and let them die,
because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
in the Mojave!
You need to take high school biology again. Amoebae(?) don't live in
deserts.

Your hyperbole ad absurdum argument is cute, but we are of a religion
that holds all life, and especially all ecosystems, to be sacred.
Solar-energy farming might be the best use for some land, but the
envirnomental impact *must* be taken seriously, even if it affects only
low-biomass systems (like deserts). If we hold our energy "needs" (or
greed--where is the distinction, anyway?) to be senior to whole
ecosystems, we might as well drill for oil in the ANWR, or in
Yellowstone... 8-(
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
In The Darkness
2003-07-17 17:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
No, you starve the humans and let them die,
because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
in the Mojave!
You need to take high school biology again. Amoebae(?) don't live in
deserts.
Stricly hyperbole, no attempt to represent actual critters. :)
Post by Alan Young
Your hyperbole ad absurdum argument is cute, but we are of a religion
that holds all life, and especially all ecosystems, to be sacred.
So do I, but there needs to be a sense of perspective.
Unless, you want to join with certain factions and
carry a broom around and sweep where you are about to
step at all times... lest you hurt a bug or a germ.

These sects really exist.
Post by Alan Young
Solar-energy farming might be the best use for some land, but the
envirnomental impact *must* be taken seriously, even if it affects only
low-biomass systems (like deserts). If we hold our energy "needs" (or
greed--where is the distinction, anyway?) to be senior to whole
ecosystems, we might as well drill for oil in the ANWR, or in
Yellowstone... 8-(
Correct, but one must also get a sense of perspective.
Knowing that say, one form of energy will have an impact
of say, a baseball upon an ecosystem, and looking for a fix
for ten years... while you use a form of energy that has an
impact of a 20 ton tank dropped from 15000 feet simply isn't
keeping things in perspective....
Baird Stafford
2003-07-17 20:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by In The Darkness
No, you starve the humans and let them die,
because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
in the Mojave!
You need to take high school biology again. Amoebae(?) don't live in
deserts.
Actually, some do. They're ephemeral, though, lasting only as long as
the puddles do after a rain and thereafter returning to a sort of
"spore" stage.
Post by Alan Young
Your hyperbole ad absurdum argument is cute, but we are of a religion
that holds all life, and especially all ecosystems, to be sacred.
Solar-energy farming might be the best use for some land, but the
envirnomental impact *must* be taken seriously, even if it affects only
low-biomass systems (like deserts). If we hold our energy "needs" (or
greed--where is the distinction, anyway?) to be senior to whole
ecosystems, we might as well drill for oil in the ANWR, or in
Yellowstone... 8-(
My points, excactly. Thank you, Hummingbear.

George Santayana once observed that "Those who know no history are
doomed to repeat it" - or words to that effect. The same might well be
said of those who choose deliberately to ignore history, no matter how
exalted their motives may be.

The internal combusion engine, for instance produces carbon dioxide
(well, so does the external combustion engine, for that matter) which
was originally assumed to be infinitely absorbable by the atmosphere
since it is a "natural" component thereof. Certain propellants of
aerosol sprays were assumed to be harmless because no on could imagine
how they might have any adverse effect on the ecosphere at all. Various
compounds of sulphur - also a naturally occuring element and one which
is released through geothermal activity - were assumed to be harmless
and were released into the atmosphere by means of (again) the internal
combusion engine as well as emissions from various factories. History
implies strongly that, had the science surrounding the release of these
substances been done *before* they were introduced to common usage, we
might have avoided or at least ameliorated the adverse effects that
ensued from their introduction in such quantities into the biosphere.

Please note that I do not oppose the introduction of alternate sources
of energy - *after* the science has been done to discover what effect
they may have on the ecology of Mother Gaia as a whole as well as to
find methods by which any adverse consequences may be avoided or abated.
Wicca, as a religion, seems to me to *demand* that such precautions be
taken: one of the differences between Wicca (as I was taught it, at
least) and the JCI complex is the degree of anthrocentricity embodied in
our religion as opposed to theirs. Wicca does *not* regard _Homo_sap._
as being the highest possible form of life, and *does* recognize that
the Gods are perfectly capable of using our own areas of blindness to
destroy us when they feel we merit such treatment - go back and reread
the great Greek tragedies for examples. Granted, such divine
retribution was individual rather than wholesale, but nothing of which I
am aware says the Gods MUST limit their punishments strictly to
individual persons.

