Featured The Lie Begins to Unravel (R.I.P Cloud Peak Energy)

.... only Tesla stock gets short-sighted

.

 

Cars were the best medium for research. They will continue to serve as the dominant vehicle for fleets, including use with fuel cells.

 

at least until the Cali-fool Cell teet (& its taxpayer dollars) is sucked dry. If any other State's coffers want to Pony up, please feel so inclined. Maybe Rhode Island? At least you can avoid running out of hydrogen in a smaller area like that.

.

 

This is the 400 watt on their site its about 5% larger than your panels. The A series (415 watt) wasn't available on their site, I'm guessing its around the same size and cell count. The 400 watt panel is 22.6%
https://www.sunpowercorp.co.uk/sites/default/files/sunpower-maxeon-3-residential-solar-panels-400-390-370.pdf

I'm likely to use these less expensive 335 watt panels on my solar install (still getting quotes) There are cheaper panels but these have pretty good high temperature production which is important where I live. Not as good as the SunPower but less expensive. LG claims 19.6% efficiency which seems like a more affordable technology.

LG335N1C-A5 | LG NeON®2 Module | Forward Energy | GridReady | Products | Solar | LG USA
I appreciate any help in selection.

At least the US federal government has dropped most of its wasteful fuel funding, and mainly is funding R&D. We should be able to see next year if Japan's much higher funding level provides any of the claimed breakthroughs during its showcase during the Tokyo Olympics. I'm not expecting much other than PR. It seems that there is also an experiment on oahu,, where perhaps small size, expensive electricity and gasoline, and lots of solar may make it a good case study if Japan and korea subsidize the vehicles.
Hydrogen Fuel For Passenger Cars Comes To Hawaii

 

we went with higher-priced SunPower because of limited roof square footage, & sunpower has the smallest footprint / highest efficiency ratio. Here's a couple satellite shots - showing before & after adding 4 (NON sun power - less efficient) panels to our existing 36 (40V) panels.




Although the new panels have more wattage, they derate to match our existing system. Even so, much of the increased size is due to other brands being less efficient. Most people don't have roof area square footage issues - but - wanting to charge 2 cars for a near net zero cost, that was our particular case.
This is now an 8.1kW - AC rated system. Many sales people like to quote the DC rating because it hasn't accounted for loss via innverters, & the DC number is bigger - though not yet usable for home appliances. Get a reputable installer as there are tons of shady marketers pushing their wares. Eg, if you have a leak in the roof under the panels 10 years later, you want someone that's going to be around to take care of it.
.

 

Did you see the article where some towns in Ca. are banning Bloom Box? In other words, I assume with the high electric cost in Ca. depeding on your use Tier, probably cheaper to generate your own electric. So the towns want to say solar is the only way you are allowed to generate your own. I do not know if that is a politcal preference for solar, or if Bloom box has some problems as far as putting a box in your yard etc.

Longer term liquid fuels could be used for FCV, but for autos you are talking about miniaturizing an teeny tiny H2 plant ahead of the FCV which is not technical slam dunk.

 

Seeing how well engines have improved over the past few years, and the potential of other plug in range extenders not yet available, I agree. Long haul trucks will probably be a better fit for fuel cells.

Hydrogen is light weight. The tanks that can contain enough of it to fuel a vehicle are not. Current hydrogen FCEV cars hold about 5kg of hydrogen for a range in the area of 300 to 350 miles. The tanks, empty, weigh around 95kg, or 209 pounds. They are also bulky; the Clarity FCEV loses cargo space compared to the PHEV model because of the tanks. These high pressure tanks aren't good candidates for planes. Liquid hydrogen might work, but it takes more energy to liquidify the gas, and the amount of venting may be problematic.

The huge diesels in large ships already have an impressive thermal efficiency. Fuel cells will have to beat them on cost. Storing the hydrogen defeats any weight and space savings from the fuel cell.

The big hurdle to fuel cells being adopted in vehicles isn't in the fuel cell, but in using hydrogen for the fuel. Switch to some liquid fuel, and they have a better chance of being adopted.

