OT Hydrogen economy, not?

te

:-)

Methane is odorless.

ICE

Lots of people have tried the steam car, both boiler and once-through systems. HP per unit of fuel is low, and either you have to fill up with water very often, or you need a thousand pounds or so of very bulky condenser. The engine itself can be tiny; the real problem is the condenser.

John

Well, let's see.

From Wikipedia... "In 2002, typical cells had a catalyst content of US$1000 per kilowatt of electric power output."

Concerning platinum:

"If all the world's platinum reserves were poured into one Olympic-size swimming pool, it would be just deep enough to cover one's ankles." An Olympic-size swimming pool is 25 x 50 m, and "just ankle high" is around, oh, 4", or 0.1 m, so a volume of 125 m^3, or 2681 tonnes.

Platinum was around $550/oz., or $17.68/g in 2002.

Platinum reserves are estimated at 80 thousand tonnes, which at present production (218 tonnes in 2005, see USGS docs) would take some 367 years to deplete, so we're not running out of supplies soon, and there's a lot available, but man does it take a lot of effort ( = continuing high market price) to extract.

That swimming pool factoid sounds like bullshit, because we've been mining a whole lot longer than ten years, even if not at the same rate. If the entire ankle was meant (i.e. up to your knees), that would be 16,000 tonnes, which seems a little more believable.

Getting back to fuel cells, if most of the cost is due to platinum (the quote says catalyst, sure), then that's roughly $1k/kW or about $20k/car (not counting SUVs, hybrid technology, etc.), which is, in turn, around 1.1 kg platinum. Taking the upper estimate of 16 kt, we could therefore make 16 million fuel-cell powered cars.

Finally... "As of 2002, there were 590 million passenger cars worldwide."

So, the correct answer does indeed appear that there ain't a chance in hell that we're going to use today's fuel cells in any large proportion of today's automobiles!

One final statistic to close with. Even if it would only make 16M cars, all that platinum is currently worth (today's prices) $971 billion. Which is a mere 7.4% of the U.S. GDP (and about how much the Iraq war is going to cost in the long run).

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

No, unfortunately, although I find it amusing that you go on for three more pages attempting to contradict my non-existent facts! ;-)

I found that statistic while researching a short essay, unfortunately the website referenced within changed its links and now I don't know where the hell I saw that. It was on a government website, I believe Austrailian. And hey, if you doubt my references, I got an "A" on that assignment, so pfffbt on you. :^)

I also found numbers stating that, if all our energy needs were filled with nuclear power only, we would have somewhere between 3(!) and 50 years of nuclear power, no more. That low figure probably incorporates exponential growth, readily available uranium reserves and no reprocessing, while the other may or may not account for any of these factors. I don't know, it wasn't specified. Even the advertized upper bounds such as 300 years are depressingly short, considering coal reserves alone will last about as long!

If you'd like to see the essay anyway I could forward it. I don't remember if I used that statistic or not.

Obviously then, it wasn't. Of note, France and Japan have reprocessing facilities; Japan in particular was in the news for a criticality accident at one plant. You can find it near the top of a list of nuclear incidents if you'd like to read about it.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

it

of

Most comments look pretty stupid when snipped from their context.

Yours manages to be intrinsically foolish, because I don't suffer from any shortage of data to sling around - one of the complaints I get from our crew of doctriniare rght-wingers is about my habit of directing them to "leftist" web-sites. The web-sites aren't in fact leftist, but merely look that way to right-wingers, who expect their information to be served up with all the difficult detail edited out.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On one level that is true; on another level, it's not even close.

It is not just IC engines that haven't change in basic principle over the last 100 years: I was once a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine. A nuclear ship simply uses a steam engine with a nuclear heat source, and it turns out that steam plants are another thing that "haven't changed". Back then, I was able to go down in the engine room of a Spanish-American war-era museum ship and accurately trace out the function of every major valve and control. You see, "a steam plant is a steam plant". Does that mean that the propulsion plant of my SSBN was really anything like that of the old cruiser? Not on your life!