Furthermore, at this stage in the development of human technology, I do
not, personally, find that "But we didn't know it would do that!" is an
acceptable excuse - not when we have at our disposal the means to
discover exactly what "it" *will* do.

Nor have I much sympathy with the rather puerile demand that, " But I
want it NOW!!!" - which I have seen repated rather too frequently for my
taste in this thread.

Blessed be,
Baird
RadiantMatrix
2003-07-20 06:30:01 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Jul 2003 06:45:02 GMT, Alan Young wrote,
in article <160720032341290797%***@sonic.net> :
| In article <bf4khu$9lr$***@web.onecall.net>, In The Darkness
| <***@onecall.net> wrote:
|
| > No, you starve the humans and let them die,
| > because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
| > in the Mojave!
|
| You need to take high school biology again. Amoebae(?) don't live in
| deserts.
|
| Your hyperbole ad absurdum argument is cute, but we are of a religion
| that holds all life, and especially all ecosystems, to be sacred.
| Solar-energy farming might be the best use for some land, but the
| envirnomental impact *must* be taken seriously, even if it affects only
| low-biomass systems (like deserts). If we hold our energy "needs" (or
| greed--where is the distinction, anyway?) to be senior to whole
| ecosystems, we might as well drill for oil in the ANWR, or in
| Yellowstone... 8-(

There is a matter of degree, and I think a lot of people who debate ecology
tend to forget that. We are, after all, part of Nature, and so are at least
as important as our fellow life-forms.

Additionally, all life evolves by ensuring its own survival, even if that is
at the expense of other species. That said, we have something that
complicates the matter -- the capacity to reason about what we're doing.
So, we must actively seek a balance between the advancement of our species
and the preservation of other life.

Building a huge solar-reactive field might have environmental impact. It
also has immeasurable benefits to our species, not the least of which are
safety and health-care technologies that rely on electric power. Since the
benefits of electric power are clear, reducing environmental impact is a
matter of finding efficient ways to produce and consume electricity that
don't produce significantly negative effects.

That aside, however, the original suggestion that a 10,000-square-mile
photovoltaic "field" would power the country wasn't actually suggesting that
we concentrate all that capacity in one place. It was illustrating how
little total space would be required, and if you spread that
10,000-square-mile field over the 48 contiguous States, you'd only need a
*total* of 200 square miles of field per State.

Cheers,
Radiant
--
Spivak Pronouns for a gender-neutral world:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Expand your vocabulary -- contraneoantidisestablishmentarianalistically:
"behaving in the manner of a person belonging to a movement opposed to
the new version of the movement opposed to a separation of church and state"
RadiantMatrix
2003-07-21 21:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Jul 2003 18:15:01 GMT, psci_kw wrote,
in article <fRASa.28858$***@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com> :
| <snip>
|
| > That aside, however, the original suggestion that a 10,000-square-mile
| > photovoltaic "field" would power the country wasn't actually suggesting
| that
| > we concentrate all that capacity in one place. It was illustrating how
| > little total space would be required, and if you spread that
| > 10,000-square-mile field over the 48 contiguous States, you'd only need a
| > *total* of 200 square miles of field per State.
| >
| > Cheers,
| > Radiant
| >
| Actually, Radiant, for the idea to work, it would need to be located in an
| area of maximum yearly sunshine, which is why the article suggested the
| Merkin SW.

Even so, it could easily be spread out over several low-impact sites. So my
point remains despite the fact that I missed that detail.

Cheers,
Radiant
--
Spivak Pronouns for a gender-neutral world:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Expand your vocabulary -- contraneoantidisestablishmentarianalistically:
"behaving in the manner of a person belonging to a movement opposed to
the new version of the movement opposed to a separation of church and state"
mist
2003-07-23 05:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by RadiantMatrix
| Actually, Radiant, for the idea to work, it would need to be located in an
| area of maximum yearly sunshine, which is why the article suggested the
| Merkin SW.
Even so, it could easily be spread out over several low-impact sites. So my
point remains despite the fact that I missed that detail.
Does anyone have any information about the production efficency of
photo-voltaics? What the material & energy costs are compared to
what they are capable of supplying over their properly maintained
lifetime?

