Pathetic....

Henning said:
The difference though is in the water. Only with fuel cell conversion do you also produce fresh water as the exhaust. Burning hydrogen causes no pollution and that is good. A fuel cell on the other hand gives us the benefit of water without having to spend energy on reverse osmosis or other reclamation, and it gives us the ability to clean up contaminated and toxic water supplies as well as desalinate ocean water, and you get to ship 2 products at once while only paying to transport a small fraction of it.

The technology has never been allowed out of its infancy. Compared to computers, the evolution of the Hydrogen Fuel cell is along the lines of a TRS-80. You have to trust and if you are in the position create, improvements in the efficiency of it.

These arguments are nothing but PATHETIC!!!

Quit being so damned lazy. You'd all rather ***** an moan and lie around in the filth that creates than put forth and believe and get it done.
Lazy and pathetic, all of you.

Get your a$$es out there and make it happen, or provide a better option. Those are the only 2 choices you have that can effect a change for the better. Y'all ****ing and moaning here only makes it worse.

I'm doing everything I can think of, sending the page to anyone I can send it to.

This is my mission. I may be defeated in it, and I can accept that. I'll have done my best and I can die with a clear conscience knowing I tried to make the world a better place, I really did. I'm just not a good enough leader to get people off their asses, but not for lack of trying.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the trolls on sci.chem...eventually shut down that news group.

There's a lot of people working on hydrogen as a fuel. Problems include energy density- you don't get a lot of energy out of a mole of hydrogen compared to other fuels, so you are stopping a lot to refill. You can compress it down, but the energy density is still poor compared to pretty much any liquid fuel. There's a lot being done with fuel cells too- you don't need hydrogen to run a fuel cell; methanol does a good job in fuel cells. There's a variety of issues with fuel cells too, including high temperatures.

As I said, a lot of people working on this. I help sell stuff to a lot of these people- so your comment that people aren't "making it happen" is false. You're not a good enough leader to see what's really going on.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
This sounds like the trolls on sci.chem...eventually shut down that news group.

There's a lot of people working on hydrogen as a fuel. Problems include energy density- you don't get a lot of energy out of a mole of hydrogen compared to other fuels, so you are stopping a lot to refill. You can compress it down, but the energy density is still poor compared to pretty much any liquid fuel. There's a lot being done with fuel cells too- you don't need hydrogen to run a fuel cell; methanol does a good job in fuel cells. There's a variety of issues with fuel cells too, including high temperatures.

As I said, a lot of people working on this. I help sell stuff to a lot of these people- so your comment that people aren't "making it happen" is false. You're not a good enough leader to see what's really going on.
Click to expand...

Popcorn-03-Scarlett-Johanssen.gif
 
steingar said:
If fusion ever becomes reality, all these discussions will become part of our own nostalgia. But that is a honkin', big, huge, enormous Godzilla-sized IF.
Click to expand...
But there was a Godzilla so anything is possible.
 
steingar said:
Of course it's possible. Stars do it every day. The question is can we develop the technology to do it in time.
Click to expand...
I visited National Ignition Facility once for a series of lectures on the current state of affairs (it included every approach). It disillusioned me anew. I frankly see no useful containment technique anywhere on the horizon. It happens every time: when I am ignorant about this fresh new idea in the fusuion, it seems attractive. Like the polywell. And then I study it and it turns out that good old stellarator is the only thing with a chance of working.
 
Well, you might disagree with Henning's approach, but he has generated a lot of discussion about energy since 11:03AM. A long time ago, somebody said to a friend, "Hey, aren't you a little bit tired of all these tea taxes we send back to England".
 
zaitcev said:
I visited National Ignition Facility once for a series of lectures on the current state of affairs (it included every approach). It disillusioned me anew. I frankly see no useful containment technique anywhere on the horizon. It happens every time: when I am ignorant about this fresh new idea in the fusuion, it seems attractive. Like the polywell. And then I study it and it turns out that good old stellarator is the only thing with a chance of working.
Click to expand...

That ol stellarator is all we would need if we could get more efficiency out of the cells.

But you still need some other fuel source for vehicles, the number escapes me but somewhere I saw what HP a solar car would be at 100% efficiency, and um I wouldn't drive it:lol:
 
Keith Lane said:
Well, you might disagree with Henning's approach, but he has generated a lot of discussion about energy since 11:03AM. A long time ago, somebody said to a friend, "Hey, aren't you a little bit tired of all these tea taxes we send back to England".
Click to expand...