My first car was a 1955 Ford V8. It managed 6 or 7 MPG back when gas was

19.9 cents a gallon. I drive that car until it had 100,000 miles on the clock. By 100,000 miles, my engine was so worn out that the pistons were nearly swapping holes. There was no way that it would have manged another 100,000 miles without a major rebuild. Oh yes, by then the car was on its second drive train, both transmission and rear end had been replaced. That engine took lots of routine maintenance. Valves needed to be kept adjusted, oil passages needed to be purged, the distributer needed regular maintenace, the carb needed occasional cleaning and rebuilding. It burned oil, but that was OK because I could buy filtered, used oil at many gas stations for 10 cents a quart. That car was terrible for the environment! Oh yes, several expensive parts, such as universal joints and front end joints, were considered temporary "wear" items back then. It needed a new muffler about once a year. Hell, even the radio took constant and potentially expensive maintenance (mostly tubes and vibrators).

Did I mention that I loved my old Ford?

In contrast, my Honda Civic does not even need the spark plugs changed until after the first 100,000 miles. At that point, I will consider it nicely broken in. For gas mileage, there is just no comparison between my Civic and that old Ford. For impact on the environment, there also is no comparison. That Civic has no carburator and no distributer, so they can't break. There are some very basic improvements in combustion over my old Ford that improve both efficiency and emissions. I can start up my Civic on a cold morning and just drive, while I had to fuss with the Ford and warm it up before it would produce significant power or exhibit useful driveability.

Saying that the IC engine in my old Ford was anything like the IC engine in my '01 Civic is only true on the most basic level. Yes, they both use the same basic cycle, the function of the major internal parts of my Civic's engine would be obvious to any 1920's auto mechanic, but the comparison stops there!

When it comes to cars, they don't make them like they used to; and I am glad!

Vaughn

A little thought? Study a modern (as in after, say, 1950 or so) steam power plant. They have preheaters, superheaters, recirculators, economizers, multi-stage turbines, hydrogen-cooled generators, every trick known to thermodynamics to squeeze every fraction of a per cent out of the fuel.

As far as other processes go, some modest amount of heat might be recovered, but processes are few where it's economical and not already being done.

It's annoying when greenies invent simple-minded criticisms, but don't know beans about the technology.

John

My krytron is bigger than your krytron.

ftp://66.117.156.8/Kry_Box.jpg

ftp://66.117.156.8/Kry_Danger.jpg

ftp://66.117.156.8/Kry_Guts.jpg

Well, at least the leads are longer.

John

have

ICE

The fuel efficiency of the cars wasn't bad for those days. But yes, water and the condenser are a problem. Especially nowadays where you'd have to be worried that you return from a nice dinner only to discover that someone stole the condenser because it contained copper.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Ah the energy equivalent of a hair vest. The energy used by your computer while you typed this was 100% waste so there is a start for you.

No! It started as an environmentalist / sustainable / alternative energy / anti-global-warming thing.

Al Gore invented it:

"I was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be." --Al Gore, Speech, Dec. 1, 1998

In the 2000 edition of his book "Earth In The Balance": "by tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010, we can keep millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air...."

Cheers, James Arthur

turns

your

clock.

drive

lots

needed

as

But back then there were more durable cars and engines. A friend drove a Mercedes 170D from 1950, like this one:

It had more than 200k miles on it, engine was fine, didn't use much oil and netted about 30mpg (Diesel fuel). The problem over there in Europe was body rust and the fact that TUEV requires roadworthiness checks every two years. That did it in some time in the early 80's. Perfectly fine engine but the chassis was corroding away.

A taxi driver on a mediterranean island (it was either Malta or Cypress) topped them all. He did one million kilometers in one of those and some of the roads there are brutal on cars. Never had any serious issues. AFAIR Daimler-Benz offered him a new one if he'd give them his old car and he declined ...

until

broken

old

very

while

Same with my car. The question that nags me is whether the spark plugs will still come out at 100k miles without wrecking the threads in the block. It's 11 years old and I guess it'll be another ten years until I get there.

in

same

would

glad!