I don't think there's a local to New Zealand manufacture for me to
quiz about their processes. Not to mention the energy used to ship
them half-way around the big girl's tum.
psci_kw
2003-07-23 23:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mist
Post by RadiantMatrix
| Actually, Radiant, for the idea to work, it would need to be located in an
| area of maximum yearly sunshine, which is why the article suggested the
| Merkin SW.
Even so, it could easily be spread out over several low-impact sites.
So my
Post by mist
Post by RadiantMatrix
point remains despite the fact that I missed that detail.
Does anyone have any information about the production efficency of
photo-voltaics? What the material & energy costs are compared to
what they are capable of supplying over their properly maintained
lifetime?
I don't think there's a local to New Zealand manufacture for me to
quiz about their processes. Not to mention the energy used to ship
them half-way around the big girl's tum.
Over their lifetime (an average of 25 years) the panels (again, depending on
wattage produced per panel, and bigger is always better) can produce between
three and ten times the amount of energy it took to produce (manufacture)
them in the first place.

A Google for "solar panels Australia" reveals:

Solar Online Australia - Solar & Wind Power Specialists
Solar Online Australia. Solar & wind power equipment including solar
panels, wind turbines, solar regulators, inverters, batteries. ...
Description: Australian online store supplying renewable energy products,
including solar panels, wind generators,...
Category: Business > Energy and Environment > Renewable > Solar > Electric
shop.store.yahoo.com/solaronlineaust/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Solar Technology Australia - Solar Panels
Home Page > Products > Solar Panels. Solar Panels Highest Quality Australian
made BP Solar solar modules at highly competitive rates ...
www.solartech.com.au/products/solar_panels.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar
pages

Origin Energy Australia -
.... High-voltage solar panels, and; Solar powered aircraft, satellite and
surveillance ... the
largest markets for grid-connected solar power in Australia. ...
www.originenergy.com.au/news/ news_detail.php?pageid=82&newsid=233%20 -
20k - Cached - Similar pages

South Pacific Solar Supplies Australia solar panels, equipment, ...
Solar panels, deep cycle batteries, mini-hydro, inverters and wind ... of
our comprehensive
range of solar equipment ... run from natural resources in Australia and the
....
www.solarsupplies.com.au/ - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

Tasman Energy - solar power electricity information, discount ...
Tasman Energy - solar power information, cheap solar panels, discount solar
products,
biodiesel in Australia. We sell how-to books on those topics and more. ...
www.tasmanenergy.com.au/contact_us.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Solar Energy Systems Ltd - System Components
.... standards in Australia. They are user friendly systems that allow you to
read
what your system is delivering at any given time. Framing for Solar Panels
....
www.sesltd.com.au/html/components.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Has the sun set on solar power? - theage.com.au
.... where the rebate is twice as generous as Australia's. The cost of PV
panels there
has dropped by ... companies, Origin Energy and Pacific Solar, have
successfully ...
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ 03/11/1047144945943.html - 27k - Cached -
Similar pages

BP Solar Internet News
.... Note to Editors: Major recent solar projects include: Supply of solar
panels
to the athlete's village for the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia; ...
www.bpsolar.com/newsposting/DisplayNews.cfm?id=10 - 13k - Cached - Similar
pages

plus ten more pages



BB

Wahnyeh
RadiantMatrix
2003-07-24 17:35:01 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Jul 2003 05:27:12 GMT, mist wrote,
in article <***@posting.google.com> :
| > | Actually, Radiant, for the idea to work, it would need to be located in an
| > | area of maximum yearly sunshine, which is why the article suggested the
| > | Merkin SW.
| >
| > Even so, it could easily be spread out over several low-impact sites. So my
| > point remains despite the fact that I missed that detail.
|
| Does anyone have any information about the production efficency of
| photo-voltaics? What the material & energy costs are compared to
| what they are capable of supplying over their properly maintained
| lifetime?

I don't have hard data, but new cells are being produced that no longer
require glass on top or an inflexible mounting surface. The new cells are
flexible, and are made from silicon micro-spheres that are glued onto a
flexible aluminum alloy. My understanding is that the manfacturing facility
will be in commercial production in 2005, and plans to use thier power cells
to supply 100% of thier energy requirement.

