Fuel Cell Technology
- Thread starter 4G63
- Start date
Prof Voluptuary said:
All you do is contridict. Thank you for posing a no solution. I'm glad you think fossil fuel and fission is Okay, and I can't wait for WWIII over the last puddle of oil.
I prefer my head in science fiction, were an idea can be posed and the workers can attempt it. Rather than your world of beuracracy and NO.
There are many stepping stones to futher mankinds technology, and the first is to belive it could happen. How many people told Feynman he was wrong? How many doubted Galilaio? Diesel? DaVinchi? The list goes on and on and on...
Your responses mean nothing to me, because they are just contradictory. YOU give ME a better frame work for free power. Fission did not work at first, and what slowed down it's prgress were Profs who thought that they were smarter and slowed the process down by saying it's stupid and it won't work.
Is my idea for abundant cheap power flawed, mos def. But please point out ways it could better than just saying I'm an idiot.
When something is not well understood, you betcha.4G63 said:
Especially if something has a very popular following, and very few have stopped to learn of the real NEGATIVES that exist.
Again, I urge you to pick up some EE trade journals, especially the IEEE Spectrum.
It will better inform you what is and isn't feasible, the positives and negatives of various options, etc...
Huh? I'm sorry, but I DID very much post a solution!4G63 said:
I'm sorry it did not match your views, and I'm sorry you are not very informed on things.
No offense, but I think your response is more about my rebuking, than the validity of my statements.
If you're going to have a view, make sure it is informed!
When in the hell did I say that?!?!?!4G63 said:
Fossil fuels are NOT okay! I would really like to know where you get that?!?!?!
In fact, my #1 issue with fuel cells it the fact that most hydrogen will be extracted from fossil fuels (natural gas), to avoid the green house releases of electrolysis.
It very much is, just as Chicago as well as France.4G63 said:
Our nuclear fission plants are aging, and we have massive stockpiles of waste.
We could kill 2 birds with one stone -- update these plants as well as create more, reusing all of the waste.
Japan is doing it, and now Blair has the UK seriously considering it.
The problem in the US is that we are in a political nightmare that actually causes worse environmental policy.
Dude, we're on the same page there.4G63 said:
I am NOT for continuing to pump petroleum reserves.
I, along with many EEs, are pushing for a feasible plan that could take only 25 years.
We have been working on the Tokamak reactor design for 40+ years.4G63 said:
We are barely any closer to reality than we were 40 years ago.
This is fact, and until people show otherwise, we can't do much with a reactor that requires more energy in than it puts out (much less one without a sustainable reaction).
Fast neutron fission plants are a reality, and regardless of whether the US goes forward, other nations are.
All the meanwhile, our existing fission plants can age and go off-line, requiring us to tap other types of plants.
I don't like that solution, and it's just more of the failed California policy.
If you don't build new power plants, you not only get less power, but you're stuck with the older technology that is far less environmentally friendly.
Huh? I have no idea where you are getting that.4G63 said:
Please explain it to me because I'm really interested.
Dude, I am all for fusion research.4G63 said:
I honestly hope that it comes true in the next 50 years.
But at this time, we can't deploy something that doesn't exist.
We have to plan for the next 25 years, and that means going with what is available.
I honestly don't know what solution you are offering in the meantime.
As a result, I can only assume you have the same approach as California.
Act like we don't need new power plants and keep relying on the old ones.
Old ones which are far less environmentally friendly.
I don't "doubt" R&D into fusion reactors.4G63 said:
I don't know whether or not the Tokamak design will ever be feasible, but I do believe we should continue pouring great amounts of R&D dollars into it, and other fusion research.
Eventually I do believe we'll get it.
But right now, we do NOT have a working reactor design, much less practical experience in running them.
We DO have working fast neutron fission reactor designs, and with the 3 plants now on-line, we are gaining practical experience with them.
So much so that the UK is seriously considering following the lead of the Japanese.
I already have, like many other EEs.4G63 said:
I'm just a realist, and I'm just a messenger -- fuel cells have many great applications, but power en masse is not one of them.
Huh? Fission pretty much worked off-the-bat.4G63 said:
In fact, sub-critical reactions preceded the critical Manhattan project.
So it was just a matter of adapting those sub-critical reactions to a traditional steam-turbine-generator solution.
Since then, we have refined fission into a much more viable, and much safer solution.
Unfortunately, we haven't built any of them in the US -- we haven't built any new fission reactors since the '80s.
And now, more and more earlier ones are going off-line.
So what do we replace them with?
That's what I'm talking about -- what do we do for the next 25 years from a DEPLOYMENT standpoint?!?!?!
I'm all for continued fusion research -- and I am very hopeful that in 25-50 yeras, we'll have the knowledge to make it work.
And that will be free power beyond 50 years.
But right now, we can't replace them with fusion.
And I have pointed out the fact that hydrogen generation is currently a catch-22 -- we have a limitless supply from water, at the expense of massive greenhouse gas release, versus the traditional extraction from Methane and other natural gases which reduce overall emissions (including the consumption), but there is limited supplies.