A Volvo group had a diesel powered fuel cell run for over 10k hours in a lab. Sounded like it was sized to replace a generator on a long haul truck.

Simple molecules, like methane and methanol, will be self-reformed directly in a solid oxide fuel cell, which is what Nissan uses. They have chosen to use ethanol for the fuel, which does require an autoreformer. The high heat of the fuel cell helps run the autoreformer.

Nissan's FCEV philosophy is to use a large battery, mules use the one from a gen1 Leaf, so that a lower power fuel cell can be used. Which should save space in addition to cost, but I haven't seen any pictures of their mules' interiors.

 

All fair points. Solid oxide fuel cells would probably work in ships better than in planes. The trouble with using a liquid for the fuel cell is making sure it's derived from renewable sources.

Methane/methanol is more likely to come from natural gas. Ethanol (in the US) is coming from corn, which is debatable if it's truly better for the environment than it's fossil alternatives.

Hydrogen can be generated from water using excess solar/wind generation. It's not the most efficient process, but it's better than wasting that electricity. If the storage issues can be addressed, I see it as a more viable method for sustainable transportation than other fuel cell fuels.

 

A wind farm fills what percentage of the space the wind would blow through? 1% So the blades are tall but slim and so their combined surface area compared to the area in which they would be located is trivial.

 

Hydrogen can be made from excess renewable electricity and water. Add carbon dioxide to the mix, and we can make methane, then methanol, or other hydrocarbons, including diesel, or even gasoline. We don't do any of that because of economics. Until we get fuel use down to the point where the public is willing to pay for the renewable versions, all those fuels are going to come from fossil sources.

It isn't just the storage issue, but also the distribution issue that hydrogen has to overcome. The storage part makes transport by truck or rail expensive. Hydrogen's nature means we can't use existing pipelines, like NG ones, for it, and the cost to build and maintain such pipelines will be higher than ones for other fuels. Renewable methane of many hydrocarbons derivatives of it already have such infrastructure in place.

Onsite hydrogen production doesn't need the infrastructure, but it is less efficient than larger scale plants. Once the hydrogen does get to the station, it needs to be compressed and chilled in order to get those refuel times approaching that of liquids fuels. Perhaps hydrogen and a fuel cell could work for grid energy storage at some point in the future.

 

a wind farm causes a disturbance in the fabric of time and space. see koch brothers latest book for an explanation of the horrifying results

 

That's why I think it's much more feasible for planes and ships than cars. While you might need 10,000 onsite hydrogen generators across the country (or an equivalent distribution network) for vehicles, you might need only a couple hundred to cover the major US airports and seaports. You can also make them much larger, approaching industrial scale hydrogen production levels and efficiencies.

Also, generating liquid fuels from CO2 and H2O with renewables is possible, but widely expensive and inefficient, more so than generating hydrogen in the same way. I view the fuel creating step likely to be one of the rate-limiting stages such that the simpler the fuel, the cheaper the overall cost.

 

conversely, they'll tell you fracked discharge water is better for you than Ponce De Leon's Fountain of Youth. So drink up.

.

 

And seaports have ready access to water.

Unless we are also moving to lighter than air craft, the weight of the storage system for hydrogen will prevent it from being used, if not the basic economics. Jet fuel is around $5 a gallon. Hydrogen in California, where a third or so is mandated renewable, is $15 or more a kg. Increase the renewable portion, and price goes up.

For ships, the massive diesels are already quite efficient. A PEM fuel cell is 50% to 60% efficient. Those engines in ships now are over 50%. Much stricter emission regulations could push the adoption of fuel cells, but synthetic crudes and fuel oils are also free of the impurities in petroleum that are part the pollution problem. LNG(liquid natural gas) ships are also clean and efficient, but they are limited to ports that have the fuel if they aren't dual fuel.

I agree the hydrocarbon route costs more to produce, but that is just one part of the total cost. The infrastructure for storing and transporting it is already in place. Even in the case that alcohols are adopted, upgrading petroleum lines to handle it will be much cheaper than building for hydrogen. Then the energy and maintenance costs for their infrastructure and refueling systems is also lower.