That leads me to believe that they are at least reasonably efficient. Also,
IIRC, photo-voltaic cells *should* last about 100 years until they decay
past the point of efficient usage.

| I don't think there's a local to New Zealand manufacture for me to
| quiz about their processes. Not to mention the energy used to ship
| them half-way around the big girl's tum.

Depends on if you're willing to wait for a sailboat or not. :D

Cheers,
Radiant
--
Spivak Pronouns for a gender-neutral world:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun

Expand your vocabulary -- contraneoantidisestablishmentarianalistically:
"behaving in the manner of a person belonging to a movement opposed to
the new version of the movement opposed to a separation of church and state"
mist
2003-07-16 08:25:01 UTC
Permalink
mist
Post by mist
One of the current methods, petrol/gasoline, includes tocix waste
products.
One of the alternate methods is electricity.
Huh? Where does your electricity come from? Around here, it comes from
burning fossil fuels, nuclear reactors, or dams-- all of which are
environmentally disastrous. So that's not an *alternate*, it's just an
intermediary form.
It's an alternate...as in "alternative to petroleum systems". One of
the places that this becomes useful is large population areas with
moderate travel distances. An electric car probably performs more
energy efficiently in traffic jams than current internal combustion
engines, and produces much less *localised* polution.
Post by mist
A proposal is Fuel-cells. They're just more efficient batteries. The
catalyse fuel and draw electricity. There's a down side as it
supplies electricity which must be converted to something else - a bit
of a efficiency quandary for the locomotive/automotive standpoint
(which can draw electrical energy off alternators or braking.)
I'm no expert, but I do know that no one has found a way to produce
free energy from nothing. So, one more time... WHERE DOES THE FUEL COME
FROM???????
Even if we could produce energy from nothing we still have to place it
somewhere! It makes sense then to work on reduction of need, and
efficiency.

The Fuel cells have the advantage in pollution and efficiency.
It is likely that reasonable amounts of energy could be harvested
locally, which if used with sensible energy usage (eg. not warming the
house with the oven) and energy efficent appliances (eg low voltage
washing machines, microwaves and not oven use where reasonable.)

As long as our houses are energy hogs then localised generation will
not find much market demand.
As long as the housing and street lighting require massive energy
input, our commerce and industries will require massive amounts of
capital input to supply them with their energy requirements.

Another alternative vehicle fuel is canola oil, like is used in your
local chippy (if you have them.) The fat used to deep fry food with
run in older desil engines with only simple modifications. It also
smells much better and is better for the engine. The big problem is
that it's much cheaper...until your government comes along and demands
their "fuel levy."
Post by mist
I would rather power a hydrogen car from algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting than pay the world's war machines to dig
up crude oil and dump it in the oceans for the benefit of getting a
SUV to the cornershop.
Sure, I would, too, but AFAIK we don't have algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting. And I haven't heard anyone say that such
technologies will be available, let alone mass-market-feasible, anytime
soon. So, again, what's the point in building H2-powered cars if
there's no feasible way to deliver the H2 fuel?
The algae has been produced but its not market level yet. A
ento-bacteria culture has also been developed that emits gases that
can be used in fuel cells (but not much gas, and I wonder how safe
such a odd ento-bacteria could be.)

Solar splitting would be easy enough but would only produce small
amounts of gas. The advantage is that the split gases can be stored
and used at times of high demand, at the moment it takes quite a large
amount of lead-acid cells (most popular) or heavy metal batteries
(less popular) or Ni/Ion batteries (least popular due to huge cost).
All the batteries have limited life span and aren't to easy to
dispose/recycle.


The whole problem is chicken and egg stuff.
No one will be able to develop advanced technology for storage if
no-one uses the stored product. With limited storage it is a small,
slow market for the technology. Remember the cellphones of the 80's?
huge units, lousy coverage, exorbitant unit and air time, terrible
battery life (mine was 5hrs no talk, 15 minutes talk) compare that to
the modern equivalent.


Baird's point about the environment effects of H2 capture/release
could be a problem.
Alan Young
2003-07-16 16:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mist
and produces much less *localised* polution.
As I said to another engineering-solution poster, "please think
globally."
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
mist
2003-07-19 07:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by mist
and produces much less *localised* polution.
As I said to another engineering-solution poster, "please think
globally."
And I'm saying "think urgent."
With respect to the "localised" effects I'm talking concentration
levels damaging some areas, and viability and costs of material
handling for bulk wastes.