Too bad Henning was hoping for action, not discussion. ;)
 
This idea seems to reside in that nether world between brilliance and lunacy.

A couple of more Shiners, and it may even slip into freaking awesomeness, with much shouting and arm waving. I'll let you know.
 
Jay Honeck said:
This idea seems to reside in that nether world between brilliance and lunacy.

A couple of more Shiners, and it may even slip into freaking awesomeness, with much shouting and arm waving. I'll let you know.
Click to expand...

++1 ;)

I would guess, I don't know for sure, but just a wild guess, the Navy surplus supply system would not include turning over fully operational nuclear powered submarines to the general public for experimentation to produce explosive gasses. Call be crazy, but it seems to me there might be just a tad too much paperwork for those "waiting to retire desk jocks" to prepare. Let me Google it to find out.. nope ain't gonna happen. ;)

I had an idea to get my hands on a few shoulder fired heat seeking missle to improve my duck hunting but the dude behind the "Order Missles Here" desk was "out to lunch".

I keep waiting for the punch line about this "joke." The longer I wait the more concerned I become for the OP.
 
Last edited:
For the missile, just ring up any broke Colonel in the ex-Soviet satellite states. ;)

As far as the subs go, you mean you can't get good deals on those through DRMO? :)
 
denverpilot said:
. ;)

As far as the subs go, you mean you can't get good deals on those through DRMO? :)
Click to expand...

Only if you are a nation in good standing with the US, or a state, or Indian nation.


Check DRMO rules who gets what first.
 
How well do mothballed and heavily moored ex-Navy subs do during tsunami events? ;)

News out today says that one of the plants operated by TEPCO's competition in Japan fared better only because their sea wall was higher. They only lost *most* of their power generation and pumps.

(It wasn't just the diesel generators that were damaged at Fukushima, numerous pumps were also rendered inoperable by the flooding.)

Here's our local nuclear train wreck...

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating_Station

If they'd have fixed the problems instead of giving up and turning it into a natural gas peaker plant, it'd be a highly efficient source of electricity for the Front Range by now. Much more so than a typical light water reactor.

Good ideas, shot down by **** poor implementation.
 
Henning said:
The difference though is in the water. Only with fuel cell conversion do you also produce fresh water as the exhaust. Burning hydrogen causes no pollution and that is good. A fuel cell on the other hand gives us the benefit of water without having to spend energy on reverse osmosis or other reclamation, and it gives us the ability to clean up contaminated and toxic water supplies as well as desalinate ocean water, and you get to ship 2 products at once while only paying to transport a small fraction of it.

The technology has never been allowed out of its infancy. Compared to computers, the evolution of the Hydrogen Fuel cell is along the lines of a TRS-80. You have to trust and if you are in the position create, improvements in the efficiency of it.

These arguments are nothing but PATHETIC!!!

Quit being so damned lazy. You'd all rather ***** an moan and lie around in the filth that creates than put forth and believe and get it done.
Lazy and pathetic, all of you.

Get your a$$es out there and make it happen, or provide a better option. Those are the only 2 choices you have that can effect a change for the better. Y'all ****ing and moaning here only makes it worse.

I'm doing everything I can think of, sending the page to anyone I can send it to.

This is my mission. I may be defeated in it, and I can accept that. I'll have done my best and I can die with a clear conscience knowing I tried to make the world a better place, I really did. I'm just not a good enough leader to get people off their asses, but not for lack of trying.
Click to expand...

Hehe your right about how we love talk talk talk and never doing anything. I am actually at work right now though. Full-time I run CNC machines which between cycles when I am not deburring I can post on here :D Part-time I am a CFI and I am also going for my Masters Degree. I'm not pretending to have some difficult life or anything, just making the point that I am far too busy to retool the shop to make an FCV. I don't think I am alone either. Most of us have little control except that we can vote with our wallet. Which the options for green tech just gets you too little ROI for too much investment.

<---<^>--->
 
steingar said:
For 2 million there's this great bridge in New York I'd be happy to sell you.
Click to expand...

Did you know that if you captured the electrical potential between the two ends of just 7 bridges, we could replace all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia?:idea:
 
Fearless Tower said:
Only problem is that the photo in that ad is NOT a Nimitz class carrier and the one we are contemplating mothballing is nowhere near the Atlantic.

Oh, and a Nimitz will do WAY more than 22kts. IIRC, they can do about 20 or so going backwards as LEYTE GULF discovered.....
Click to expand...

If they throw in a squadron of F18s I'm in.
 