I didn't say you were an idiot.4G63 said:
At the most, I said 99% of people are ignorant of the massive greenhouse gas release of eletrolysis.
That's currently the #1 problem with going fuel cells en masse -- and why most hydrogen generated for fuel cells is being done with capture from Methane.
Prof Voluptuary said:
To be fair; that is an extremely relative term. One person's informed is another person's uninformed. If you study Grade 11 Physics then you are informed in comparison to Grade 10 students. But practially ignorant compared to an actual physicist.
And what is an EE anyway? Enviornmental Engineer? Energy Engineer?
I agree that we cannot count on something that has not yet been invented for practical use - as of now (fussion reactors). Though R&D should obviously continue. But I am still not convinced that tons of new nuclear reactors is the answer either. At least not long term. Germany apparently has or will roughly have 10% of it's power needs provided by wind turbines. Solar and thermal energy could be utilized far more then they are. Conservation has got to take hold in the U.S. more. What the heck happened to the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) numbers for a start? Like Sally needs a 300 hp, 5000 lb SUV to go to the store for groceries?
All these things won't solve the problem alone. And undoubtedly new, modern nuclear power plants will have to be built. But there is a danger that people will fall in love will nuke plants at the expense of conservation. Never a good idea.
I did not realize nuke plants are as efficient as you say they are now. But I still think there are alternatives that need to be maximized before we start building nuke power plants like crazy.
Last edited:
Agreed.mcrocket said:
But a mass majority of people talking the benefits of fuel cells on a massive adoption scale who have been fed only the positives gets rather old to the minority trying to inform them that their ideals are less than ideal.mcrocket said:
Oil companies are buying up natural gas companies because of how hydrogen is (and will likely continue to be) generated for fuel cells.
Agreed.mcrocket said:
At the same time, if you're going to proliferate the so-called benefits of something, at least be skeptical and research.
I have no problem with naivity, leave the problems to people more informed.
I only have a problem when people are pro-active but ignorant of some of the details of what they are selling.
Understand that ignoring the negatives is what results in a lot of a rhetoric I hear.
The alleged engines that get 200mpg that oil companies buy the patent on.
The alleged electrical motors that somehow defy basic engineering efficiency.
The resulting rhetoric on why things are adopted, and we are still tied to fossil fuels.
Electrical engineer.mcrocket said:
And I didn't argue with that one bit.mcrocket said:
At this point, I've become fairly skeptical with the Tokamak design, but we should still pursue it.
There's gotta be a better fusion reactor design that we just haven't thought of.
Furthermore, there are still sound arguments that cold fusion might be a physical reality.
I won't dismiss anything where the amount of power put in is less than the amount of power that comes out.
It's kinda sad that the lack of attention by a few scientists has given the remote, but still plausable, theory of cold fusion its bad name.
I don't dispute that.mcrocket said:
I merely said if we have a choice between fossil fuels or the new fast neutron fission reactors, I'd say the latter.
It's a great way to use all that waste we've built up.
I'm a huge fan of wind power -- it's efficient, doesn't require any nasty materials, and maintenance is straight-forward.mcrocket said:
Of course, a particular Democratic and alleged pro-environment US Senator from Mass doesn't want them in his back yard, and he's fighting against them.
Wind can't power the entire US, but 10% is not a pipe dream -- I would like to see it.
is a pipe dream.mcrocket said:
Unless Einstein was wrong, solar will never be viable.
[ SIDE NOTE: Most people don't know that Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect, and is the essentially the father of the direct solar-to-electric current cell.
He did NOT win it for Relativity, which was a theory that was dismissed HEAVILY in his time -- and not until later did his brilliance gain mass acceptance in the scientific community. ]
Solar panels are expensive and nasty, environmentally, to create.
They have limited applications, definitely NOT for large scale generation.
The new focus for solar energy is to bring the cost of panels down.
By using more simplistic techniques and more environmentally materials, the costs can come down only 5-10% of panels of the past, but they are also only 25% as efficient.
But that's a good trade-off, save 10-20x over and only use 4x the efficiency.
But solar will never amount to even 1-2% of generation.
Thermal is also a pipe dream.mcrocket said:
In reality, hydro-electric is the absolute most efficient -- far more than wind.
But you basically destroy an ecosystem when you dam anything.
So that's why there's no new hydro plants.
It's called a political solution for a political problem.mcrocket said:
Consumers drive a lot of things -- and I find some of the biggest complainers about "big business" are also the ones who have piss-poor cars when it comes to fuel efficiency.
No, but in the meantime, a policy of replacing aging fossil fuel and fission plants with new fast neutron fission plants would not only be ideal, but could make 0 emission, 100% electric vehicles a reality within 25 years.mcrocket said:
While solving our real power needs today without new fossil fuel plants -- especially as older plants go off-line.
??? I'm confused.mcrocket said:
Nuke plants have ALWAYS been EXTREMELY efficient!mcrocket said:
One only needs to look at the US Navy to recognize this.
An cruiser that basically runs for 10-30 years on a single set of rods, versus a fossil fuel one that constantly needs to be refueled every few months.