I also mean that we can't sit on our butts, sucking the high [energy]
life, waiting for "someone" to crack the problem with a miraculous
sovereign remedy.

We need solutions that have measurable effect that can and will be
taken up by the polluters. Global or local.
Yowie
2003-07-28 08:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by mist
Post by Alan Young
Post by mist
and produces much less *localised* polution.
As I said to another engineering-solution poster, "please think
globally."
And I'm saying "think urgent."
With respect to the "localised" effects I'm talking concentration
levels damaging some areas, and viability and costs of material
handling for bulk wastes.
I also mean that we can't sit on our butts, sucking the high [energy]
life, waiting for "someone" to crack the problem with a miraculous
sovereign remedy.
We need solutions that have measurable effect that can and will be
taken up by the polluters. Global or local.
With current technology I see three fairly easy solutions that could be
enacted "now".

First of all, working-from-home could be quite viable for many of us whose
work involves being a dexk jockey for at least some of the time. If I spent
one day a week sitting in front of my home computer rather than my work one,
I'd save a day's worth of petrol I'd otherwise use commuting into the
office. I have a phone, printer and modem, and would dearly love the
flexibility to work at home more often. Unfortunatley my company firmly
bleievs in the bums-on-seats method (ie, thou shalt turn up 9am and not
leave till 5pm whether you actually have something to do or not) of
employment rather than get-the-job-done idea.

I guess that idea of tele-conferencing has gone the way of the "paperless
office"

Another is constructing an effecient public transport system. Out here in
the new suburbs, we pretty much have to have a car. Most families tend to
have two. and most of the time those cars, which can transport up to 5 or
even 6 people quite comfortably are transporting one lone commuter. I used
to live in a 'burb that had brilliant public transport, and never felt the
need to buy a car. Occasionally I used to rent one to go places the public
transport system didn't go, and I did catch taxis a fair bit, but it was
still economically better for me to not have the expense of a private
vehicle. I was *happier* not to have that stress of battling the rush hour
twice a day and havign th eoppurtunuty to chat with friends, read a book or
just stare out the window on the train.

And lastly, tax the heck out of ineffecient wasteful vehicles and give tax
breaks to smaller, effecient vehicles. I don't know about the rest of the
world, but for some reason, the great gas guzzling "4WD Off Road Vehicles"
which have no place on city roads and are actually quite dangerous (to
pedesterians and other road users mainly, although they have a tendency to
flip over if they get hit int he wrong spot) get incredible tax cuts
compared to family cars and even small fuel effecient cars to the point
where they have become more of a status symbol than the Volvo (and have the
same sort of drivers). The original "all-terrain" vehicles were indeed for
those people working out int he Bush and so the tax cuts on a work vehicle
were warranted, but the tax system has failed to catch up with the new
trend - and so the "aspiring classes" buy these vehicles not because they
enjoy off road driving or because they are safe or fuel effecient but
because they are a status symbol in their own right.

If the populace could be convinced that these small changes would benefit
their hip pocket they would be relatively easy to implement. Unfortunately I
do not have that sort of power. But I did buy a small, very fuel effecient
car instead of a status symbol on wheels.

Yowie
psci_kw
2003-07-29 22:00:10 UTC
Permalink
<snnip>
Post by Yowie
I guess that idea of tele-conferencing has gone the way of the "paperless
office"
<snippet>

Nonsense. I've maintained a paperless office (and teleconferencing with our
other branch in VT) since the turn of the (most recent) century. Not hard
to do at all.
YOU JUST GOTTA WANNA!
All billing is either by fax (which comes direct from the 'puter courtesy of
Winfax 10.2...no paper there) or e-mail (ditto).
Paper that we receive, like invoices from suppliers are scanned into the
appropriate file format,(blessed be St Adobe of the Holy Filesavers) written
to a CD.
(three CDs per year for accounts payable, receivable, payroll and one more
for advertising, not twelve boxes of paper!). Increasingly, invoices are
e-mailed to us (more paper saved). The paper bills we receive are then
shredded and given or sold to a mail/package center for recycling as packing
material. Payroll is direct deposited, and all employees are given an
account (unless they have one with that bank already.)
Yes, it took some getting used to. One employee couldn't get used to
looking in the computer instead of a file drawer, and quit (via e-mail...no
paper there :>)Some of our suppliers still resist, sending out HUGE forest
gobbling catalogs (which we politely return to them with a note mentioning
that if we get another one, they will get no more orders...works great :>)
Most of our inventory and supply ordering is done online, bill paying the
same way. Just signed on for electronic banking... one less thing to file,
and sold off six 4 drawer file cabinets this March (don't need them any more
:>).