Keith Lane said:
Well, you might disagree with Henning's approach, but he has generated a lot of discussion about energy since 11:03AM. A long time ago, somebody said to a friend, "Hey, aren't you a little bit tired of all these tea taxes we send back to England".
Click to expand...

denverpilot said:
Too bad Henning was hoping for action, not discussion. ;)
Click to expand...

There is a lot of action being taken now. There are people working on hydrogen generation using sunlight (1,2), for example.

People are working on biodiesel from algae which has a number of advantages over getting it from plants- closed system, so use of water is reduced, reduced need for crop land, potentially high yield of oil. The oils produced can be run into existing refineries to be made into other chemicals and can also be cracked to make gasoline if needed.

We don't use a single energy source now- we use natural gas, petroleum, and coal for energy now. We'll still have a mix from different sources in the future, which will probably include hydrogen.

1) http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/89/i40/html/8940scic6.html
2) http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/89/i05/html/8905scic7.html
 
JeffDG said:
Did you know that if you captured the electrical potential between the two ends of just 7 bridges, we could replace all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia?:idea:
Click to expand...

Well yes, a coffee cup could produce 100 years worth of energy enough to power a city... IF you could get 100% efficiency. Maybe we should be spending trillions on science instead of.. well I won't even go there on this thread.

<---<^>--->
 
Matthew said:
Here are some charts showing the US energy flow.

They all show how inefficient electricity generation is.

#3 shows the projected hydrogen power capability by 2050.

#4 shows roughly how much oil we import:

http://futureenergyinvesting.typepad.com/future_energy_investor/energy-efficiency/
Click to expand...


I knew electrical generation and distribution involved serious inefficiencies, but had no idea they were as big as that. Huge. So much for the rechargeable electric car being so green...

6a00e54edb740688330133f44674e9970b-500wi



Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
I knew electrical generation and distribution involved serious inefficiencies, but had no idea they were as big as that. Huge. So much for the rechargeable electric car being so green...

6a00e54edb740688330133f44674e9970b-500wi



Dan
Click to expand...

Yeah - a lot of plants try to take advantage of heat loss by capturing it and using it for secondary turbines. But there is a lot of power lost due to heat and loss along the power distribution grid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_steam_generator
 
Which is why room-temperature superconductors (miracles) would be such a game changer... or REALLY efficient batteries.

Anybody else ever read Heinlein's "Friday"? It was a hard book to get through but I was fascinated by the concept of the "Shipstone power cell".
 
recently I had the awesome idea to use a compact steam turbine to run the alternator, a/c, power steering, water pump, engine fan on a car. Would be worth 4-8 mpg depending on the vehicle.

Heat source would be the exhaust manifold.
 
dell30rb said:
recently I had the awesome idea to use a compact steam turbine to run the alternator, a/c, power steering, water pump, engine fan on a car. Would be worth 4-8 mpg depending on the vehicle.

Heat source would be the exhaust manifold.
Click to expand...

Speaking of exhaust imagine how much more efficently we could burn gas without all the restrictions... double_edged sword?

<---<^>--->
 
dell30rb said:
recently I had the awesome idea to use a compact steam turbine to run the alternator, a/c, power steering, water pump, engine fan on a car. Would be worth 4-8 mpg depending on the vehicle.

Heat source would be the exhaust manifold.
Click to expand...

Don't know about cars these days, but the average aircraft engine loses 50% of the gasoline's heat energy out the exhaust pipe. That's a lot of heat. Modern car engines are probably somewhat better than that but there are still big exhaust losses.

Dan
 
dell30rb said:
recently I had the awesome idea to use a compact steam turbine to run the alternator, a/c, power steering, water pump, engine fan on a car. Would be worth 4-8 mpg depending on the vehicle.

Heat source would be the exhaust manifold.
Click to expand...

In a small car, however, is the engine exhaust sufficient to power a boiler?

I have alot of experience with waste heat/exhaust gas boilers, but they were all powered by the exhaust of very large marine diesel engines.
 
p1l0t said:
Speaking of exhaust imagine how much more efficently we could burn gas without all the restrictions... double_edged sword?

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...
and weight of the system.

Shaving lbs and drag will do the most good.
 
dell30rb said:
recently I had the awesome idea to use a compact steam turbine to run the alternator, a/c, power steering, water pump, engine fan on a car. Would be worth 4-8 mpg depending on the vehicle.

Heat source would be the exhaust manifold.
Click to expand...

So...whaddaya sayin'...that maybe we should line up cars off the coast instead of subs?

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top