The problem with nukes in the past has been the fact that they don't even use 5% of the usable energy in its rods.
The result is wastes after just 3 years, and wastes with very, very long half-lives (5-6 figure years).
With the new fast neutron reactors, 99% of the usable energy is extracted over 10 years, leaving almost an entire set of wastes that have half-lives in only the 100s of years.
3-4 times the duration of power generation from less reactive (with virtually no weapons-grade materials), resulting in 99% by-products that break down in 100s of years, instead of tens of thousands.
Like?mcrocket said:
I don't dispute wind.
While it's not as efficience as hydro-electric, it's probably the most environmentally perfect generator -- short of Ted Kennedy's classification of an "eye sore" being far worse than anything.
Solar is junk for major generation, and unless Einstein was wrong, it always will be.
Hydro-electric is impossible, at least from the standpoint of resulting litigation, given the fact that daming destroys a huge area of vast ecosystems.
Geo-thermal is just unstable and rare to tap.
Which leaves fossil fuels, fission and not much else -- until we invent otherwise.
I guess I'm just too much of a realist.
Last edited:
Assuming you are correct. THat was interesting about Einstein.
I did not mention hydro power because of the reasons you mentioned.
I meant that people will fall in love with nuke plants because they will jsut build tons of them and forget about conservation. I think a little scare into the consumer is a good thing.
I do not know much about nuke plants. But if what you say is true, they are interesting. But, with all due respect, I am going to have to hear and read ALOT more about them to climb on board.
I did not mention hydro power because of the reasons you mentioned.
I meant that people will fall in love with nuke plants because they will jsut build tons of them and forget about conservation. I think a little scare into the consumer is a good thing.
I do not know much about nuke plants. But if what you say is true, they are interesting. But, with all due respect, I am going to have to hear and read ALOT more about them to climb on board.
Yeah, most people don't know Einstein, or Newton or countless others.mcrocket said:
Newton is remembered for the apple falling on his head, not his greatest gift to us all, calculus.
As most popular environmentalists never would.mcrocket said:
Huh? I still really don't get that statement.mcrocket said:
Huh? I really don't get that statement either.mcrocket said:
Just how much "conservation" were we seeing with $3/gallon prices?
I don't think availiability of 0 emission fuels will change anything.
I'm still missing your point here.mcrocket said:
Furthermore, I think a little scare is pretty much a bad thing because of the uncertainty it does to financial markets.
Most people don't.mcrocket said:
They think you can get a Hiroshima from one -- which is impossible.
A Chernobyl-type disaster, which was made out to be much worse than it really was, is pretty limited to the type of plants that Chernobyl is like.
The Russians did a lot of stupid things -- especially with their wastes.
I'll drop an RTG in your backyard while your thinking.mcrocket said:
Nuclear power is like guns -- some people just fear them, and don't really give a hoot to listen to any reality.
Some people think of an AK-47 when all most Americans want is a small firearm for home protection.
Same deal with nukes, they think of an H-bomb when even the oldest fission reactors couldn't even mount a small neutron bomb-like result.
Prof Voluptuary said:
Tell those that suffered that it was made out to be worse then it really was. It was an unacceptably horrific accident. To describe it any other way is insensitive to those that died and suffer cancers from it.
And all the new US nuke plants will be profit based - will they not? Or most of them. And whenever you have a profit based industry, accidents can always occur. Always.
The risks are smaller then with the Soviet style graphite reactors. But they are there nonetheless.
Last edited:
I don't deny that.mcrocket said:
Chernobyl was the worst-case scenario.
And it's not one bit surprising where it occured.
Huh? Are you arguing that a profit-based system increases risks?mcrocket said:
The fact that it is a nuclear fission plant means there is a risk, period.
I don't think socialism, capitalism, etc... really matters at all.
I would argue that a capitalist economy with regulation has proven to be effective at ensuring good design and following proper procedures.
The safety mechanisms, control systems, etc... are all elements that mitigate risk.mcrocket said:
But most important are the procedures -- and not following procedure is why Chernobyl occured.
What could happen did happen and they only had limited safeties engaged.
I believe Chernobyl hapened because of the type of reactor and because of the system it was run under.
I do believe that a profit driven system is more open to accidents then a properly run government based one.
It is less efficient, but more accident prone.
I have no facts that I can recall to back that up. It is just a belief I have.
I do believe that a profit driven system is more open to accidents then a properly run government based one.
It is less efficient, but more accident prone.
I have no facts that I can recall to back that up. It is just a belief I have.
Research engineering in the former Soviet.mcrocket said:
It is nothing like engineering in the western world.
Talk about letting engineers do anything and everything without scrutiny!
Engineers weren't just the technologists (and really not western-like engineers with environment, ethics, microeconomics, etc...), but they were so abundant, they were often the politicians too!
Regulated capitalism is far better than "we know better as a whole" socialism.
Some would argue moving to a grain or corn-based alcohol is a viable solution and replacement.Sweeper said:
I disagree, but I must point that argument out.