Less work, more office space, no need for huge expenditures for storage
space, no "where did that file get put??!", no endless drudgery of filing
all day. What's not to like? Power outages. Thankfully, the office is
under the protection of the Great and Powerful Green Dinosaur, and a host of
minions in the form of uninterruptible power supplies. Hmmmmm, we have
enough space on the roof for 16 Kyocera 160 watt panels...that's enough to
run the network...hello IT?

If I have my way, scissors will go the way of the spat by the end of the
decade.
BB,
Wahnyeh
Alan Young
2003-07-29 22:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by psci_kw
If I have my way, scissors will go the way of the spat by the end of the
decade.
Spat? I've been around a pretty long while, but that's one I never
heard of.
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
Jackdaw
2003-07-30 06:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by psci_kw
If I have my way, scissors will go the way of the spat by the end of the
decade.
Spat? I've been around a pretty long while, but that's one I never
heard of.
--
Hummingbear
A canvas covering for the mid shoe ankle area that buttoned up the sides,
worn by both men and women. Originally ( I think ) designed to protect the
wearer and shoe from mud and dirt getting into the shoe. Then evolved into a
fashion thing as white spats showed you didn't go anywhere dirty and had
enough servants to keep the damned things clean.
May be wrong, prooly nearly right.
I had a small pair when I was a child that extend from mid shoe to just
below the knees, with tiny buttons all the way up. cute!


--
Jackdaw ( UK )
collector of facts, trivia and bright twinkly things!
Baird Stafford
2003-07-30 08:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Young
Post by psci_kw
If I have my way, scissors will go the way of the spat by the end of the
decade.
Spat? I've been around a pretty long while, but that's one I never
heard of.
"Spatterdash," actually, and they came in pairs. They're the white
thingies one sees in pictures from the late nineteenth and (very) early
twentieth centuries on the black shoes of formally dressed characters.
I believe they may originally have been meant to keep the mud off -
hence the name....

Blessed be,
Baird
who notes that Jackdaw claims to have had a pair when he was young, and
so supposes his dates must be off by a little.
Jackdaw
2003-07-30 18:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baird Stafford
Post by Alan Young
Post by psci_kw
If I have my way, scissors will go the way of the spat by the end of the
decade.
Spat? I've been around a pretty long while, but that's one I never
heard of.
"Spatterdash," actually, and they came in pairs. They're the white
thingies one sees in pictures from the late nineteenth and (very) early
twentieth centuries on the black shoes of formally dressed characters.
I believe they may originally have been meant to keep the mud off -
hence the name....
Blessed be,
Baird
who notes that Jackdaw claims to have had a pair when he was young, and
so supposes his dates must be off by a little.
Nope, they were still being used on kids during the war, it was a status
thing. Usually it matched the rest of the Childs clothing. Buttoned up the
side. If I can ask me Mum for a photo of me wearing them, I will post them
on my site.
Which ( if I can shake of this **** flu virus) will be mid August. If I can
remember to do it that far ahead.

--
Jackdaw ( UK )
collector of facts, trivia and bright twinkly things!

