Diesel people just don't get it.

So close, and yet so far ...

If you have an energy source to charge batteries, you also have the energy source to make hydrogen. This is why hydrogen should be categorized with batteries, not with fossil fuels.

Again, plenty of technical problems remain ...

 

Not so sure it would fit in the typical home. They say they need 1.5 meter diameter superconducting coils to get a practical positive gain p-B device. And the chamber the present ones are in are about twice as big as the hole in the magnet coils. So, that means a vacumm chamber with a sperical shape and ID of about 3 to 4 meters. Now the bigger you make a vacumn chamber the thicker the walls need to be. So, were probably up to 4 meters for sure for the OD. Now add in all the high voltage power supplies and liquid nitrogen tank , and liquid helium generating equipment, and output coversion equipment and your probably looking at a building on a 1 acre site, about 3 stories high at a minimum...

Reminds me a little bit about that spy TV series ALIAS, though.

BTW, one of these devices holds the record for Fusor type devices at greater than 1 Giga Fusions per second. And it was just an experimental sized device, not intended to have positive gain, just to work out the physics of process.

 

Eye opening. I've spent the entire evening catching up on this stuff, including the 90 minute Google presentation. Any idea what the latest developments or status is (before I start searching for the paper mentioned).

 

Believe me that was the case since the birth of prius. Also keep in mind that european press (I live in a european country) was always in favor of european automakers, guess why...

 

Storage density, for achieving better vehicle range. Pure hydrogen ought to have a better theoretical limit than batteries, and could either be burned in an ICE, or pushed through a fuel cell to drive a pure electric plant.

Neither batteries nor hydrogen are currently anywhere near their theoretical limits, and I will not presume that either one will always be ahead of the other in practical applications.

Hydrogen is a clean storage method, but not an energy source. Fossil fuels are carbon-emitting energy sources. The two absolutely do not belong in the same category.

 

No I don't think anyone hacked my account. I was refering to the relative cleanness of batteries vs hydrogen. With all batteries, there is the mining, refining, smelting and recyling and all that goes with it. When you compare that to hydrdrogen being produced from solar or wind power, batteries are much worse than hydrogen or other potentially much cleaner systems.

Thanks for thinking of me though.

 

I wonder what is involved in the extraction, refining, processing, manufacture, and recycling of the rare earth metals needed in fuel cells.

 

Solar power is the best! But: How do you, efficiently, store and then discharge all of the energy you can grab? If we could synthetically mirror the process of photosynthesis, we'd be far along the way. If this is what is going on now at MIT, then great!

Still, cobalt, particularly when heated and exposed to phosphorous or similar substances, can be not only toxic, but also possibly carcinagenic.

It is worth the effort and the look. And it is a huge improvement over the wide-scale reliance on fossil fuels.

 

The MIT effort was motivated by photosynthesis being so efficient. It takes water and splits it without the losses of pure electrolysis. The chemical toxic aspect is quite correct, not to mention that Hydrogen is quite explosive/flammable if handled improperly. However, if done right, should not be an issue. However, "done right" is easy to say and much harder to ensure day in and day out.

 

Nobody is surer about being able to have it "done right" than the person who engages the engineers and scientists to make the design as safe as possible. Unfortunately, very few of these decision-makers truly understand what "as safe as possible" actually may mean.

I remember when I used to wash my hands in carbon tetrachloride. It did a marvelous job of removing all sorts of other chemicals. At the time, we thought we were "as safe as possible" by using such chemicals only under hoods. Little did we know of the carcigenicity of CCl4 through even dermal absorption.

I can't even tell you other things I've witnessed, because I want to think they've been fixed.

1200

 

You don't already know?





Coors cans, banana peels, and pie crust not included.

 

OlsonBW, please don't paint us all with one brush. I am a diesel person (I assume I am anyway since I own one and consider it better than a conventional gas vehicle). I look forward to the day when I can power my car with solar or wind power. To say that I, and others like me, don't get it is illogical. It is true that some people don't get it. But other people who drive all sorts of cars would be happy to move away from fossil fuel powered vehicles. Diesel people aren't any different.

 

OlsonBW, do you really think you speak for all Prius owners ??
A quick look at a graph that shows the correlation between pump prices and Prius market demand *should* clear up that delusion.

Personally, oil company profits bother me a lot less than climate change and the economic stupidity of exporting America's wealth to Russia and OPEC.

 

I think we have all different kinds that chose the Prius for various reasons.

Some think they're saving the planet.
Some think they're sticking it to the big oil companies.
Some like technology.
Some are making a political statement.


Personally, I think that judging solely on how far one can travel on a gallon of fuel, a vehicle like a Jetta TDI and a Prius are similar. Anything that gets ~50mpg to me will be like the Prius.

I don't buy into AGW, I think we just happen to be in a natural cycle that will correct itself.

I don't mind that oil companies are making huge profits. Their sales are HUGE. Even with a 1% margin, they'd still make astronomical profits. As is, they have a margin of about 10%, or about what Starbucks makes on a cup of joe. Angry about profits? Boycott Starbucks!

I too want solar panels on my roof, battery storage for power and a car I can plug in. I think it will happen, it's just a matter of time until the technologies are affordable. IMO, energy independence starts at home. The more we as individuals 'unplug', the better our country will be. I'd much rather buy solar and battery equipment made in the USA and installed by Americans than send money away for gas.

For now, using as little gas as possible satisfies me. I could have done it with a diesel.

 

Don't buy into AGW?...RealClimate

 

That, IMHO, would be like you saying you're athiest, and me pointing you to a Christian web site.

I've seen analysis from proponents and opponents of AGW and believe we are in a natural cycle. Hell, just a couple decades ago, the environmental cause was 'global cooling'. I shit you not.

I guess that's why the fad term is not 'global warming' now, it's 'climate change'.

I don't buy it. Well, the man-made part, that is. Climates change over time, and ain't nothing we can do about it.


This is a topic for a different thread.