Their big advantage is that they can work in existing vehicles with little to no modification. This makes adoption much easier. Before people and businesses buy hydrogen vehicles, someone needs to make the hydrogen and means of supplying it.

 

That might actually be true. Have you been to the Fountain of Youth Park? What a noxious smelling and tasting concoction that is

 

Like Trollbait, I must strongly disagree on the planes, at least for the long range routes. The bulkier heavier tankage will sharply reduce their maximum range, compared to their hydrocarbon-powered brethren.

Leave the hydrogen to actual rockets, where the first order of business is to pop up out of the atmosphere to get those bulky hydrogen tanks away from atmospheric drag. And they use cryogenics to keep the tankage weight down. And they usually use some other denser fuel for that big heavy first stage.

Also leave hydrogen to surface vehicles that don't need lift (for the tank weight) nor have high levels of air drag (for the tank volume).

 

Coal was in trouble to some degree because of increasing natural gas production making that cheaper.

But it also doesn't help when the President of the United States says his intention is to bankrupt the coal industry... Destroying tens of thousands of jobs and small communities..
In the middle of the worst recession we had ever seen.
Pretty cruel and idiotic if you ask me.
I'm sorry but I stand with the miners and those effected by his words.
Too bad they can't sue him for lost wages and destroyed communities.

It's easy for others to sit back and be happy about the destruction of an industry you dont like, but that sustained those people. When you are not effected by it.

Also you have to decide.. if destroying that industry gains anything when the Chinese at the same time we're bringing a new coal plant online every two weeks..
Destroying that domestic industry in the middle of a bad recession at the same time.. the planet gains nothing as far as pollution, but people in our own back yard and up suffering because the of a politicians words and bad timing that any idiot should have known was a terrible time to do such a thing.
A better approach would have been to work out a smooth transition from coal to something else.
So those people could get some new training and allow new industries to fill in the loss.

Personally I'd have loved for the coal plants to turn off the switch in protest before they were forced to. to see how those protesting coal liked living in the dark and cold..
As of 2016 30% of your electricity came from coal.. if those operations had pulled the plug early. The grid would have collapsed..
You all deserved it.. for being so cold and unfeeling to other effected by idiotic political decisions you supported.
Just my opinion...


Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Well, this is going to go off the rails.

Coal had also lost some of the political protection it once enjoyed. We built a lot of coal plants in the recent past, because natural gas ones simply weren't allowed. Even if NG prices are higher, the plants are cleaner and more efficient, making them cheaper to run than coal.

First, Obama had not been elected as President at the time of that interview.
More importantly, the bankrupt quote was part of an answer about his proposed cap and trade system for carbon emissions that was taken out of context. The coal plants he was referring to going bankrupt weren't all coal plants, but the ones that refused to take any steps to reduce or counter their emitted carbon. A coal gasification plant would be fine under his proposed system, not the old steam ones that probably should have shut down years ago. Natural gas is still cheaper though.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/08/the-repeated-claim-that-obama-vowed-to-bankrupt-coal-plants/?utm_term=.a3d888115f4b

We are effected by it.
Global warming is a global issue, it's right there in the name. And just as importantly, the sulfur, mercury, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes from coal spread far beyond where it is mined, burned, and the ash stored.
People in Eastern Pa and NJ are breathing in the pollution from Ohio and Western Pa coal plants.

Good leaders lead by example. Why would China, India, or anybody else listen to a hypocrite.

The coal industry was dying before the recession. Its costs were increasing, and people were tired of its pollution.
The same thing is happening in China. They may be building new coal plants in country, but they are also retiring the old, dirty ones. They are also increasing renewables. Instead of fighting to keep old technology alive, they are building new industries. Who makes more phones today, Apple or Bell?

That was the proposal. There are even state level programs for such in place.

Like coal rollers to diesel, that would have just turned everyone against coal.

 

Understand I am fully behind 'research' as graduate students need something to write their papers on. Just the California fuel cell station experiment remains an amusing test ... one that lacks a station to reach Los Vegas. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

Allow flare gas burners per well or just vent the methane solves the coal economic problem. I understand N. Korea exports coal ... we could buy it from them.

Bob Wilson