-A.
2003-07-17 04:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by mist
mist
Post by mist
One of the current methods, petrol/gasoline, includes tocix waste
products.
One of the alternate methods is electricity.
Huh? Where does your electricity come from? Around here, it comes from
burning fossil fuels, nuclear reactors, or dams-- all of which are
environmentally disastrous. So that's not an *alternate*, it's just an
intermediary form.
It's an alternate...as in "alternative to petroleum systems". One of
the places that this becomes useful is large population areas with
moderate travel distances. An electric car probably performs more
energy efficiently in traffic jams than current internal combustion
engines, and produces much less *localised* polution.
Post by mist
A proposal is Fuel-cells. They're just more efficient batteries. The
catalyse fuel and draw electricity. There's a down side as it
supplies electricity which must be converted to something else - a bit
of a efficiency quandary for the locomotive/automotive standpoint
(which can draw electrical energy off alternators or braking.)
I'm no expert, but I do know that no one has found a way to produce
free energy from nothing. So, one more time... WHERE DOES THE FUEL COME
FROM???????
Even if we could produce energy from nothing we still have to place it
somewhere! It makes sense then to work on reduction of need, and
efficiency.
The Fuel cells have the advantage in pollution and efficiency.
It is likely that reasonable amounts of energy could be harvested
locally, which if used with sensible energy usage (eg. not warming the
house with the oven) and energy efficent appliances (eg low voltage
washing machines, microwaves and not oven use where reasonable.)
As long as our houses are energy hogs then localised generation will
not find much market demand.
As long as the housing and street lighting require massive energy
input, our commerce and industries will require massive amounts of
capital input to supply them with their energy requirements.
Another alternative vehicle fuel is canola oil, like is used in your
local chippy (if you have them.) The fat used to deep fry food with
run in older desil engines with only simple modifications. It also
smells much better and is better for the engine. The big problem is
that it's much cheaper...until your government comes along and demands
their "fuel levy."
There was even a CNN story a while back about someone who had modified a
small school bus to run on (used) french fry oil. He'd go town to town
showing that there are viable alternatives to petroleum products. And,
I kid you not, every time he needed more fuel he'd stop off at a local
fast food restaurant and ask for some of there used cooking oil. The
restauranteurs gladly obliged as they have to pay relatively large sums
of money to dispose of the used oils; he was doing them a service by
taking it off their hands. And considering the tremendous obesity
problems in the US, shifting canola oil *away* from the American diet
would be a nice side-benefit.
Post by mist
Post by mist
I would rather power a hydrogen car from algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting than pay the world's war machines to dig
up crude oil and dump it in the oceans for the benefit of getting a
SUV to the cornershop.
Sure, I would, too, but AFAIK we don't have algae-produced-hydrogen and
rooftop-solar water splitting. And I haven't heard anyone say that such
technologies will be available, let alone mass-market-feasible, anytime
soon. So, again, what's the point in building H2-powered cars if
there's no feasible way to deliver the H2 fuel?
The algae has been produced but its not market level yet. A
ento-bacteria culture has also been developed that emits gases that
can be used in fuel cells (but not much gas, and I wonder how safe
such a odd ento-bacteria could be.)
Solar splitting would be easy enough but would only produce small
amounts of gas. The advantage is that the split gases can be stored
and used at times of high demand, at the moment it takes quite a large
amount of lead-acid cells (most popular) or heavy metal batteries
(less popular) or Ni/Ion batteries (least popular due to huge cost).
All the batteries have limited life span and aren't to easy to
dispose/recycle.
The whole problem is chicken and egg stuff.
No one will be able to develop advanced technology for storage if
no-one uses the stored product. With limited storage it is a small,
slow market for the technology. Remember the cellphones of the 80's?
huge units, lousy coverage, exorbitant unit and air time, terrible
battery life (mine was 5hrs no talk, 15 minutes talk) compare that to
the modern equivalent.
Baird's point about the environment effects of H2 capture/release
could be a problem.
Blessed Be,
-A.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d-- s-:+ a-->? C++++ UL+++ P+>++ L++>+++ E+++ W++>+++ N++
o K- w>--- O- M- V- PS++ PE- Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5-- X R+ tv+ b+++ DI++++
D---- G++++ e* h! !r !y+>**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Alan Young
2003-07-16 00:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Ah! At last, someone who can answer the question.
Thanks.