I just wish they'd put less electronics into them. And smaller engines. Mankind doesn't need 100+ horses in a car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

On the positive side they meant well, but on the negative side unless you are using a crop with the same low inputs and ideal growing conditions as sugar cane in Brazil the biofuel thing is a loser.

At least it is with present technology. That may change when we can turn cellulose waste into bio fuels with GM designer fermentation.

But turning foodstuffs into SUV fuel when millions are starving is obscene. It drives the price of grain up Gore was right about that.

I am on record here as saying that Al Gore is a hypocrite from the "don't do as I do, do as I say" school of leadership.

Regards, Martin Brown

** Posted from **

Rich Grise wrote in news:pan.2008.07.17.18.04.21.423782 @example.net:

Heh, heard today abotu a dairy farmer in CA who extracts the methane from teh manure produced by his cows - teh methane would be goign into the atmosphere in either even, but what he does is uses the methane to power his entire spread, so he doesn't have to buy any electricity.

"Ken Maltby" wrote in news:nNOdnUsVjdYBD-LVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Ugh, and that nasty High Fructose Corn Syrup. The older I get, the fewer processed foods I eat, not so much because I don't like cereal or so on, but there is so much HFCS in the vast majority of products now that they're inedible to me - I don't know how poeple can stomach the stuff. Even something as simple as a Kaiser roll is now nauseatingly sweet. I've gotten to where I'm starting to even make my own bread, that's how disgusting most of the commercial items have gotten. And obesity is described as being "an epidemic" among even young children. The last thing we need is ever-more HFCS in everything. And studies indicate that it is worse than regular sugar, something to do with it being iether unrecognized ro poorly-recognized by the hormones that signal the brain we're satiated. Not to mention that the hidden sugar only contributes to obesity and type-II diabetes. I mean, why the heck does something like

*sausage* "need' to have HFCS added? IMO, it'd be a blessing if that crap was turned into ethanol, because that'd mean less of it would be going into food products.

At least, that is my opinionated opinion ;)

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net:

Er, you'll start seeing poeple being poisoned from drinking gasoline, and/or "distilled" gasoline...?

Neon John wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

[snip]

You stole my idea!

I've often thought that today's landfills will eventually be tomorrow's resources.

The other benefit is that (1)CH4 + (2)O2 --> (2)H2O + (1)CO2.. In short, besides using up a little breathable oxygen, which we can afford to do, it exchanges a possible CH4 released into the air for a CO2 released. Since CH4 has a radiative efficiency of about 370 uW m^-2 ppb^-1. That's an instantaneous slope, of course, but it gives an idea of where it is, right now. By comparison, CO2 has a radiative efficiency of 14 uW m^-2 ppb^1. So if you gotta dump one, you might prefer to dump CO2 rather than CH4. (The CH4 figure I mentioned includes known indirect effects from the creation of stratospheric H2O [most of what little moisture does occur there is from CH4 converting to H2O] and from related ozone enhancements.)

Another important difference, though, is that CH4 doesn't last in the atmosphere. It's tau is 12 years. By comparison, CO2 has at least three taus below 1000 years (it has some above that), including 1.2,

19, and 170 years. CO2 remains well-mixed, as well. So that might inure the other way.

Another is that extra CH4 reduces partial pressures of tropospheric

-OH radicals, which removes them from their use in otherwise scrubbing the troposphere of pollutants. That works to wanting to release CO2.

And I'm sure there are other considerations I don't know anything about. Of course, none of that addresses the fact that this farmer doesn't have to tap into electricity, which is probably one of the highest valued forms of energy and which has a huge impact on warming, indirectly. So all in all, sounds like an excellent success story.

Jon

Here, you can buy Mexican cokes, in glass bottles, made with real sugar. They're pretty good.

And sourdough bread is made from flour and water, with maybe a little salt.

At least the trans-fat hydrogenated soybean oil is going away. That was really foul.

John