In article <***@aerith.goddess.null>,
RadiantMatrix <***@filter.radiantmatrix.org> wrote:
[snip]
NASA and others are researching "closed-loop" renewable fuel cells.
Basically, solar power is used to extract H and O molecules from water, then
they are burned for combustion power. The byproduct of that combustion is
water vapor, which is then recovered and sent back to the electrolyzer.
While this isn't near-term viable, it's certainly worth the research.
As for hydrogen extraction using traditional methods, few hydrogen
production facilities use grid power (too expensive), and in fact tend to
use solar power. With recent advances in solar technology (including
*flexible* solar panels), solar electrolysis will soon become much more
affordable than it is now. And, hydrogen produced like this will cost less
per joule to the average user than petroleum fuels, and will burn cleaner.
| I have no objection to people wanting clean cars. I do have objections
| to politicians pretending they are solving the problem by sweeping it
| under a science-fiction rug. And I object even more strenuously to
| people pretending that they are helping make the environment clean by
| moving the source of pollution from their driveways to some central
| hydrogen-packaging plan, without even any discussion of taking
| responsibility for the *massive* problems involved in the energy
| consumption and pollution that will take place there.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not, I agree, the "end-all" solution to the
enviromental issues caused by combustion transportation. Despite the
propaganda, they do have environmental impact. But, it really is cleaner
overall than traditional petroleum fuels, and it's renewable. Even oil
companies have started to research renewable fuels to protect thier bottom
line when the oil supply is tapped.
Also, hydrogen cells aren't the only cell technology. There are *lots* more
that are even more earth-friendly. Unfortunately, thier costs are
prohibitive, so hydrogen looks to be the most reasonable near-term solution.
Cheers,
Radiant
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/

I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...

---Monk's Dream
Té Rowan
2003-07-17 17:15:16 UTC
Permalink
In The Darkness: |
RadiantMatrix: >

| JMHO, but "Fuel Cells" are the devils
| distraction.
|
| No wonder "W" supports them. ;)
|
| The real solution is a safe effective
| transport of contained, pressurized Hydrogen.

'Safe' and 'pressurised' are very much opposites, matey. Plus, how do
you intend to use the H? Feed it to a 427 Big Block? You *can* after all
burn it in an internal-combustion engine.

Why not use a fuel cell, a storage battery and an electric motor
instead? It'll very probably be quieter and more efficient that way.
Actually, this is typically what fuel cells are. Pressurized liquid
hydrogen, propane, or some similar substance. That is why they are
considered more environmentall friendly -- they aren't petroleum
products.

Nope. A hydrogen fuel cell is a device that converts the energy released
by burning hydrogen into electricity. That you get pure water as a
byproduct can be seen as a bonus.

Té Rowan (***@mi.is)
In The Darkness
2003-07-17 19:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Té Rowan
In The Darkness: |
RadiantMatrix: >
| JMHO, but "Fuel Cells" are the devils
| distraction.
|
| No wonder "W" supports them. ;)
|
| The real solution is a safe effective
| transport of contained, pressurized Hydrogen.
'Safe' and 'pressurised' are very much opposites, matey.
So are explosive liquids... but, we transport Gasoline in
our gas tanks... eh ?
Post by Té Rowan
Plus, how do
you intend to use the H? Feed it to a 427 Big Block? You *can* after all
burn it in an internal-combustion engine.
Well, just between you and I, I might suggest adapting a Wankle
engine for such use.... 0-60 in 3 seconds..

Whooo Hooo!

Zzzzzzzzzing.
Post by Té Rowan
Why not use a fuel cell, a storage battery and an electric motor
instead? It'll very probably be quieter and more efficient that way.
I plan on it, when it is a solid reliable technology in about 1000 years...
in the meantime, I am using a current version of a "Fuel Cell Car"
on my right foot, but I haven't been able to afford one on my left foot, yet.

:(
Post by Té Rowan
Actually, this is typically what fuel cells are. Pressurized liquid
hydrogen, propane, or some similar substance.
OOps, contradictated yourself already. Safe and pressurized.....

:}

That is why they are
Post by Té Rowan
considered more environmentall friendly -- they aren't petroleum
products.
Agreed.

But, as you saw, there is quite a controversy on this one...
Post by Té Rowan
Nope. A hydrogen fuel cell is a device that converts the energy released
by burning hydrogen into electricity. That you get pure water as a
byproduct can be seen as a bonus.
Some. For more detail by-passing the hype, read:

http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/whatis_intro.html

Fuel cells, as they are being discussed are more like batteries.

A confusion I think has been popular to propogate is they are
merely safe containers for Hydrogen.....

That is -mostly- incorrect.
My pleaure.

:)
moonstorm
2003-07-14 05:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Hmmmmm..., Motorized glider? Military Intelligence? Solemn celebration?
Nope, see no contadiction in terms here.
Light, Love and Laughter
MoonStorm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...